Tuesday, 15 October 2019

Pageviews by Countries

EntryPageviews
United States
69217
Russia
21440
Australia
15343
France
12658
Indonesia
9858
Germany
7882
United Kingdom
7716
Ukraine
2915
Canada
2121
China
2094

Metaphenomena And Process Types


Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 506-7):
Metaphenomena – projections – can be associated only with certain types of process, essentially saying and sensing, plus in certain circumstances being. Macrophenomena – expansions – can enter into material processes. Thus you can say [[ = crushing him like that]] broke his bones. But you cannot say it broke his bones that you crushed him like that, because finite that (‘indirect’) clauses can only be projections, not expansions. (You can on the other hand say it broke his heart that you crushed him like that, because heart-breaking, unlike bone-breaking, is a mental process.)
Complication arises because the names of metaphenomena, nouns such as belief and fact, can sometimes enter into material processes where the metaphenomena by themselves cannot. For example, although we cannot say it destroyed his life that the experiment had failed, we can say the knowledge that the experiment had failed destroyed his life – not the idea as such, but his knowledge of it, was the destroyer. We may also note abstract material processes used metaphorically to construe mental phenomena:
The passage of time, romantic travellers’ tales – of which Marco Polo’s supply the classic example – and wishful thinking, all combined to build up the late medieval belief [[ that Prester John was a mighty, if probably schismatical Christian priest-king ]].
We might also say the fact that the experiment had failed destroyed his life; here fact stands for a state of affairs, rather than for a projected metaphenomenon as in its prototypical sense. In other words, although projections cannot participate in processes other than those of consciousness, the names of projections can, because they can be used to label events or states of affairs. Here we have reached the borderline between expansion and projection; the two come together under conditions of nominalisation, where there is metaphor in the grammar and many of the semantic distinctions expressed in the clause tend to be neutralised.

Monday, 14 October 2019

Act (Macrophenomenon) vs Projection (Metaphenomenon)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 505-6):
(2) Projections: we saw that the boats had been turned. If I say I can see the boats turning, this is an event. A process ‘the boats are turning’ is being treated as a single complex phenomenon – a ‘macrophenomenon’. If I say I can see that the boats are turning, this is a projection. The process ‘the boats are turning’ is being treated as the projection or idea of a phenomenon – a ‘metaphenomenon’, something not just bigger but of a different order of reality. So we can say I can see that the boats have been turned but not I can see the boats having been turned – because you cannot see a past event. You can see the state of affairs resulting from that past event; but the past event itself can only be treated as a projection. In the present, both are possible; but the meaning is slightly different. If the ‘seeing’ is understanding, or what is seen is a report in writing, then again the relationship must be one of projection.

Sunday, 13 October 2019

Process Nominal Groups

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 505):
We have now reached a point where we can relate these clauses to their close relatives that lie just beyond the bounds of expansion, on different frontiers. [i.e. process nominal groups and projections]
(1) Process nominal groups: we saw the turning of the boats. Here the process has been nominalised at the word rank, with turning as noun; cf. the departing/departure of the boats. The structure is that of a nominal group having a prepositional phrase with of as Postmodifier; the Complement of the of phrase corresponds to what would be the Complement if the process was realised as a clause. Examples:
| The building [ of [ the bridge ] ] | presented a problem.
Devaluation is taken to be | a humiliation [ akin to [ the defacing [ of [statues [ of [national heroes ] ] ] ] ] ] ] |
Where there would be an explicit Subject, if the process was realised as a clause, what corresponds to this is the ‘possessor’ of the process serving as Deictic in the structure of the nominal group, as in his handling of the situation, nobody’s peeling of potatoes is as careful as mine, or as Qualifier, marked by either by or of, as in Letters to the press indicate a ground-swell of rejection of this display, by catholic and non-catholic members of church communities and Yet another contributory factor is the disappearance of the horse from our farms.*
 ∞
Since a possessor can also be realised as an of phrase, this leads to the well-known ambiguity of expressions such as the visiting of relatives: going to visit relatives, or having relatives come to visit?

