‘Fronted’ Non-Finite Non-Defining Relative Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 469-70):

With non-finite elaborating hypotactic nexuses, there is a special construction where the dependent precedes the dominant; for example:

||| A science and transport museum || the Powerhouse has over 11,000 objects on display … |||

These elaborating clauses are always ‘intensive attributive relational’ ones where the Process is implicit and the Attribute is typically the only explicit element of the clause. In fact, such nexuses look like nominal group complexes when they only involve two juxtaposed nominal groups — as with a science and transport museum plus the Powerhouse. But when we probe further, we find that the nearest agnates are non-finite and finite non-defining relative clauses: being a science museum … which is a science museum …; and this explains among other things why clausal elements may be present: reportedly a science and transport museum … . The effect of the construction is to give thematic status within the elaborating clause nexus to the Attribute of the elaboration …

Non-Finite Non-Defining Relative Clause: Subject

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 469):

In such cases, there may be an explicit Subject in the dependent clause, as in

||| It’s a much bigger house, || for the children to have their own rooms. |||

But in most cases of non-finite elaboration, the Subject is left implicit, to be presupposed from the primary clause; and it is often difficult to identify it exactly – e.g. in the hairy coat holds a layer of air close to the skin, insulating the body against changes in the outside temperature, is it the hairy coat which insulates the body, or is it the holding of a layer of air close to the skin? The question is really irrelevant; it is precisely the function of the non-finite to make it unnecessary to decide: the absence of the subject decreases the arguability of the clause.

Hypotactic Elaboration: Non-Finite Non-Defining Relative Clause

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 469):

When the non-defining clause is an ‘intensive’ relational one, the Process may be left implicit; for example:

||| DPP lawmaker Chen Ting-nan will be the justice minister, || responsible for helping Chen keep his promise to clean up graft. |||

where responsible for ... is Attribute; compare the non-finite version with the Process: [Process:] being [Attribute:] responsible for ... 

As is usual with non-finite clauses, the meaning is less specific; both in the domain of the dependent clause and its semantic relationship to its domain are left relatively inexplicit. There is no WH- form, as there is with finites (in this respect non-finite non-defining relative clauses differ from defining ones); nor is there usually any preposition acting conjunctively, as there typically is with non-finite clauses of extension and enhancement such as besides or on in besides selling office equipment, on leaving the building.

Extending Non-Defining Relative Clause

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 468): 

There is one group of non-defining relative clauses which strictly speaking would belong with extension rather than elaboration; for example:

||| She told it to the baker’s wife || who told it to the cook |||

 Here the who stands for ‘and she’ and the clause is semantically an additive: the agnate paratactic variant would be … and she told it to the cook.  Compare also (where the sense is ‘and in that case’):

||| It might be hungry || in which case it would be very likely to eat her up |||

Note that such instances are not characterised by tone concord.  Also extending rather than elaborating are possessives with whose or its variants (of whom/which), which do not further characterise the noun that constitutes their domain but add a new one related to it by possession; contrast elaborating come and meet Mary, whose birthday we’re celebrating (‘the girl whose…’) with extending the shop was taken over by an Indian, whose family came out to join him.  But for most purposes these and all other non-defining relatives can be treated as elaborating clauses.

Non-Defining Vs Defining Relative Clause: Realisation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 467):

In written English, a non-defining relative clause is marked off by punctuation — usually commas, but sometimes by being introduced with a dash; whereas a defining relative clause is not separated by punctuation from its antecedent. This in turn reflects the the fact that in spoken English, whereas the defining relative clause enters into a single tone group with its antecedent, a non-defining relative clause forms a separate tone group. Furthermore, the primary and secondary clauses are linked by tone concord: that is to say, they are spoken on the same tone. … 

Whichever tone is used, however, it will be the same in both parts; the tone selected for the (relevant portion of the) primary clause is repeated in the secondary clause. This tone concord is the principal signal of the apposition relationship in English, and applies also to paratactic clause complexes of exposition and exemplification referred to above (though not to clarification, where there is greater semantic distance between the primary and secondary clause). We should also note that this pattern is very frequently accompanied by a rhythmic feature, by which the secondary clause is introduced by a silent beat.

