Projection As Modal Assessment: Subjective Vs Objective Orientation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 607):

The difference between ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’ orientation in the ideational manifestation follows from the general difference between a projecting ‘mental’ or ‘verbal’ clause with a Senser or Sayer and a ‘relational’ clause without such a ‘projector’.  When the assessment is explicitly ‘subjective’, the Senser or Sayer has to be the speaker I.  If it is a person other than the speaker, the clause will still be a projecting one; but it will not be agnate with interpersonal assessment.

Projection As Modal Assessment: Explicit Vs Implicit Orientation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 606):

The ideational manifestations make explicit the orientation of the assessment: the logical manifestation is explicitly subjective whereas the experiential manifestation is explicitly objective. In contrast, the interpersonal manifestation leaves the orientation implicit…

Projection As Modal Assessment: Hypotactic Projection And Pre-Projected Facts

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 605-6):

… projection includes both hypotactic projection of ideas or reports and pre-projected facts serving in a ‘mental’ or ‘relational’ clause. A hypotactic projection is always ‘subjective’; the speaker is represented explicitly the Senser or Sayer. A pre-projected fact in a ‘mental’ clause is like hypotactic projection in representing the assessment as ‘subjective’ — the speaker is explicitly represented as the Senser. In contrast, a pre-projected fact in a ‘relational’ clause represents the assessment as ‘objective’.

Interpersonal Manifestations Of Projection: Modal Assessment

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 604-5):

Projection can also be manifested interpersonally in the form of a modal Adjunct. … Unlike the logical and experiential manifestations, the interpersonal manifestation does not represent the Sayer or Senser; rather it enacts the speaker’s opinion — an enactment of his or her degree of commitment to the proposition: the proposition is assessed as being projected by someone other than the speaker. This type of assessment is known as ‘evidentiality’: the modal Adjunct is used to indicate the evidential status of the proposition. … evidentiality is related to ‘verbal’ clauses and ‘mental’ clauses of perception.

Projection: Logical And Experiential Manifestations

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 604):

When the need arises in discourse to attribute information to some source, this can be done logically by means of a nexus of projection; but it can also be done experientially by means of a circumstance of Angle. … the projecting feature has thus been incorporated into the clause as one element of a transitivity configuration.

Metafunctional Manifestations Of Projection Vs Expansion

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 603):

Like expansion, projection is manifested both logically and experientially within the ideational metafunction; but outside the ideational domain, it is manifested interpersonally rather than textually, thus contrasting with the textual manifestation of expansion. That is, while there are conjunctions marking rhetorical relations of elaboration, extension and enhancement, there are no conjunctions marking relations of quoting or reporting; and while there are interpersonal resources for realising projection, there are no interpersonal Adjuncts or other interpersonal manifestations of expansion.

Agnate Variants Manifesting Expansion: Interpersonal Differences

Cohesively & Tactically Related Free Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 603):

When the domain of manifestation is a cohesive sequence of clauses, or a paratactic nexus of (free) clauses, the two figures related by expansion are enacted interpersonally as propositions or proposals.  This means that each can be negotiated in its own right — accepted or denied, complied with or refused, and so on… .  The same is true of the dominant (a) clause of a hypotactic nexus, since if it is a free clause, it realises a negotiable proposition or proposal.

Dependent Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 603):

… while the dependent (b) clause supports a proposition or proposal, it does not constitute one itself; and if it is non-finite, it is even further removed from the realm of negotiation.

Simple Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 603):

… when the causal [eg] relation is construed within the Process, it has become propositionalised or proposalised… .  Here it is no longer the cause or the effect that is held up for negotiation but rather the causal relation.  When they are construed as nominal groups, the cause and the effect are not negotiable at all.

Agnate Variants Manifesting Expansion: Textual Differences

Thematic Status Of Expansion: Cohesively & Tactically Related Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 601):

While a conjunction group with a structural conjunction such as so or because as Head is obligatorily thematic, there is a choice for conjunction groups with a cohesive conjunction such as consequently as Head.

Thematic Status Of Expansion: Hypotactic Nexus

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 602):

In a hypotactic nexus, there is a further textual contrast that is not open to cohesive sequences and paratactic nexuses: the dependent b clause […] may be either thematic or rhematic within the clause nexus.

Thematic Status Of Expansion: Simple Clause

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 602):

When the domain of manifestation of expansion is a simple clause, the potential textual status of the manifestation […] depends on how it is manifested — (1) as minor Process within a prepositional phrase serving as a circumstance […], (2) as Process, or (3) as Thing within a nominal group serving as a participant in a circumstantial relational clause.