Saturday, 12 October 2019

Perceived Acts: Imperfective vs Perfective


Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 505):
Here what is being perceived is again some action or event; the clause is typically imperfective, but sometimes perfective (without to) to highlight the end state as distinct from the process (cf. Kirsner & Thompson, 1976):
[imperfective:]
I saw the boats turning/(passive) being turned
 
[perfective:]
I saw the boats turn/(passive) turned
If the embedded clause is used as Postmodifier the Head noun is usually one of sight or sound: I heard the noise of ... , I had a view of ... , etc. (cf. the smell of something burning); …
In this case the clause is always imperfective.

Friday, 11 October 2019

Environments Of Acts

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 506):

Blogger Comments:

Mental: emotive examples:
I enjoy [[exposing the charlatan]] / [[exposing the charlatan]] pleases me
I hate [[him getting away with fraud]] / [[him getting away with fraud]] outrages me

Thursday, 10 October 2019

Typical Grammatical Environments Of Acts


Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 504):
[relational: attributive]
It was careless of him [[ = to put another man’s helmet on ]]
[relational: identifying]
[[ Not being much of a reader]] hardly affected the ascent of George W. Bush or his father.
These examples show typical contexts for such nominalisations: relational clauses, especially attributive ones where the attribute is an evaluative term and identifying ones where they are related to a nominalisation. There is one other common environment, namely that of clauses of perception, either mental (inert perception) or behavioural (active perception). Examples:
[behavioural + mental: perceptive]
We were watching [[ = the catch being brought in]] and you could see [[[ = the boats turn || × as they rounded the headland]]]
[behavioural: perceptive]
We went and watched [[ = these kids try to produce ‘Hair’ ]] .
[mental: perceptive]
Here you can see [[ = beer being brewed ‘on sight’]]

Wednesday, 9 October 2019

Embedded Clauses: Acts


Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 503):
There is one further function of embedded clauses which is related to expansion in that, although there is no Head noun (so the embedded clause itself functions as ‘Head’), the embedded clause is the nominalisation of a process. For example, [[threatening people]] will get you nowhere.  Such a clause is the name of an action, event or other phenomenon.  It represents a ‘macro-phenomenon’ … ; let us call it an act.
An ‘act’ clause may also occur as Postmodifier to a Head noun of the appropriate class, for example the act [[= of threatening people]].  Hence it is reasonable to treat these as elaborations.

Tuesday, 8 October 2019

A Typical Context For A Nominal Group With Embedded Enhancing Clause


Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 503):
A typical context for a nominal group with embedded enhancing clause is as Value in an identifying clause; cf. Figure 7-18. In this example the Token is also an embedded enhancing clause, this time functioning as Head. Such clauses often display a similar variation; for example:
Another reason is [[ that the quantity of the literature is not overwhelming yet]] .
Now the reason [[ they hired me]] is [[[ because they knew || I didn’t know anything about food]]] .
Identifying clauses of this kind, with nouns of expansion as the Head of the nominal group realising the Value, make an important contribution to the creation of discourse, making it possible to distribute information. Thus the textual impact of the time to leave is when people start to yawn is very different from that of you leave when people yawn: the former sets up the relationship as an exclusive identity, with the Value/Identified as Theme and the Identifier/Token as New (cf. the discussion of thematic equatives in Chapter 3, Section 3.2).

Monday, 7 October 2019

Circumstantial Feature In Noun Serving As Head: Non-Finite Clause As Qualifier: Imperfective vs Perfective


Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 502-3 ):
There is the same difference between imperfective and perfective as with dependent clauses: other things being equal (that is, if occurring simply with their respective structure markers of and to), the imperfective is associated with the actual (e.g. the time of planting), the perfective with the potential, or virtual (e.g. the time to plant); sometimes the difference is minimal, as with the best way of finding out/the best way to find out – although even here can still be recognised. But the specific semantic force of the Head noun, or the conjunction or conjunctive preposition, will always dominate; e.g. the purpose of raising funds, the best occasion for trying out new methods.