Primary Clause Domains Of Hypotactic Elaboration: An Expression Of Time Or Place

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 466-7):

Clauses with when or where, having as domain some expression of time or place, e.g.

||| The first few days are a time for adjustment, || when the kitten needs all the love and attention [[ you can give it]] . |||

The meaning is ‘which is when . . .,’ ‘which is where . . .’. Those with where often refer to abstract space, as in

||| Now consider the opposite situation, || where the velocity decreases. |||

In this group also the secondary clause may be enclosed, as in

||| One evening, << when the boy was going to bed, >> he couldn’t find the china dog [[ that always slept with him]] . |||

As in the examples above, such clauses often elaborate marked Themes of time or place. In addition to when and where we also find elaborations of temporal expressions introduced by as, when; for example:

||| That night, << as Kukul slept on his straw mat, >> Chirumá came upon him. |||

As the examples illustrate, this strategy of a nominal group denoting a time plus a hypotactically elaborating clause is common in narratives when the time is being set or reset in the episodic sequence of events.

Primary Clause Domains Of Hypotactic Elaboration: Nominal Group

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 466):

Clauses with which (occasionally that), who or whose whose domain is a nominal group (the paratactic and cohesive agnates being personal references with he, she, it, they and their possessive equivalents); e.g.

||| This was the first English Department class at the University of Ibadan, || which had just been founded. |||

When the nominal group is non-final in the primary clause, the secondary clause is often enclosed, so as to follow immediately after it, as in

||| Yu, << who has been visiting Taiwan this week, >> did not elaborate. |||

Here the structure is α << =β >>; the angle brackets denote enclosure, doubled as always where the delimited element is a clause. (The paratactic agnate of an enclosed hypotactic elaborating clause would follow the primary clause, as in Yu did not elaborate; he has been visiting Taiwan this week.)

Primary Clause Domains Of Hypotactic Elaboration: Whole Clause Or More Than A Nominal Group

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 465-6):

Clauses with which whose domain is either the whole of the primary clause or some part of it that is more than a nominal group (the paratactic and cohesive agnates being extended text references with it or this); e.g.

||| He talks down to people, || which automatically puts people’s backs up. |||

meaning ‘talking down to people automatically puts people’s backs up’, and so on. Here the sequence is always α ^ =β. The elaborating β-clause is often an ‘attributive relational’ one, with an Attribute such as no good, a serious loss, odd that provides an evaluation of the primary clause (this thus being one grammatical strategy for ‘appraising’ a proposition).

Hypotactic Elaboration: Finite Non-Defining Relative Clause

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 465):

If the secondary clause is finite, it has the same form as a defining relative clause of the WH- type, which is embedded as a Qualifier in a nominal group. It differs from a defining relative clause, however, in two ways: there is a distinction in the meaning, and there is a corresponding distinction in the expression, both in speech and in writing. 

As far as the meaning is concerned, these clauses do not define subsets, in the way that a defining relative clause does. In the only plan which might have succeeded the defining clause which might have succeeded specifies a particular subset of the general class of plans. A non-defining relative clause, on the other hand, adds a further characterisation of something that is already taken to be fully specific. This ‘something’, therefore, is not necessarily just a noun; the domain of a non-defining relative may be a whole clause, or any of its constituents.

Hypotactic Elaboration: Non-Defining Relative Clause

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 464):

The combination of elaboration with hypotaxis gives the category of non-defining relative clause (also called ‘non-restrictive’, ‘descriptive’). This functions as a kind of descriptive gloss to primary clause … hypotactic elaboration is a strategy for introducing into the discourse background information, a characterisation, an interpretation of some aspect of the dominant clause, some form of evaluation (as can also happen with paratactic clarification).