Thematic Status Of Expansion: Minor Process Within A Prepositional Phrase Serving As A Circumstance

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 602):

When it is manifested within a circumstance of Cause [eg], the cause may be given the status of either Theme or Rheme…

Thematic Status Of Expansion: Process

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 602):

When the causal [eg] relation is manifested as Process (either in a hypotactic verbal group complex in a clause of any process type, or as the nuclear process in a circumstantial relational clause), its textual status will most likely be rhematic.  More specifically, it is likely to be (part of) the transition between Theme and New.

Thematic Status Of Expansion: Thing Within A Nominal Group Serving As A Participant In A Circumstantial Relational Clause

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 602):

When the cause [eg] is manifested as Thing in a nominal group serving as a participant, it will have the thematic status assigned to that nominal group as a whole — either thematic or rhematic.  But in addition, it will be within the domain of operation of another textual system — the system of reference.  This means that it is given textual status as a discourse referent — either recoverable (identifiable) or non-recoverable (non-identifiable), and that it can be tracked in the development of the discourse.

Agnate Variants Manifesting Expansion: Ideational Differences: Manifestations Of Expansion Down The Rank Scale

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 601):

… this move involves a shift in metafunction … [and] the meaning of expansion changes with the change of metafunctional manifestation.  For example, the manifestation of cause changes from rhetorical relation (textual: consequently) via logico-semantic relation (logical: so, because) to process or minor process or even participant (experiential: cause, through; cause).  This means that the category meaning of ‘cause’ changes …

Agnate Variants Manifesting Expansion: Ideational Differences: Scale Of Integration Of Quanta Of Change

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 597):

At one pole, the experience of the flow of events is construed as two distinct quanta of change… . At the other pole, the experience of the flow of events is construed as a component part of quantum of change… . Intermediate between these two poles are various manifestations that represent a move from two distinct quanta of change via two interdependent ones to a single one. The scale is thus one of degree of integration of two quanta of change. This scale of integration is based on the rank scale.

Agnate Variants Manifesting Expansion: Ideational Differences

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 597):

From an ideational point of view, the difference in meaning relates most directly to the question of what is construed as a quantum of change in the flow of events.

Agnation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 597):

… agnation always embodies both similarity and difference. The similarity is the basis for interpreting the patterns as alike, bringing them together in a paradigm, while the difference is the basis for treating them as variant types rather than as tokens of the same type.

Transgrammatical Semantic Domain: Grammatical Environments Manifesting Expansion

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 597):

… the environments of manifestation can be differentiated in terms of

(i) metafunction — textual (conjunction), logical (interdependency; modification) and experiential (circumstantiation; process type: relational), and

(ii) rank — clause and group/phrase [and below]. …

Collectively they thus construe expansion as a semantic system.  This means that for any given type of expansion we want to express, we have at our disposal a range of resources.

Transgrammatical Semantic Domain: Expansion Manifested In Experiential Mode

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 594):

On the one hand, expansion is manifested in the augmentation of the clause by circumstances: these circumstantial augmentations cover all three types of expansion, with enhancement being the most highly developed one. On the other hand, expansion is manifested in the relation of a ‘relational’ clause: ‘intensive’ clauses embody elaboration, ‘possessive’ clauses extension, and ‘circumstantial’ clauses enhancement. In the domain of the nominal group, there are also various manifestations of the three types of expansion. Thus the Qualifier may elaborate, extend or enhance the Thing…

Transgrammatical Semantic Domain: Expansion Manifested In Logical Mode

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 594):

… the three subtypes of expansion (elaboration, extension and enhancement) combine with tactic relations to link one clause to another in the formation of clause complexes … [and] … group and phrase complexes. In clause complexes and in group and phrase complexes, expansion is manifested within the logical mode of the ideational metafunction.

Compact Vs Dispersed Grammatical Realisation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 593):

The grammatical realisation of figuration is ‘compact’, being confined to the transitivity system of the clause.  In contrast, the grammatical realisation of expansion is ‘dispersed’, ranging over more than one grammatical unit. (… compactly realised systems such as configuration [sic] may become dispersed in their realisation through the process of grammatical metaphor.)

Transgrammatical Semantic Domain: Expansion

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 593):

For example, the expanding relation of ‘addition’ may be realised

(1) cohesively by a conjunction such as also or

(2) structurally by

(a) an additive paratactic clause complex marked by the structural conjunction and,

(b) a circumstance of accompaniment marked by the preposition with or

(c) an additive paratactic group complex marked by and … . 

