Finite Embedded Enhancing Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 499):

The finite variant is illustrated by examples such as the applause [[ × when she finished singing]], the scar [[ × where the bullet entered]], the difference [[ × since I started taking Brandex]]. These are condensed variants of an embedded nexus consisting of an elaborating clause with an enhancing clause dependent on it:

the applause [[ = which erupted || × β when she finished singing ]]
the scar [[ = which has formed || × β where the bullet entered ]]

The items when and where are structural conjunctions rather than relative adverbs; they do not have the sense of preposition + which: we cannot say e.g. the scar at which the bullet entered. Contrast Some may precipitate directly from sea water in areas [[where volcanism releases abundant silica]]. Here where is a relative adverb; and it is related to the prepositional phrase in which: ... in areas in which volcanism releases abundant silica.

Embedded Enhancing Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 499):

Here the embedded clause is not a relative clause with a relative of enhancement; rather it is the same type of enhancing clause that occurs non-rankshifted in hypotactic nexuses. In general, the noun functioning as Head is the name of a process or property. There is (1) a finite variant and (2) a non-finite one.

Embedded Enhancing Non-Finite Relative Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 499):

The non-finite clause corresponds to the finite, having some variant of a WH- prepositional phrase as the relative; these may be ordinary imperfectives in -ing, e.g.

the solution [[now being experimented with]]

but perhaps the most typical are ‘destiny’ clauses with to or for*, e.g.

New progressivism is a cause [[ × to fight for ]]

Only the ‘destiny’ type allow an explicit Subject, with for:

Together they would create an artwork [[ × for the community to celebrate]].

∞

* If the relative functions as means (instrument), where the usual preposition is with, there may in fact be no preposition, the sense of instrument being derived from the ‘destiny’ sense of the clause as a whole: e.g.

Alice had no more breath [[ × for talking]] , i.e. ‘for talking with’, ‘with which to talk’.

Contrast the elaborating type

no more water [[ = for drinking]], 

where there is no circumstantial sense (and therefore no preposition could occur).

Embedded Enhancing Finite Relative Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 497-9):

Here the embedded clause contains a relative that serves as a circumstance in the clause. The clause may be either (1) finite or (2) non-finite. … If the embedded clause is finite, the relative is a WH- prepositional phrase: that is, a prepositional phrase with WH- Complement (e.g. in which) or one of its variants which ... in, that ... in, ... in:

(you’re) the one [[ × I’ve always done the most for ]]

Sometimes where or when can be used in this ‘defining relative’ function, for example:

Some may precipitate directly from sea water in areas [[ × where volcanism releases abundant silica]].
We are at a juncture in history [[ × when the options are finished]].

Here where and when are relative adverbs serving as the Head of an adverbial group.

Circumstantial Feature In The Embedded Clause

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 497):

In this type it is the clause that expresses the temporal, causal or other enhancing relation (in the same way as in a dependent clause):

the house [[ × ~ (which/that) she lived in _ / where she lived ]]
I was invited to one [[ × ~ which I spent the entire time in _ ]]

Such clauses are defining relative clauses, like the elaborating ones except that here the definition is circumstantial. Enhancing embedded clauses are either (1) finite or (2) nonfinite. There are two types, (a) embedded enhancing relative clauses and (b) embedded enhancing clauses.

Embedded Expansions: Enhancing

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 497-8):

Here the relation between the embedded clause and the Head noun is a circumstantial one of time, place, manner, cause or condition. There are two types, according to where this relationship is construed: (i) those where the circumstantial sense is located in the embedded clause itself; (ii) those where it is located in the noun functioning as Head. With both these types, the embedded clause may be either (a) a relative clause or (b) an enhancing clause. The different combinations are set out in Table 7.13 below, for both (1) finite and (2) non-finite clauses.

Embedded Expansions: Extending

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 497):

There are no embedded clauses corresponding to the paratactic and hypotactic categories of addition, replacement and alternation (and, instead, except, or). The only sense of extension which produces embedded clauses is that of possession, introduced by whose, of which/which … of or a ‘contact’ relative ending with of …

In one of those cities – one [[ + whose name has long been forgotten]] – there lived an old halac uinic, or chief. 

Note that here, as elsewhere in the grammar, possession is generalised possession; it includes not only concrete ownership but various kinds of concrete and abstract association.

Elaborating Embedded Finite Clause As Head Of Nominal Group

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 496):

In all the examples that have been discussed so far, the embedded clause functions as Postmodifier. It was pointed out in Chapter 6 that there are structures in which the Head is fused with the relative element in the embedded clause: this happens with what, meaning ‘that which’, and with whoever, whatever, whichever meaning ‘anyone who, anything that/which’, as in what we want ‘the thing + that we want’, whoever gets there first ‘anyone/the one + who gets there first’. … The effect of this fusion is that the embedded clause comes to function as Head, although it may be helpful to represent it separately in the analysis (Figure 7-17).

 

This analysis brings out the fact that such embedded clauses function as nominals rather than as clauses; so they take on the range of roles we find with nominals that (cf. what = that which), s/he (cf. whoever = s/he who), the way (cf. how = the way in which), and so on. This is reflected in forms like the one who.

