… the cohesive selections in a text form logogenetic patterns. In the case of conjunction, such patterns take the form of favoured selections of relations for moving the text forward. In the case of the other types of cohesive resources, such patterns take the form of logogenetic chains — chains of reference, ellipsis and lexical cohesive links, and of interactions among such chains within and across different types of cohesion.
While conjunction, reference and substitution and ellipsis are cohesive resources within the grammatical zone of lexicogrammar, lexical cohesion operates within the lexis and is achieved through the choice of lexical items.
Ellipsis makes it possible to leave out parts of a structure when they can be presumed from what has gone before. Ellipsis indicates continuity, allowing speaker and addressee to focus on what is contrastive.
Reference creates cohesion by creating links between elements of meaning — referents; but there is also a resource operating at the level of wording. This takes two forms, substitution and ellipsis; but we shall refer to it simply as ellipsis, since substitution can be interpreted as a systemic variant.
While conjunction (including continuity) links whole clauses, reference creates cohesion by creating links between elements.
… there is a set of lexicogrammatical systems that have evolved specifically as a resource for making it possible to transcend the boundaries of the clause — that is, the domain of the highest-ranking grammatical unit. These lexicogrammatical systems originate in the textual metafunction and are collectively known as the system of cohesion. … There are four ways by which cohesion is created in English: by
(i) conjunction,
(ii) reference,
(iii) ellipsis [and substitution] and
(iv) lexical organisation.
It is helpful to have a term for this general phenomenon — that is, the creation of meaning in the course of the unfolding of text. We shall call it logogenesis, with ‘logos’ in its original sense of ‘discourse’. Logogenesis pertains to the entire meaning potential — all the strata and all the metafunctions.
The system of language is instantiated as text, the two representing the poles at either end of the cline of instantiation. System and text are not different phenomena; they are phases of one and the same phenomenon. When seen up close, this phenomenon appears to us as text; but when we adopt a more distant observer perspective, we can build up a picture of it as system. System and text form a cline rather than a dichotomy, because between these two poles there is a semiotic region of intermediate patterns (conceived of as instance types — as text types, or as subsystems — as registers). Text is thus the process of instantiation; and we can characterise it by reference to the system as the selection of systemic options unfolding through time.
Text is something that happens in the form of talking or writing, listening or reading. When we analyse it, we analyse the product of this process; and the term ‘text’ is usually taken as referring to the product — especially the product in its written form, since this is most clearly perceptible as an object … . The organisation of text is semantic rather than formal, and much looser than that of grammatical units. The organisation of text has typically been represented in some form of structural notation. But it is important to to be able to think of text dynamically, as an ongoing process of meaning.
A verbal group nexus is intermediate between a clause nexus and a verbal group: a verbal group construes a single event, and a clause nexus construes two distinct processes; but a verbal group nexus construes a single process consisting of two events.
All of them could be analysed as clause complexes; but there is a case for treating some of them as complexes of the verbal group — perhaps just those that
- are proposals,
- are perfective in aspect,
- and have the same Subject in both halves.
This would exclude
- propositions, like pretend and claim (she claims to be infallible = she claims that she is infallible);
- imperfectives, for example she doesn’t like/mind John leaving so early; and
- ‘causatives’, for example I didn’t mean/expect you to notice, and all ‘indirect commands’ such as who asked you to comment?. It would also exclude those where the projecting process is itself causative, like tempt (‘make want’), decide in she tempted John to stay, what decided them to change their plans?.
All these would thus be interpreted as projecting clause complexes …
It is always, in fact, a relationship between processes — between a mental or verbal process on the one hand, and another process (of any kind) that is mentalised or verbalised (projected) by it. Nevertheless it is not inappropriate on grammatical grounds to treat some projections as verbal group complexes, on the analogy of the types of expansion to which they are sometimes similar in meaning.
… a mental process of desideration projects an exchange of the goods–&–services type, that is, a proposal. If the Subject of the projection is the same as that of the mental process clause, the proposal is an offer, as in she wants to do it; if the two are different, then the proposal is a command, as in she wants you to do it. In the first type, the Subject is not repeated, but is carried over from the desiderative clause. (It can then be made explicit by a reflexive, as in she wants to do it herself.)
Furthermore, causative have passives; so we can have:(high) they were made/forced/required to acceptand this enables us to interpret modulation as it occurs within the verbal group:
(median) they were got/obliged to accept
(low) they were allowed/permitted to accept(high) they are required to accept — they must accept
(median) they are obliged to accept — they should accept
(low) they are allowed to accept — they may accept
Only one or two modulations have causative equivalents; for example:John remembered to do itcausative: Mary reminded John to do itHowever, there are a special set that exist only as causatives, where the meaning is simply that of agency: make, cause, force, require, let, allow, permit, etc. These admit of three degrees of modulation:high: this made (forced, required) them (to) accept our terms
median: this had (got, obliged) them (to) accept our terms
low: this let (allowed, permitted) them (to) accept our terms
Here there are causative forms as follows:(1) potential: the patient can see clearlycausative: this enables the patient to see clearly
(2) achieval: John learnt to flycausative: Mary taught John to flyAgain, these causatives have passives: the patient is enabled to see clearly, John was taught to fly by Mary.