These realisational variants are distinct in the grammar, since they constitute different grammatical environments; but they are semantically agnate in that they all have the feature of ‘addition’. … One semantic system, the system of expansion, has thus evolved to bring together patterns of wording within grammatically distinct units, thereby extending its overall meaning potential.

Transgrammatical Semantic Domains: Expansion And Projection

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 593):

… there are semantic domains that are construed in more than one place in the grammar, by more than one system local to one particular grammatical unit. These semantic domains range over two or more grammatical domains, spanning two or more grammatical units. There are two fundamental semantic domains of this kind — expansion and projection.

Metaphorical Realisation: Grammatical Metaphor

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 592-3):

… there are realignments in the realisational relationship between semantic units and grammatical ones. … a sequence is realised by a clause complex; the combination of a figure, a proposition (proposal), and a message is realised by a clause; … a participant is realised by a nominal group, a process by a verbal group and a circumstance by and adverbial group or a prepositional phrase. But once these couplings between the two strata of the content plane have been established, “cross–couplings” become theoretically possible. For example, while sequences are realised by clause complexes and figures by clauses, it is theoretically possible that, under certain conditions, sequences would be realised by clauses — that is, as if they were figures. This is the possibility of metaphorical realisation … . But the two forms of realisation are not, of course, synonymous, so the effect is one of expanding the meaning potential of the language.

Transgrammatical Semantic Domains: Modality

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 592):

… there are semantic domains that range over more than a single grammatical unit.  Thus the semantic domain of modality is construed in more than one place in the grammar; for example, it is construed by clauses such as I suppose and it is possible, by verbal groups with finite modal operators such as may and by adverbial groups and modal adverbs such as perhaps.  These modal patterns within different grammatical units are not interchangeable/synonyms; they have distinct values within the overall semantic system of modality. … This means that the semantic system of modality is more extensive than the modal features of any one given grammatical unit would suggest; it is realised not by a single grammatical unit but by a range of units: semantic unit a ø grammatical units m, n and o.

Information Flow, Exchange & Episodic Patterns

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 591):

These intermediate patterns are the ones that are very likely to vary from one register to another: there will be variation both in the nature of the patterns and in the degree to which there is a compositional scale between the text and the message/proposition (proposal)/figure.

Sequence Combinations: Episodic Patterns

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 590):

Figures combine to form sequences; and these in turn may combine to form episodic patterns, as in narratives and other chronologically organised texts or chronological passages within other kinds of text.

Proposition/Proposal Combinations: Exchange Patterns

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 589-90):

Propositions/proposals combine to form patterns of exchange involving two or more interactants … .

Message Combinations: Information Flow Patterns

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 588):

Messages combine to form periodic movements of information… . Such phases of messages help construct the flow of information as the text unfolds and we can refer to them simply as information flow patterns.

More Extensive Semantic Patterns

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 588):

Messages, propositions or proposals, and figures can combine with units of the same metafunctional type to form more extensive semantic patterns in the creation of text. These patterns are distinct for each metafunction.

The Lower Region Of Semantic Compositional Scales

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 588):

This is the region where semantic units are realised by lexicogrammatical ones. … The clause is a multifunctional construct in the grammar, one that realises three different semantic units, one for each metafunction: textual — message, interpersonal — proposition or proposal, and experiential — figure. … The three semantic units deriving from the three metafunctions are all mapped onto the clause, which thus unifies the three metafunctional strands of meaning.

Semantic Compositional Scale?

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 588):

In the grammar, there is a single, generalised compositional scale — the grammatical rank scale … . But in the semantics, it is far from clear whether there is a single compositional scale that is generalised across all registerial varieties of a language.

Upper Bounds Of Meaning And Wording

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 588, 588n):

The upper bound of the semantic stratum is the text: this is the most extensive unit of meaning. The upper bound of the lexicogrammatical system is the clause: this is the most extensive unit of wording. … By saying that they are the upper bounds, we are not ruling out complexes — text complexes and clause complexes … . But complexes are not higher–ranking units but rather expansions of units of a given rank.

The Relation Of Text To Clause: Realisation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 587):

A text does not ‘consist of’ clauses (clause complexes) — there is no part–whole or ‘constituency’ relationship between a text and a clause (complex) and there is no single rank scale with text and clause as ranks. Rather, a text is realised by clauses (clause complexes), the two being located on different strata — semantics (the stratum of meaning) and lexicogrammar (the stratum of wording), respectively.

Text: A Unit Of Meaning (Only) At The Instance Pole Of The Cline Of Instantiation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 587):

A text is thus a unit of meaning — more accurately, a unit in the flow of meaning that is always taking place at the instance pole of the cline of instantiation.