Projection: Idea (‘thinks’)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 444):

one clause is projected through another, which presents it as an idea, a construction of meaning.

Projection: Locution (‘says’)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 444):

one clause is projected through another, which presents it as a locution, a construction of wording.

Expansion: Enhancing (‘so, yet, then’)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 444):

one clause expands another by embellishing around it: qualifying it with some circumstantial feature of time, place, cause or condition.

Expansion: Extending (‘and, or’)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 444):

one clause expands another by extending beyond it: adding some new element, giving an exception to it, or offering an alternative.

Expansion: Elaborating (‘i.e., e.g., viz.’)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 444):

one clause expands another by elaborating on it (or some portion of it): restating in other words, specifying in greater detail, commenting, or exemplifying.

Subtypes Of Expansion And Projection

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 444):

Within the general categories of expansion and projection, we recognise first of all a small number of subtypes: three of expansion, and two of projection. The names of these, with suggested notation, are as follows:

(1) Expansion:

(a) elaborating = (‘equals’)
(b) extending + (‘is added to’)
(c) enhancing x (‘is multiplied by’)

(2) Projection:

(a) locution “ (double quotes)
(b) idea ‘ (single quotes)

Logico-Semantic Relations Between Primary & Secondary Members Of A Clause Nexus

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 443):

(1) Expansion: the secondary clause expands the primary clause by (a) elaborating it [= ‘equals’], (b) extending it [+ ‘is added to’] or (c) enhancing it [x ‘is multiplied by’].

(2) Projection: the secondary clause is projected through the primary clause, which instates it as (a) a locution [“ double quotes] or (b) an idea [‘ single quotes].

Expansion relates phenomena as being of the same order of experience, while projection relates phenomena to phenomena of a higher order of experience (semiotic phenomena — what people say and think).

Nesting (Internal Bracketing)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 442):

This is where what is being linked by a logico-semantic relation is not a single clause but rather a ‘sub-complex’ — a clause nexus in its own right. …

 

We can show nesting in either of two ways.

• (i) The nesting can be represented explicitly as internal bracketing — eg 1 ^ 2 (α ^ β);
• (ii) or it can be represented as a simple string — eg 1 ^ 2α ^ 2β.

Clause Nexus: Primary And Secondary Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 441-2):

a clause complex is formed by means of tactic relations; and it is developed or built up as a chain, one pair of clauses at a time.We will refer to any one pair of clauses related by interdependency, or ‘taxis’, as a clause nexus. … The clauses making up such a nexus are primary and secondary.  The primary is the initiating clause in a paratactic nexus, and the dominant clause in a hypotactic; the secondary is the continuing clause in a paratactic nexus and the dependent clause in a hypotactic. This is set out in Table 7-4.

 

Interdependency: Rejected Terminology

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 440n):

An earlier name for the higher term in the dependency relation, that on which something is dependent, was terminant. The problem with this turns out to be that it is too readily misinterpreted as ‘coming last in sequence’. The dependency relation, however, is neutral as regards the sequence in which the elements occur. Another possible set of terms would be ‘main clause’ for the dominant clause and ‘subordinate clause’ for the dependent clause. However, this could lead to confusion since ‘subordination’ has usually been used to refer to both hypotaxis and embedding without the critical distinction between the two. Further, the term ‘parataxis’ does not correspond to ‘coordination’ (in contrast with ‘subordination’); it covers not only ‘coordination’ but also ‘apposition’.

Taxis: Degree Of Interdependency

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 440):

Degree of interdependency is known technically as taxis; and the two different degrees of interdependency as parataxis (equal status) and hypotaxis (unequal status). Hypotaxis is the relation between a dependent element and its dominant, the element on which it is dependent. Contrasting with this is parataxis, which is the relation between two like elements of equal status, one initiating and the other continuing.

Hypotaxis And Mood

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 440):

Alternatively, two clauses related as interdependent may be treated as being of unequal status [hypotactic] … While the main clause constitutes a proposition in its own right and can thus be tagged … the qualifying clause does not and cannot be tagged … the qualifying clause can be placed either before or after the ‘head’ clause … The choice is determined by textual considerations.

