At the deepest level time-phase and reality-phase are the same thing: both are concerned with the stages of becoming. A process is something that emerges out of imagination into reality, like the rising of the sun. Before dawn, the sun shines only in the future, or only in the imagination — as future turns into present, imagination turns into reality.
The other part of the time-phase system, that has remained as a category of phase, is that of ‘duration/inception’: ‘durative’ going on, contrasting with ‘inceptive/conclusive’, starting and stopping. … Of these, the ‘go on’ term takes the imperfective; starting and stopping take either, with little difference in meaning — except that stop requires imperfective; stop + perfective is now interpreted as a hypotactic clause complex of purpose … . There is also an inceptive-durative ‘start to go on’ … .
The time-phase system has split into two. The original opposition is doing/is to do (meaning, in modern terms, ‘keeps doing’ and ‘will do’) has disappeared, since both have turned into grammatical categories of the verbal group. The former has evolved into tense, defined along the lines of future/present/past. … The latter … similarly turned into a secondary future; but here there has been a further change: is to has now turned into a modal form, and its function as secondary tense has been taken over by is going to.
The reality-phase, or realisation, system is based on the contrast between ‘apparent’ (seems to be) and ‘realised’ (turns out to be); both are perfective, the first being unreal, the second unreal emerging into real. …There is a variant of the ‘realised’ which is imperfective … ; this is looking at it from the ‘real’ end, as reality emerging from appearance. We can also relate the passive voice to this general meaning, with its original sense of ‘is (in a state of) having been realised’.
Here the verb in the primary group is a very general one of the ‘intensive: ascriptive’ class, and it is elaborated by the verb in the secondary verbal group. The semantic relation between the two is one of phase. The basic notion is ‘be (intensive) + do’, using ‘do’ to stand for any process.
The general principle is that the perfective is ‘unreal’ and the imperfective is ‘real’; they may be opposed in any one of a number of contrasts, as future to present, appearance to reality, starting off to going on, goal to means, intention to action, or proposal to proposition; and sometimes the difference between them is minimal.
The primary group (a) may be finite or non-finite … . The secondary group (b c d …) is always non-finite, this being the realisation of its dependent status. … The secondary group may be perfective, with or without to … or imperfective … in aspect. The other non-finite form, the ‘past/passive participle’ … usually stands for the perfective … but in itself it is neutral, and in other contexts it neutralises the distinction … .
… it is the primary group that carries the mood of the clause … . It is the secondary group, or last secondary group if there is more than one, that realises the process type of the clause … .
The hypotactic sequence is always progressive — a ^ b … a ^ b ^ c … a ^ b ^ c ^ d … . While the groups making up the complex are typically contiguous …, the complex may be discontinuous … .
The traditional analysis was to treat the primary group as Predicator in its own right and the secondary group together with elements following it in the clause as an embedded non-finite clause serving as Complement, and this type of analysis was taken over in modern formal approaches, at least initially. … we can note that while the traditional analysis is forced on us if our only model of structural organisation is that of constituency, the analysis we present here becomes possible once we recognise tactic interdependency structures. It allows us to show the analogy, and agnation, between sequences of verbs, and sequences of clauses, with areas of indeterminacy between the two. It enables us to shed light on so-called ‘serial verb constructions’ in a range of languages, interpreting the findings that have emerged, particularly in the last 15 years or so. Further it enables us to show how categories of the simple verbal group have evolved from verbal group complexes. And it also makes it possible to avoid one of the major drawbacks of the traditional analysis: the secondary verbal group plus the elements following it do not in fact behave as Complements. For example, if they were Complements, the wh-interrogative should be what is she trying? [eg]; but it is not: it is what is she trying to do?.
Like a paratactic verbal group complex and a simple verbal group, a hypotactic verbal group complex … serves only one set of functions in the clause (and only in the clause, since it cannot be embedded on its own): it is the Process in the experiential transitivity structure, and the Finte (…) Predicator in the interpersonal modal structure.
With prepositional phrases and adverbial groups of place and time there is also a hypotactic relation of enhancement, with the special semantic feature of ‘narrowing’, as in tomorrow before lunch.
The hypotactic extension of adverbial groups or prepositional phrases is essentially the same as that for nominal groups … .
Here the hypotactic complex construes a path through time and space, including abstract space.
As with parataxis, adverbial groups and prepositional phrases can be linked hypotactically: the tactic relationship is based on identity in function rather than difference in internal structure. Hypotaxis is used to construe spatial and temporal paths and to construe gradual narrowing of the specification of a location.