There is no causative form of the conative — that is, no word meaning ‘make…try’; this can of course be expressed analytically, for example:(she) made (him) try to eat (it)The causative of the reussive has help, and perhaps enable:reussive: John managed to open the lockcausative: Mary helped John to open the lock
(1) durative: the ball kept rollingcausative: John kept the ball rolling(2) inceptive: the ball started/stopped rollingcausative: John started/stopped the ball rolling …Note that these then have passives: the ball was kept/started/stopped (from) rolling (by John).
Causatives with make, get/have and let are of the enhancing type. But there are causative forms in all three types of expansion.
Such complexes are involved in the realisation of the transitivity system of agency. … We can always express this agency analytically, by saying John made the ball roll, where made … roll is a hypotactic verbal group complex. Here, the causative verbal group complex is an alternative realisation of the feature of ‘effective’ agency: an additional participant is introduced into the clause through the expansion of the verbal group realising the Process.
Many of the ‘enhancing’ verbal group complexes are simply inappropriate in the passive; they characterise an approach or attitude to the process, and this is likely to apply to an Actor but not to a Goal — it does not make much sense to say she hastened to be reassured, or your word ventures to be doubted. Others, such as happen and tend, are impersonal and so are indifferent to the selection of voice; for example:
- The house happened to have been built facing the wrong way. …
Since they are all metaphorical, in the sense that the verbal group is representing a circumstance and not some aspect of a process, the functional analysis provides only a partial interpretation; to get the full picture we would need to take account of the congruent form, eg by chance the house had been built facing the wrong way. There would be no change of rôle in the passive.
Here the relation of active to passive is different, because the conative verb although not constituting a separate happening, does in fact represent a behavioural process, and it retains its behavioural sense when the clause is passive. …The extending complex is a two-part process, in which the Subject fills a dual participant rôle: Behaver (in the conative component) plus Actor, or some other rôle, in the happening itself.For the same reason, Adjuncts in the clause may relate semantically to the conative component like hard, quickly in she tried hard to write well, she quickly learnt to tell them apart …There is no need in the analysis to tie these structurally to the primary verbal group; but it is useful to specify their function, by labelling them as ‘conative Adjunct’.
If it is a paratactic complex, this process consists of two happenings — two actions, events or whatever. If the verbal group complex is hypotactic, on the other hand, there is only one happening. Thus in a paratactic complex each verbal group has a definite voice, although the voice must be the same in each case; but in a hypotactic complex only the group that expresses the happening, the secondary group, actually embodies a feature of voice. The primary group is active in form, but there is no choice involved. (The exception to this is when the clause is causative.)
A clause containing a verbal group complex is still a single clause, and represents a single process. It has only one transitivity and voice structure. …Where there is a shift in transitivity, as in you’ll either kill someone or get killed yourself, the structure is that of a clause nexus, not a verbal group nexus.
Here the basic notion is that of ‘be (circumstantial) + do’, for example help to do ‘do being-with (someone)’. … Here the primary verbal group is again not a separate process; but this time it is a circumstantial element in the process expressed by the secondary verbal group.
The other form that has turned into a finite element within the verbal group is the potential form can, in the sense of ‘have the ability to’; it is cognate with know, so ‘know how to do’. This now also a modal form, again of the modulation type — in this case not obligation but readiness (inclination or ability).
This too has provided the resources for another tense form and another modality. … Originally two verbal groups, it is now either
(i) + done, a secondary tense form ‘past in’ … or
(ii) + to do, a modal form (of the ‘modulation’ type) … .
In other words, ‘possessing’ a process, if combined with past/passive, means past (success); if combined with ‘unreal’, it means (future) obligation.
… there are two dimensions … the potential and the actual. The potential means having, or alternatively not having, the ability to succeed. The actual means trying, or not trying; and succeeding, or not succeeding.
Here the basic notion is that of ‘have (possession) + do’; in other words, success. The semantic relation between the primary and the secondary verbal group is one of conation: trying and succeeding. (The verb of the primary verbal group is usually one that can serve in a ‘behavioural’ clause.)
The two categories of phase are related to modality and tense; but whereas modality and tense are interpreted as subcategorisations of one process (they are grammatical variants within one verbal group), phase is interpreted as a hypotactic relation between two processes: a general one of becoming, that is then elaborated by the specific action, event, mental process or relation that is being phased in or out.