Paratactic Elaboration: Clarification

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 463-4):

In this case the secondary clause clarifies the thesis of the primary clause, backing it up with some form of explanation or explanatory comment. … The clarification often involves a shift in polarity … The clarification may be an evaluative comment. … 

Expressions such as in fact, actually, indeed, at least are common in this type; the nearest written abbreviation is again i.e., or sometimes viz. The conjunctives are cohesive rather structural markers of the paratactic relationship … 

Very often the two clauses are simply juxtaposed. This often makes it difficult to decide, in spoken language, whether they form a clause complex or not; but if the intonation pattern is repeated so that there is tone concord, and the semantic relationship of elaboration is clearly present, this can be taken as a criterion for treating them as forming a nexus. In written language the apposition may be signalled by a special punctuation mark, the colon; but this is a fairly recent innovation, never very consistently used, and the lack of any clear structure signal is no doubt the reason why the abbreviations i.e., e.g. and viz. were first introduced and why they continue to be used today. 

Paratactic Elaboration: Exemplification

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 463):

Here the secondary clause develops the thesis of the primary clause by becoming more specific about it, often citing an actual example …

Paratactic Elaboration: Exposition

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 463):

Here the secondary clause restates the thesis of the primary clause in different words, to present it from another point of view, or perhaps just to reinforce the message … In the limiting case, the second clause more or less repeats the first through lexical repetition or synonymy, reinforcing the message …

Paratactic Clause Elaboration

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 462):

Paratactic (notation 1 =2). The combination of elaboration with parataxis yields three types, the first two of which could be regarded as apposition between clauses:

(i) exposition ‘in other words’ P i.e. Q
(ii) exemplification ‘for example’ P e.g. Q
(iii) clarification ‘to be precise’ P viz. Q

Clause Elaboration: Paratactic Vs Hypotactic

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 461-2):

In terms of realisation, the two tactic forms of elaboration have one property in common — tone concord. That is, each clause in an elaborating clause nexus is realised by a tone group, and each tone group selects the same tone … . However, hypotactic elaborating clauses differ from paratactic ones in that they have their own grammar — the grammar of relative clauses … . In terms of meaning, paratactic elaboration and hypotactic elaboration are largely complementary, covering different aspects of elaboration. Paratactic elaboration involves exposition, exemplification and clarification, while hypotactic elaboration involves description.

Clause Elaboration

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 461):

In elaboration, one clause elaborates on the meaning of another by further specifying or describing it; … The secondary clause does not introduce a new element into the picture but rather provides a further characterisation of one that is already there, restating it, clarifying it, refining it, or adding a descriptive attribute or comment. … The thing that is elaborated may be the primary clause as a whole, or it may be just some part of it — one or more of its constituents.

Expansion: Regions Of Continuous Semantic Space

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 460):

As with all other systems such as the system of process type, we have to think of the system of type of expansion as defining regions within a continuous semantic space … the different types of expansion shade into one another at certain points; and expansion itself can come very close to projection.

Clause Complex Representation & Mode

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 457):

The clause complex is of particular interest in spoken language, because it represents the dynamic potential of the system — the ability to ‘choreograph’ very long and intricate patterns of semantic movement while maintaining a continuous flow of discourse that is coherent without being constructional. This kind of flow is very uncharacteristic of written language. Since grammatical theory evolved as the study of written language, it is good at synoptic-type ‘product’ representations, with constituency as the organising concept, but bad at dynamic-type ‘process’ representations, which is what is needed for the interpretation of speech.

Representing Dependency Structures

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 456-8):

The box diagram and the tree diagram both show how the clause complex is made up of clauses; but they have the disadvantage that they make the structure of the clause complex look like a constituency structure even though it is in fact a dependency structure. … we present a diagrammatic form of representation that brings out both constituency and dependency relations, as in Figure 7-13.

Taxis & Ordering

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 455-6): 

In parataxis there is no dependence of either element on the other; so there is no ordering other that which is represented by the sequence. This is why we use the numerical notation. … The only modification is that which arises through internal bracketing or nesting… 

In a hypotactic structure the elements are ordered in dependence, and this ordering is largely independent of the sequence. Hence we can have various sequences: dependent clause

(i) following dominant,

(ii) preceding dominant,

(iii) enclosed in or

(iv) enclosing dominant …

Hypotactic structures may also involve nesting …

Clause Dependency & Finiteness

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 454-5):

In a hypotactic clause nexus, dependent clauses may be finite or non-finite … In a non-finite dependent clause, the Subject is typically ellipsed. … Other clauses in the clause complex are finite. Paratactically related clauses that are nested within a dependency are of course dependent for this purpose;

Taxis & Classes Of Conjunction

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 454):

Conjunctions may be used to mark the secondary clause in both parataxis and hypotaxis; but different classes of conjunction are used. With parataxis, linkers are used, but only when the logico-semantic relation is one of expansion (e.g. and, or, but). Linkers may also serve a cohesive function. With hypotaxis, binders are used, in the environment of both projection (that; whether, if) and expansion (e.g. when, while; because, since, if, although) and also, in the case of certain non-finite clauses, conjunctive prepositions (e.g. after, before; because of, despite). Both parataxis and hypotaxis may involve correlative conjunctions, where a second conjunction marks the primary clause.