In exactly the same way as with elaboration, a nominal group may be extended hypotactically by a prepositional phrase, the preposition having the same sense as when used to introduce a non-finite extending clause — (1) addition (positive) … (2) variation, replacement … (3) variation, subtraction … .
There is the same contrast between embedding and hypotaxis with a phrase as there is with a clause. … [in hypotaxis] the secondary [ranking] element is … not a defining [embedded] one.
In a hypotactic nominal group complex, the dominant element can, in principle, serve the same function as the whole complex, but dependent elements cannot. … While the dominant element has to be a nominal group, dependent elements can be adverbial groups or prepositional phrases.
Hypotactic verbal group complexes involve either expansion or projection, but hypotactic nominal group complexes and hypotactic adverbial group/prepositional phrase complex are based only on expansion.
Here the semantic relationship involves a circumstantial relationship; this was not recognised in traditional accounts. … enhancing relationships are essentially between figures as a whole, and only rarely can they be interpreted as holding between particular elements of a figure. Examples are typically instances of time or cause.
An extending nominal group complex may be reinforced by a circumstantial Adjunct of Manner such as both, jointly, separately, individually, respectively … . These indicate how the element realised by the nominal group complex takes part in the process of the clause — either jointly or separately.
This is the traditional category of ‘co-ordination’. Here the semantic relationship is one of ‘and, or, nor, but, but not’ … .
It is important to distinguish between an elaborating group and an embedded group occurring as Qualifier; … . The former is related to a non-defining relative; … and is marked by tone concord … . The latter is related to a defining relative clause;
This is the traditional category of ‘apposition’. As with clauses, appositional group or phrase complexes are characterised by tone concord, signalling the semantic relationship of elaboration. The elaborating group or phrase may restate or particularise; restatements include naming, explanatory glossing and shifts in perspective: a number of the themes of elaborating clause complexes are replayed on a smaller scale.
Groups and phrases can be linked paratactically by apposition and co-ordination. As with paratactic clauses the former are elaborating in function, the latter extending. Instances of the enhancing type are less common, since the meanings are too specific to be readily expressed as a relationship between units smaller than clauses; but they do occur. There are no paratactic group or phrase complexes linked by projection, except for nominal group complexes such as the examiner’s assessment, ‘a brilliant work’, seems hard to justify, which lie on the borderline of elaborating parataxis.
Group and phrase complexes are formed out of series of nexuses just as clause complexes are formed out of series of clause nexuses. Groups and phrases form nexuses in the same way that clauses do, by a combination of parataxis or hypotaxis with some type of logico-semantic relation; … Only elements having the same function can be linked in this way. Typically this will mean members of the same class: verbal group with verbal group, nominal group with nominal group and so on. But it also includes other combinations, especially: adverbial group with prepositional phrase, since these share the same circumstantial functions in the clause; and nominal group with prepositional phrase, as Attribute.
Whereas any clause that is projected by another clause, verbal or mental, is either a quote (paratactic) or a report (hypotactic, or embedded if the process is a noun), any clause that has the status of ‘projected’ but without any projecting process is a fact and is embedded, either as a nominalisation serving as Head or as Postmodifier to a ‘fact’ noun serving as Head. This includes some of those functioning in mental clauses … and all projections functioning in relational clauses (since a relational process cannot project). It also includes ‘impersonal’ projections such as it is said…, it is believed…, it seems…, where the ‘process’ is not really a process at all, but simply a way of turning a fact into a clause.
However, it is possible for an idea to be associated with a mental process while not being projected by it, as in they rejoiced that their team had won. When one clause projects another, the two always form a clause nexus; but here, where that their team had won comes ready-made as a projection, rather than being turned into one by the process of rejoicing, the idea is embedded as Phenomenon and the whole forms a single clause. This happens particularly when a proposition is an object of emotion …
Parallel to projected information (propositions) is the projection of goods-&-services (proposals), which similarly may be paratactic, hypotactic, or embedded as Qualifier to a noun; and again the phenomenon may be verbal (locution, projected by the processes offer, command, suggest/suggestion, etc) or mental (idea, projected by intend/intention wish, hope, etc). The difference in the mental processes is that propositions are projected by cognitive processes whereas proposals are projected by desiderative ones.
Both verbal and mental acts have names, such as statement, query, belief, doubt; and these also serve to project, with the projected clause embedded as Postmodifier: the belief that the sky might fall on their heads.
I can choose to report a verbal act, presenting a locution as a meaning; and I can choose to quote a mental act, presenting an idea as a wording.