Clause Complex Vs Cohesive Sequence

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 439-40):

When clauses are combined with the status of equal, there is a closely agnate version where the two clauses are not brought together structurally in a clause complex but rather form a cohesive sequence:

Kukul crouched low to the ground. He moved slowly.

In this version the elliptical Subject of the second clause has to be reinstated, since such Subject ellipsis is not possible outside the domain of a clause complex. 

The two versions are treated differently in the graphology: in the cohesive sequence, the two clauses are separated by a full stop; but in the clause complex, there is no full stop separating the clauses (though there could have been a comma or even semi-colon). 

This reflects the typical realisation in the phonology: in the cohesive sequence, the first clause would be spoken on tone 1 (falling), and then followed by the second clause also on tone 1; but in the clause complex, the first clause would be spoken on tone 3 (level), and then followed by the second clause on tone 1. Here tone 3 indicates that there is more to come – by the expansion of the clause to form a clause complex.

Parataxis And Mood

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 438):

All clauses linked by a logico-semantic relation are interdependent: that is the meaning of a relational structure — one unit is interdependent on another unit. Two clauses related as interdependent in a complex may be treated as being of equal status [paratactic] … each constitutes a proposition in its own right and could thus be tagged … They could in fact select for different moods …

Types Of Relation Between Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 438):

Two basic systems determine how one clause is related to another; they are set out in Figure 7-3, together with some more delicate subsystems that will be discussed below:

(i) taxis (degree of interdependency)
(ii) the logico-semantic relation.

 

Multivariate Sentence Structure?

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 437-8):

There are syntagms that may look as if they need to be interpreted in terms of a multivariate sentence structure, involving textual or modal Adjuncts or Vocative elements as Theme:

||| However << after the results of many studies were published, >> there was a shift towards the theory being quite unacceptable. |||
||| Interestingly, <<< as I left my small town || and explored the world via the military >>> I realised || I really like to learn, || and I was good at it. |||
||| Larry, Larry, Larry, << when you’re in the public eye >> you don’t do anything. |||

However, these can all be analysed as hypotactic clause combinations, where the dependent clause is included within the main clause after the textual and/or interpersonal Theme and before the topical Theme: main clause << dependent clause >> – more specifically, main clause [textual + interpersonal Theme] << dependent clause >> main clause [topical Theme ^ Rheme]. The motivation behind such sequences with included dependent clauses is thus textual: the main clause is powerfully contextualised first by its own textual and/or interpersonal Theme, and then, within the domain of the clause complex, by the dependent clause that qualifies it, and finally by its own topical Theme.

Blogger Comments:

Nevertheless, it will be seen later that there is one type of clause complex that is interpreted as a multivariate (Theme^Rheme) structure — though not acknowledged as such.  Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 552):

Why The Clause Complex Is Not Interpreted As A Ranked Unit

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 437):

But does the clause complex need to be interpreted as a ranked unit (a ‘sentence’) analogous to the group? We believe the answer is no; the essential nature of a clause complex is brought out by treating it as a univariately structured complex rather than as a multivariately structured unit. In a clause complex, the tendency is much more for any clause to have the potential for functioning with any value in a multi-clausal complex. In other words, the relations among the clauses in a clause complex are generally more like that of a string of nouns such as railway ticket office staff, which could be explained as a (univariate) word complex, than that of these two old railway engines, which could not. We shall assume, therefore, that the notion of ‘clause complex’ enables us to account in full for the grammatical combination of clauses.

Why The Group Is A Distinct Rank In The Grammar (Rather Than Just A Word Complex)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 437):

Although groups are word complexes, they cannot be fully accounted for as complexes. Groups have developed their own multivariate constituent structures with functional configurations such as the Deictic + Numerative + Epithet + Classifier + Thing of the nominal group in English. Here the elements are

• (i) distinct in function,
• (ii) realised by distinct classes, and
• (iii) more or less fixed in sequence.