Non-Finite Embedded Clause With The Preposition 'Of'

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 495):

Although a non-finite embedded clause with a preposition is generally circumstantial in meaning, and hence enhancing, there is one other type (in addition to the perfectives with to, already noted) that is elaborating; namely those with of where the relation is appositive, e.g. the job of cleaning the barracks where the job consists in cleaning the barracks. Some of these are uncertain, e.g. the advantage of shopping early, the problem with asking directions where shopping early, asking directions could be either elaborating (appositive) ‘which consists in’ or enhancing (circumstantial) ‘which results from’.

Embedding On A Premodifier

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 495-6):

Note that in examples such as the first person who came in, the best person to do the job, the embedded clause strictly has as its domain not the Head noun person but a premodifying element; the meaning is ‘the first-who-came-in person’, ‘the best-to-do-the-job person’. Compare a hard act to follow, the longest bridge ever built. We can express this relationship structurally as in Figure 7-16. 

 

But as already pointed out, constituency is not a very appropriate concept for representing semantic domain, and for most purposes it suffices to show the clause simply as embedded in the nominal group: a hard act [[to follow]].

Embedded Non-Finite Elaborating Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 494-5):

The elaborating clause is either (a) finite, where the relative is who(m), which, that or implicit (a ‘contact’ relative), or (b) non-finite, where the relative is typically implicit; …With the non-finite clauses, note again the difference between imperfective and perfective, as in the following set:

[imperfective:]

(a) operative the person taking pictures (‘who is/was taking’)

(b) receptive the pictures taken by Mary (‘which were/are taken’) (according to the tense of the outer clause)

[perfective:]

(a) operative

(1) the (best) person to take pictures (‘who ought to take’) [relative = Subject] 

(2) the (best) pictures to take (‘which someone ought to take’) [relative = Complement]

(b) receptive the pictures to be taken (‘which are/were to be taken’)

Glosses in parenthesis suggest the nearest equivalent finite form. In non-finite elaborating clauses, the implicit relative is normally the Subject, but in perfective operative clauses it may be either the Subject (as in the person to take pictures) or the Complement (as in the pictures to be taken). Here we thus see two principles in operation, viz. (1) the Subject may be presupposed in a non-finite clause; (2) the Complement may be presupposed in a defining relative clause. The second principle also extends to Adjuncts, as in the best time to take pictures (‘the best time at which to take pictures’); these are treated as enhancing.

Embedded Elaborating Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 494):

The typical defining relative clause, introduced by who, which, that, or in its so-called ‘contact clause’ form without any relative marker (e.g. he told in the tales he told), is elaborating in sense. The following example illustrates the contrast between an embedded, defining relative clause and a hypotactically dependent, non-defining one.

||| The only person [[ who was kind to him at all]] was the Skin Horse, || who had lived longer in the nursery than any of the others. |||

The relative element in an embedded clause restates the nominal antecedent; thus in

the man [[ who came to dinner ]] stayed for a month

the man who came to dinner and the man who stayed for a month are the same man. This is the same principle by which non-defining relatives are also elaborating in function. The defining ones, however, do not form a separate tone group, because there is only one piece of information here, not two – who came to dinner is not news, but simply part of the characterisation of that particular participant.

Analysis Of A Clause Containing A Nominal Group Containing An Embedded Clause

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 493):

Figure 7-15 shows the analysis of a clause containing a nominal group containing an embedded clause. (The analysis is given in terms of Mood; the embedding could, of course, equally well be incorporated into an analysis in terms of transitivity.)

Embedded Expansions

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 493):

The meaning of an embedded clause, or phrase, that is functioning as an expansion is essentially to define, delimit or specify. Thus the characteristic embedded expansion is the ‘defining relative clause’ (also called ‘restrictive’), like that Jack built in the house that Jack built. Its function is to specify which member or members of the class designated by the Head noun, in this instance house, is or are being referred to.

Functions Of Embedded Clauses And Phrases

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 491-2):

Embedding is thus the ‘rank shift’ by which a clause or phrase comes to function within the structure of a group. The characteristic function of an embedded element is as Postmodifier in a nominal group … . Other functions are: as Head of a nominal group (ie as a nominalisation); and as Postmodifier in an adverbial group. … These are summarised in Table 7-12. All embedding falls into one or other of these major categories; there are no further types. It should be remembered that the category of nominal group includes those having adjective (Epithet) as Head.

Embedding And Hypotaxis Contrasted Diagrammatically

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 491):

Embedding (rankshift) and hypotaxis are contrasted diagrammatically in Figure 7-14. We represent embedded clauses as [[ ]] and embedded phrases as [ ]:

the man [[ who came to dinner ]] / [[ coming to dinner ]]
the man [at the next table]

Embedded Nominalisation As Head: Notational Simplification

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 491n):

Where the embedded element functions as Head, we may leave out the intermediate (nominal group) step in the analysis and represent the embedded clause or phrase as functioning directly in the structure of the outer clause, as Subject or whatever. This is a notational simplification; it does not affect the status of the embedded element as a nominalisation. Note that this still does not make it resemble hypotaxis; in hypotaxis one clause is dependent on another, but in no sense is it a constituent part of it.

