One Figure Of Expansion Sequence Realised As Circumstance
Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 646-7):
With expansion, one figure of a sequence may be realised congruently by a clause, while the other is realised incongruently as a prepositional phrase serving as a circumstantial element within that clause; here the relator of the sequence is realised as the minor Process of the phrase. The relator and the minor Process are matched in terms of subtype of expansion.
Projecting Figure Of Sequence Realised As Range
Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 647):
With projection, the projecting figure may be realised congruently as a ‘verbal’ or ‘mental’ clause, while the projected figure is realised incongruently as the Range — the Verbiage or the Phenomenon.
Expansion Sequence Realised As Circumstantial Relational Clause
Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 647-8):
With expansion, both figures of a sequence may be realised incongruently as Token and Value in a ‘circumstantial relational’ clause; here the relator of the sequence is realised, also incongruently, as the Process element in the clause. The expansion type of the relator is matched by the nature of the circumstantial process. … Alternatively, the ‘circumstantial relational’ clause is ‘attributive’ rather than ‘identifying’, with expanding figure as Attribute and the expanded one as Carrier.
Sequence Of Internal Cause Realised As Intensive Identifying Relational Clause
Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 648):
Relations of internal cause — cause in the sense of ‘x so I think/say y’ — are construed metaphorically by verbs of proving such as prove, show, demonstrate, argue, suggest, indicate, imply in ‘intensive identifying relational’ clauses.
Expansion Sequence Realised As Intensive Identifying Relational Clause
Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 648):
With expansion, both figures of the sequence may be realised incongruently as Token and Value in an ‘intensive relational’ clause; but the relator is nominalised as the Thing of the nominal group serving as Value, and the expanding figure is embedded as a Qualifier. The nominalised relator is a noun of expansion such as time, place, cause, result, reason.
Projected Figure Of Sequence Realised As Embedded Fact
Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 649):
With projection, the projected figure may be realised metaphorically as an embedded ‘fact’ clause serving as Token.
Relator And Figure Of Expansion Sequence Realised As Nominal Group
Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 649):
With expansion, the relator in the sequence may be realised incongruently as a noun serving as the Head or Thing of the nominal group and the figure(s) being related as Modifier.
Figures Of Projection Sequence Realised As Nominal Group
Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 649):
With projection, the projecting figure in a sequence may be realised incongruently as a noun of projection serving as the Head/Thing of a nominal group and the projected figure as a downranked clause serving as Qualifier.
Sequence Realised As Clause: Domino Effect
Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 649-50):
There is always a domino effect: as the realisational domain of the sequence is downgraded, so are the realisational domains of its component parts. At least one of the figures is, in turn, realised metaphorically as a ranking group or phrase, and elements within figures are realised either by downranked groups or phrases or by words.