A configuration of such a kind has to be represented as a multivariate structure. Treating the group simply as a ‘word complex’ does not account for all these various aspects of its meaning. It is for this reason that we recognise the group as a distinct rank in the grammar.

Why 'Nominal Group' Rather Than 'Noun Phrase'

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 437n):

It is important to maintain the terminological distinction between group and phrase, which is lost if a nominal group is referred to as a ‘noun phrase’. Although group and phrase are both of intermediate rank as constituents, they have arrived there from different ends: a group is a bloated word, whereas a phrase is a shrunken clause. In Bloomfield’s (1933: 194–195) terms, groups are endocentric constructions whereas phrases are exocentric ones.

The Location Of 'Sentence' In SFL Theory

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 436):

… the clause complex is realised graphologically as a ‘sentence’, in the way that this has evolved, over the centuries, as a unit in the written language. The sentence is the highest unit of punctuation on the graphological rank scale and has evolved in the writing system to represent the clause complex as the most extensive domain of grammatical structure. We will use the term sentence to refer only to this highest-ranking graphological unit of punctuation. … Hence in the analysis of a written text each sentence can be treated as one clause complex, with the ‘simple’ (one clause) sentence as the limiting case. … Table 7-3 shows the location of clause complex and sentence in relation to other units and complexes of units in the total linguistic system.

 

The Location Of The Clause Complex: Metafunction, Rank & Stratification

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 435):

(1) In terms of metafunction, it is organised by the logical mode of the ideational metafunction, contrasting with circumstantial augmentations of the clause (experiential) and cohesive sequences (textual). … 

(2) In terms of rank, it is located at the highest rank of the grammar — clause rank; and it is thus related to the clause in terms of logical complexing rather than in terms of experiential constituency. … 

(3) In terms of stratification, the clause complex realises a semantic sequence of projection or expansion; and it is, in turn, realised by a sequence of tones in speech and by a sentence in writing.

Grammatical Realisations Of Sequences As Scale Of Integration

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 434-5):

These grammatical opportunities for realising a sequence of projection or expansion form a scale defined by two poles: one pole is the simple clause with a circumstantial element and the other is the cohesive sequence of two independent clauses. The clause complex thus covers the region intermediate between these two poles. … closer to the pole of circumstantial augmentation, there are clause combinations where one clause is dependent on a dominant clause, the two thus being of unequal status [hypotaxis]; closer to the pole of cohesive sequences, there are clause combinations where the two clauses are interdependent on one another, the two having equal status [parataxis]. This scale of degree of grammatical integration and interdependence in the realisation of projection and expansion is represented diagrammatically in Figure 7-2.

Grammatical Realisations Of Sequences

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 434):

A sequence of projection or expansion may be realised by two clauses that are combined structurally to form a clause complex, as in a happened and then b happened or after a happened, b happened.  But there are two alternative forms of realisation.  On the one hand, the sequence may be realised by two clauses that are not combined structurally but are linked cohesively instead: A happened.  Then b happened.  Here the grammar provides a ‘clue’ as to the nature of the semantic link; but it does not integrate the two clauses into a grammatical construction.  On the other hand, the sequence may be realised by a single clause with a phrase (or adverbial group) serving as a circumstantial element within it: after the time of a, b happened.

Augmentation By Circumstance Vs By Clause Complexing: Semiotic Weight As Motivating Factor

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 434):

In the creation of text, we choose between augmenting a clause ‘internally’ by means of a circumstantial element and augmenting it ‘externally’ by means of another clause in a complex. The decision depends on many factors; but the basic consideration has to do with how much textual, interpersonal and experiential semiotic ‘weight’ is to be assigned to the unit: the more weight it has, the more likely it is to be constructed as an interdependent clause in a clause complex rather than as a circumstantial phrase (or adverbial group) augmenting a clause.