Taxis & Symmetry

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 452):

This basic pattern may be modified by the nature of the logico-semantic relationship, for example, ‘quote’ as a paratactic relation is clearly not symmetrical: ‘John says, quote: its raining’ cannot be reworded as ‘it’s raining, quote: John says’. But whenever it is logically possible, a given semantic relationship will be symmetrical and transitive in combination with parataxis but not in combination with hypotaxis.

Hypotaxis: Logically Non-Symmetrical & Non-Transitive

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 452):

Hypotaxis is the binding of elements of unequal status … The dominant element is free, but the dependent element is not.The hypotactic relation is logically (i) non-symmetrical and (ii) non-transitive. For example, ‘when’: (i) ‘I breathe when I sleep’ does not imply ‘I sleep when I breathe’; (ii) ‘I fret when I have to drive slowly’ and ‘I have to drive slowly when it’s been raining’ together do not imply ‘I fret when it’s been raining’.

Parataxis: Logically Symmetrical & Transitive

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 452):

Parataxis is the linking of elements of equal status … Both the initiating and the continuing elements are free, in the sense that each could stand as a functioning whole. In principle, the paratactic relation is logically (i) symmetrical and (ii) transitive. This can be exemplified by the ‘and’ relation. (i) ‘salt and pepper’ implies ‘pepper and salt’, so the relationship is symmetrical; (ii) ‘salt and pepper’, ‘pepper and mustard’ together imply ‘salt and mustard’, so the relationship is transitive.

The Properties Of Parataxis And Hypotaxis

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 451-2, 453):

Parataxis and hypotaxis are general relationships that are the same throughout the grammar: they define complexes at any rank (clause complex, group or phrase complex, word complex; in addition hypotaxis defines the logical organisation of groups. (In contrast, multivariate structures differ from one grammatical unit to another.) The distinctive properties and patterns of realisation of parataxis and hypotaxis are summarised in Table 7-7.

 

Univariate And Multivariate Structure

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 452):

Multivariate Structure Types By Metafunction

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 451):

… the relationships among the elements in a multivariate structure can be characterised as segmental from an experiential point of view but as prosodic from an interpersonal point of view and as cumulative from a textual one. A prototypical example of a segmental structure is the transitivity structure of a clause, a prototypical example of a prosodic structure is the tone contour that typically extends over a clause, and a prototypical example of a culminative structure is thematic prominence at the beginning of the clause (followed by rhematic non-prominence).

Multivariate Structure

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 451):

A multivariate structure is a configuration of different functional relationships, like Theme + Rheme, Mood + Residue + Moodtag, or Actor + Process + Recipient + Goal.  Note that, although it is the functions that are labelled, the structure actually consists of the relationships among them.

Univariate Structure

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 451):

The tactic structures of complexes are relational in nature; they are the kind of structure that we have called univariate, to distinguish it from the multivariate structures … .  A univariate structure is an iteration of the same functional relationship; … Such iterative structures are unique to the logical mode of meaning; they are formed out of logico-semantic relations.

Nesting, Taxis & Logico-Semantic Type

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 450):

… internal nesting always occurs when there is a change in taxis. That is, any logical sequence of clauses is always either paratactic (1 2 3 …) or hypotactic (α β γ …). It is never a mixture of the two; … If there is a switch in taxis, this automatically leads to nesting … . By the same token, any logical sequence of clauses is always constant in logico-semantic type — projection of ideas, projection of locutions, elaboration, extension or enhancement. It is never a mixture of types; … If there is a switch in logico-semantic type, then nesting automatically occurs …