Sunday, 6 October 2019

Circumstantial Feature In Noun Serving As Head: Non-Finite Clause As Qualifier


Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 502):
The non-finite clauses may occur with or without explicit Subject, e.g.
I just don’t see the point [[ × of having three or four different lists of people]] .
That’s the reason [[ × for keeping the sheets]] .
Soon the time came [[[ × for Kukul to take his place among the men of his nation]]] .
Sometimes the enhancing relation is marked by an explicit binder, e.g. why, where, when; here the Subject has to be implicit:
Chinchilli day is a reason [[ why to go to Las Vegas]] .
Carrasco, a place [[[ × where to return from work || and feel on holidays]]]

Saturday, 5 October 2019

Expressions Beginning 'The Time ...'

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 501-2):
An expression beginning the time ... may thus have three distinct functional values:
(1) as hypotactic enhancing clause ‘(on the occasion) when ... ’, e.g.
||| [×β:] the time we first met || [α:] he hardly spoke to me at all |||
(2) as nominal group with elaborating embedded clause ‘the time which ... ’, e.g.
||| the time [[ = (which) I like best ]] is the hour before dawn |||
(3) as nominal group with enhancing embedded clause ‘the time when ... ’, e.g.
||| the time [[ × (when/that) you should leave ]] is when the lights go out |||
A hypotactic enhancing clause introduced by the time is agnate with other hypotactic temporal clauses and, by a further step, with paratactic temporal clauses: when we first met, he hardly ... ; we first met in June; then he hardly ... . The expression the time has come to serve as a structural conjunction; and the item time can thus no longer be modified in the way the Head noun of a nominal group can be (an example such as the early time we first met, he hardly spoke to me at all is impossible).* In contrast, the nominal groups in (2) and (3) can be expanded, since they have the full potential of nominal groups: the early time (which) I like best is the hour before dawn; the latest time (when/that) you should leave is when the lights go out. As illustrated by the examples, such enhanced nominal groups typically serve as participants in ‘relational’ clauses.


* However, certain conjunctive features may be included in the nominal expression: the first time we met/the last time we met/the only time we met, he hardly spoke to me at all.

Friday, 4 October 2019

Circumstantial Feature In Noun Serving As Head: Finite Clause As Qualifier


Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 501):
The special characteristic of the finite clauses is that, since these nouns are inherently ‘enhancing’ in sense, the circumstantial relation may, or may not, be restated within the clause: we may have either the day when/on which you came, with when, on signalling time, or simply the day (that) you came, with no indication of the temporal relation other than the Head noun day. In other words, the finite clauses are either like those of type (i) above or like elaborating clauses – that is, typical ‘defining relative’ clauses, except that they cannot take which without a preposition (you cannot say the day which you came). Examples:
I don’t see any particular reason [[ × why I should]]
This was the first occasion [[ × that I had to help in doing an experiment on a living man]] .
The only other place [[ × I would want to live ]] (is New Zealand)
The people downstairs – there’s no way [[ × they could have got out]] .
That’s the only reason [[ × I quit with Far Tortuga]] .
We shared a place in Italy the summer [[ × I was working on it]] .
All of these have four variants, two explicitly enhancing (e.g. the reason why/for which I like her) and two like elaborating (e.g. the reason (that) I like her).

Thursday, 3 October 2019

Circumstantial Feature In Noun Serving As Head

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 500-1):
There is a second type of embedded enhancing clause in which the circumstantial relation is construed not in the clause itself but in the Head noun to which the clause stands as Postmodifier. These nouns form a distinct class, with two subclasses: those that can take either finite or non-finite postmodifying clauses and those which can take only non-finite – see Table 7-14.