Augmentation: Circumstances Vs Clause Complexing

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 434):

… a circumstantial element in a clause contains only a minor process, not a major one; so unlike a clause it cannot construe a figure, it cannot enact a proposition/proposal and it cannot present a message. In contrast, clause complexing always involves assigning clause-hood to an augmentation of expansion or projection: the augmentation has the full potential of a clause, in terms of experiential, interpersonal and textual systems. … while circumstantial elements are part of the ‘configurational’ organisation of the clause, clauses in clause complexes are part of a chain-like or serial structure.

Projection And Expansion Manifested In Clause And Clause Complex

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 432-3):

Circumstances augment the configuration of process + participants in the clause in terms of either projection or expansion. These two types of relation correspond, in turn, to different process types: projection corresponds to verbal and mental clauses, and expansion corresponds to relational clauses. Projection and expansion are also manifested as the logico-semantic relations that link clauses together to form clause complexes. The manifestations of projection and expansion in the clause and the clause complex are set out in Table 7-2.

 

The Semantic Effect Of Clause Complexing

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 430-2):

Semantically, the effect of combining clauses into clause complexes is one of tighter integration in meaning: the sequences that are realised grammatically in a clause complex are construed as being sub-sequences within the total sequence of events that make up a whole episode in a narrative. … But the integrating and choreographing effect achieved by clause complexes is not, of course, restricted to narratives; it is a feature of texts of all kinds.

Adjectives Serving as Event In A Verbal Group In A Hypotactic Verbal Group Complex

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 427n):

Certain adjectives can serve as Event in a verbal group in a hypotactic verbal group complex, e.g. (conation: potentiality:) be able/apt/prone/likely → to do; (modulation: time: frequency:) be wont → to do; (modulation: manner: quality:) be wise/right/wrong → to do; (projection:) be willing/keen/eager → to do; be afraid/scared → to do.

Word Classes And Their Typical Group Functions

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 426-7):

… the mapping between classes at group/phrase rank and functions at clause rank is fairly complex: a group/phrase of a given class can typically serve a number of different clause functions (the exception being the verbal group). When we move down one step along the rank scale to consider the relation between word classes and group/phrase functions, we find there is a stronger tendency towards a one-to-one relationship: a word of a particular class tends to serve only one group/phrase function: see Table 6-19. The major exception is the class of adverb; but this is partly a matter of delicacy: certain adverbs function only as Head, whereas others function only as Modifier or Sub-Modifier.

The Notion Of Non-Ranged Prepositional Phrases (And In/Transitive Prepositions)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 426):

If prepositional phrases are interpreted as ‘compressed’ or ‘shrunken’ clauses with the structure of Predicator/Process + Complement/Range, then it makes sense to ask whether alongside these ‘ranged’ phrases, there are ‘non-ranged’ ones: this is a question that arises automatically from our clause-like analysis of prepositional phrases. Consider an agnate pair of clauses such as he crossed and he crossed the street. Here the agnation has to do with the absence or presence of the Range; the two clauses are ‘non-ranged’ and ‘ranged’, respectively. Are these two clauses analogous to a pair of phrases such as across and across the street? In other words, is there a proportion:

he crossed : he crossed the street ::
(he walked) across : (he walked) across the street

If there is, this would mean that in traditional terms prepositions can be either intransitive (across) or transitive (across the street). … In discussing prepositions and adverbs, Jespersen (1924: 88) suggests that there is an ‘exact parallel’ between examples such as put your cap on and put your cap on your head, on the one hand, and he was in and he was in the house, on the other. More recently, in their reference grammar of English, Huddleston & Pullum (2002: 612 ff.) argue that certain ‘adverbs’ should be analysed as prepositions without ‘NP complements’; for example, they show that in belongs to the same category in the owner is not in and in the owner is not in the house. In our terms, this would mean that prepositional phrases can be ‘non-ranged’ (in) as well as ‘ranged’ (in the house).

Blogger Comments:

Note that Pullum argued on Australian Radio that bush in go bush is a new Australian preposition.  Unsurprisingly, he did not produce any prepositional phrases with bush as minor Predicator/Process.