Wednesday, 2 October 2019

Embedded Clauses Enhancing A Premodifying Element

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 500):
Like elaborating clauses, enhancing clauses of this type may have some premodifying element as their strict semantic domain, typically either Numerative or Epithet in a nominal group or an intensifying Premodifier in an adverbial group; these are clauses of comparison and result used in comparative constructions, e.g.
[comparison:]
I’m as certain of it [[ × as if his name were written all over his face ]] 
The actual formation of shale is somewhat more complex [[ × than indicated in Table 4-3]] . 
[result:]
Another survivor, soaked, wide-eyed with shock and too distressed [[ × to give his name]] , said ‘We were having a wonderful time when it turned into a nightmare.’ 
Within the vortex, temperatures become cold enough [[ × to form stratospheric ice crystals]] . 
Then he told us anecdotes of how he had gone across the Channel when it was so rough [[ × that the passengers had to be tied into their berths, and he and the captain were the only two living souls on board who were not ill]] .
The embedded clauses relate respectively to [the underlined Premodifiers]. Again, however, there is no need to represent this relationship in terms of a different structure.

Tuesday, 1 October 2019

Non-Finite Embedded Enhancing Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 500):
The non-finite variant corresponds to the dependent enhancing clauses with conjunctive preposition; e.g.
death [[ × by drowning]]
a pain [[ × like having a red-hot needle stuck into you]]
Blu-ray: death [[ × by streaming]]
The trouble [[ × with predicting climate change]]
Children need help [[ × in learning to control their emotions]] .
In Seoul, there seems to be anger [[ × at being taken for granted as an American satellite]]
Since the noun functioning as Head is generally the name of a process or property, these often have close hypotactic parallels, e.g. he was angry || × β at being accused; if you help me || × β in cooking the dinner; it’s difficult || × β with everyone having a part
The non-finites could in fact be reworded in the same way as the finites; e.g. the trouble with everyone having a part as the trouble [[[ = which arises || × β with everyone having a part]]]. But there is no need to treat either kind as other than embedded enhancing clauses.

Monday, 30 September 2019

Finite Embedded Enhancing Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 499):
The finite variant is illustrated by examples such as the applause [[ × when she finished singing]], the scar [[ × where the bullet entered]], the difference [[ × since I started taking Brandex]]. These are condensed variants of an embedded nexus consisting of an elaborating clause with an enhancing clause dependent on it:
the applause [[ = which erupted || × β when she finished singing ]]
the scar [[ = which has formed || × β where the bullet entered ]]
The items when and where are structural conjunctions rather than relative adverbs; they do not have the sense of preposition + which: we cannot say e.g. the scar at which the bullet entered. Contrast Some may precipitate directly from sea water in areas [[where volcanism releases abundant silica]]. Here where is a relative adverb; and it is related to the prepositional phrase in which: ... in areas in which volcanism releases abundant silica.

Sunday, 29 September 2019

Embedded Enhancing Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 499):
Here the embedded clause is not a relative clause with a relative of enhancement; rather it is the same type of enhancing clause that occurs non-rankshifted in hypotactic nexuses. In general, the noun functioning as Head is the name of a process or property. There is (1) a finite variant and (2) a non-finite one.

Saturday, 28 September 2019

Embedded Enhancing Non-Finite Relative Clauses


Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 499):
The non-finite clause corresponds to the finite, having some variant of a WH- prepositional phrase as the relative; these may be ordinary imperfectives in -ing, e.g.
the solution [[now being experimented with]]
but perhaps the most typical are ‘destiny’ clauses with to or for*, e.g.
New progressivism is a cause [[ × to fight for ]]
Only the ‘destiny’ type allow an explicit Subject, with for:
Together they would create an artwork [[ × for the community to celebrate]].

* If the relative functions as means (instrument), where the usual preposition is with, there may in fact be no preposition, the sense of instrument being derived from the ‘destiny’ sense of the clause as a whole: e.g.
Alice had no more breath [[ × for talking]] , i.e. ‘for talking with’, ‘with which to talk’.
Contrast the elaborating type
no more water [[ = for drinking]], 
where there is no circumstantial sense (and therefore no preposition could occur).

Friday, 27 September 2019

Embedded Enhancing Finite Relative Clauses


Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 497-9):
Here the embedded clause contains a relative that serves as a circumstance in the clause. The clause may be either (1) finite or (2) non-finite. … If the embedded clause is finite, the relative is a WH- prepositional phrase: that is, a prepositional phrase with WH- Complement (e.g. in which) or one of its variants which ... in, that ... in, ... in:
(you’re) the one [[ × I’ve always done the most for ]]
Sometimes where or when can be used in this ‘defining relative’ function, for example:
Some may precipitate directly from sea water in areas [[ × where volcanism releases abundant silica]].
We are at a juncture in history [[ × when the options are finished]].
Here where and when are relative adverbs serving as the Head of an adverbial group.

Thursday, 26 September 2019

Circumstantial Feature In The Embedded Clause

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 497):
In this type it is the clause that expresses the temporal, causal or other enhancing relation (in the same way as in a dependent clause):
the house [[ × ~ (which/that) she lived in _ / where she lived ]]
I was invited to one [[ × ~ which I spent the entire time in _ ]]
Such clauses are defining relative clauses, like the elaborating ones except that here the definition is circumstantial. Enhancing embedded clauses are either (1) finite or (2) nonfinite. There are two types, (a) embedded enhancing relative clauses and (b) embedded enhancing clauses.

Wednesday, 25 September 2019

Embedded Expansions: Enhancing

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 497-8):
Here the relation between the embedded clause and the Head noun is a circumstantial one of time, place, manner, cause or condition. There are two types, according to where this relationship is construed: (i) those where the circumstantial sense is located in the embedded clause itself; (ii) those where it is located in the noun functioning as Head. With both these types, the embedded clause may be either (a) a relative clause or (b) an enhancing clause. The different combinations are set out in Table 7.13 below, for both (1) finite and (2) non-finite clauses.

Tuesday, 24 September 2019

Embedded Expansions: Extending

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 497):
There are no embedded clauses corresponding to the paratactic and hypotactic categories of addition, replacement and alternation (and, instead, except, or). The only sense of extension which produces embedded clauses is that of possession, introduced by whose, of which/which … of or a ‘contact’ relative ending with of
In one of those cities – one [[ + whose name has long been forgotten]] – there lived an old halac uinic, or chief. 
Note that here, as elsewhere in the grammar, possession is generalised possession; it includes not only concrete ownership but various kinds of concrete and abstract association.

Monday, 23 September 2019

Elaborating Embedded Finite Clause As Head Of Nominal Group

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 496):
In all the examples that have been discussed so far, the embedded clause functions as Postmodifier. It was pointed out in Chapter 6 that there are structures in which the Head is fused with the relative element in the embedded clause: this happens with what, meaning ‘that which’, and with whoever, whatever, whichever meaning ‘anyone who, anything that/which’, as in what we want ‘the thing + that we want’, whoever gets there first ‘anyone/the one + who gets there first’. … The effect of this fusion is that the embedded clause comes to function as Head, although it may be helpful to represent it separately in the analysis (Figure 7-17).
 
This analysis brings out the fact that such embedded clauses function as nominals rather than as clauses; so they take on the range of roles we find with nominals that (cf. what = that which), s/he (cf. whoever = s/he who), the way (cf. how = the way in which), and so on. This is reflected in forms like the one who.

Sunday, 22 September 2019

Non-Finite Embedded Clause With The Preposition 'Of'


Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 495):
Although a non-finite embedded clause with a preposition is generally circumstantial in meaning, and hence enhancing, there is one other type (in addition to the perfectives with to, already noted) that is elaborating; namely those with of where the relation is appositive, e.g. the job of cleaning the barracks where the job consists in cleaning the barracks. Some of these are uncertain, e.g. the advantage of shopping early, the problem with asking directions where shopping early, asking directions could be either elaborating (appositive) ‘which consists in’ or enhancing (circumstantial) ‘which results from’.

Saturday, 21 September 2019

Embedding On A Premodifier


Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 495-6):
Note that in examples such as the first person who came in, the best person to do the job, the embedded clause strictly has as its domain not the Head noun person but a premodifying element; the meaning is ‘the first-who-came-in person’, ‘the best-to-do-the-job person’. Compare a hard act to follow, the longest bridge ever built. We can express this relationship structurally as in Figure 7-16. 
 
But as already pointed out, constituency is not a very appropriate concept for representing semantic domain, and for most purposes it suffices to show the clause simply as embedded in the nominal group: a hard act [[to follow]].

Friday, 20 September 2019

Embedded Non-Finite Elaborating Clauses


Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 494-5):
The elaborating clause is either (a) finite, where the relative is who(m), which, that or implicit (a ‘contact’ relative), or (b) non-finite, where the relative is typically implicit; …With the non-finite clauses, note again the difference between imperfective and perfective, as in the following set:
[imperfective:]
(a) operative the person taking pictures (‘who is/was taking’)
(b) receptive the pictures taken by Mary (‘which were/are taken’) (according to the tense of the outer clause)
[perfective:]
(a) operative
(1) the (best) person to take pictures (‘who ought to take’) [relative = Subject] 
(2) the (best) pictures to take (‘which someone ought to take’) [relative = Complement]
(b) receptive the pictures to be taken (‘which are/were to be taken’)
Glosses in parenthesis suggest the nearest equivalent finite form. In non-finite elaborating clauses, the implicit relative is normally the Subject, but in perfective operative clauses it may be either the Subject (as in the person to take pictures) or the Complement (as in the pictures to be taken). Here we thus see two principles in operation, viz. (1) the Subject may be presupposed in a non-finite clause; (2) the Complement may be presupposed in a defining relative clause. The second principle also extends to Adjuncts, as in the best time to take pictures (‘the best time at which to take pictures’); these are treated as enhancing.

Thursday, 19 September 2019

Embedded Elaborating Clauses


Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 494):
The typical defining relative clause, introduced by who, which, that, or in its so-called ‘contact clause’ form without any relative marker (e.g. he told in the tales he told), is elaborating in sense. The following example illustrates the contrast between an embedded, defining relative clause and a hypotactically dependent, non-defining one.
||| The only person [[ who was kind to him at all]] was the Skin Horse, || who had lived longer in the nursery than any of the others. |||
The relative element in an embedded clause restates the nominal antecedent; thus in
the man [[ who came to dinner ]] stayed for a month
the man who came to dinner and the man who stayed for a month are the same man. This is the same principle by which non-defining relatives are also elaborating in function. The defining ones, however, do not form a separate tone group, because there is only one piece of information here, not two – who came to dinner is not news, but simply part of the characterisation of that particular participant.

Wednesday, 18 September 2019

Analysis Of A Clause Containing A Nominal Group Containing An Embedded Clause


Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 493):
Figure 7-15 shows the analysis of a clause containing a nominal group containing an embedded clause. (The analysis is given in terms of Mood; the embedding could, of course, equally well be incorporated into an analysis in terms of transitivity.)

Tuesday, 17 September 2019

Embedded Expansions

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 493):
The meaning of an embedded clause, or phrase, that is functioning as an expansion is essentially to define, delimit or specify. Thus the characteristic embedded expansion is the ‘defining relative clause’ (also called ‘restrictive’), like that Jack built in the house that Jack built. Its function is to specify which member or members of the class designated by the Head noun, in this instance house, is or are being referred to.

Monday, 16 September 2019

Functions Of Embedded Clauses And Phrases

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 491-2):
Embedding is thus the ‘rank shift’ by which a clause or phrase comes to function within the structure of a group. The characteristic function of an embedded element is as Postmodifier in a nominal group … . Other functions are: as Head of a nominal group (ie as a nominalisation); and as Postmodifier in an adverbial group. … These are summarised in Table 7-12. All embedding falls into one or other of these major categories; there are no further types. It should be remembered that the category of nominal group includes those having adjective (Epithet) as Head.

Sunday, 15 September 2019

Embedding And Hypotaxis Contrasted Diagrammatically


Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 491):
Embedding (rankshift) and hypotaxis are contrasted diagrammatically in Figure 7-14. We represent embedded clauses as [[ ]] and embedded phrases as [ ]:
the man [[ who came to dinner ]] / [[ coming to dinner ]]
the man [at the next table]