Embedding: Premodifier–Postmodifier Agnation And Complexity

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 491n):

We can say that it’s a mechanism whereby a clause or word comes to function as a word, and there may be agnation between words as Premodifiers and phrases or clauses as Postmodifiers, e.g. an new car ~ a car [[that is new]]; a passenger car ~ a car for passengers; an electric car ~ a car [[ [that is] powered by electricity]]. This is reflected in the use of terms such as ‘adjective clause’ (for relative clauses serving as Postmodifier) and ‘noun clause’ (for clauses serving as Head). However, often downranked phrases and clauses construe meanings that are more complex than those lexicalised by words that can serve as Premodifiers. For example, relative clauses typically construe meanings that are in some sense more complex than those construed by adjectives, and the qualities they construe are often instantial ones rather than permanent ones inherent in the Thing; cf. his new car with his car [[that gave off macho growls at the traffic lights]] and the only kind person with the only person [[who was kind to him at all ]].

Taxis Vs Embedding

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 490-1):

Whereas parataxis and hypotaxis are relations between clauses (or other ranking elements), embedding is not.  Embedding is a semogenic mechanism whereby a clause or phrase comes to function as a constituent within the structure of a group, which itself is a constituent of a clause, e.g. who came to dinner in the man who came to dinner. Hence there is no direct relationship between an embedded clause and the clause in which it is embedded; the relationship of an embedded clause to the ‘outer’ clause is an indirect one, with the group as intermediary.  The embedded clause functions in the structure of the group, and the group functions in the structure of the clause.

Imperfective vs Perfective Aspect

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 490):

With [the bound non-finite clause (On) reaching the monument], however, we have a system of ASPECT: imperfective/perfective. The imperfective represents the real, or actual, mode of non-finiteness (‘realis’), while the perfective represents the potential, or virtual (‘irrealis’). So for example:

||| Reaching the monument, || continue straight ahead. |||
||| To reach the monument, || continue straight ahead. |||

Historically the imperfective combined with the preposition ‘at, in’ (cf. a-doing in the folksy what are you a-doing of?); the perfective combined – and still does, in the infinitive form – with the preposition ‘to’. The meaning of the two aspects is very fluid and indeterminate; in the most general terms, the imperfective means act in progress, actual, present, ongoing, steady state or (dependent) proposition, while the perfective means goal to be attained, potential, future, starting and stopping, change of state or (dependent) proposal. Sometimes the distinction is quite clear, as in the example above; sometimes it is very tenuous, as between the first person leaving and the first person to leave.

Blogger Comments:

Note that the source of this "folksy" construction is actually Irish (and Scottish Gaelic) in which the preposition ag /ə/ ('at') precedes such verbs.  The construction existed in Old Irish centuries before it came to English through bilingual speakers from Ireland and Scotland.

The Gradual Loss Of Information From Finite Free Clause To Prepositional Phrase

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 490):

There is a gradual loss of information, in the way a process is construed in the grammar, as one moves from the finite free clause to the prepositional phrase; for example ‘soon you will reach the monument; then continue straight ahead’:

(1) shows transitivity, with Process and Medium; bound mood, with Subject, and primary tense (system I). (2) shows transitivity, with Process and Medium; free mood, with Subject, and reduced primary tense (system II). (3) shows transitivity with Process but no Medium; no mood, and no explicit Subject; no primary tense (system III). (4) shows no transitivity (minor process only), no mood, and no tense.

Non-Finite Dependent Clauses Without Verbs

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 490):

There is one type of non-finite dependent clause which is often not recognised because it has no verb in it; for example, with no-one in charge, with everyone so short of money.  These are in fact ‘attributive relational’ clauses, with zero alternation of the non-finite verb being (less commonly they may be identifying, eg with that the only solution).  The verb be will always be present in the agnate finite clause (eg since no-one is in charge); and in the non-finite it is always possible to insert being, with very little difference in meaning.

Non-Finite Clauses With No Explicit Marker Of Dependent Status

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 489):

A non-finite clause, on the other hand, is by its nature dependent, simply by virtue of being non-finite. It typically occurs, therefore, without any other explicit marker of its dependent status. Hence when a non-finite clause occurs without a conjunction, there is no doubt about its hypotactic relation in a clause complex; but there may be no indication of its logical-semantic function. … 

The best solution here is to find the nearest finite agnate clause. If this is a non-defining relative clause, the non-finite is elaborating. If it is a coordinate clause, the non-finite is extending. If it is an enhancing clause, the non-finite is enhancing and could probably be introduced by a conjunctive preposition.

Clause Finiteness & Dependency

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 487-8):

A finite clause is in principle independent; it becomes dependent only if introduced by a binding (hypotactic) conjunction. If it is joined in a clause complex, its natural status is paratactic. In this case its logical-semantic relationship to its neighbour is typically shown by a linking (paratactic) conjunction. 

Frequently, however, two or more finite clauses with no conjunction in them are nonetheless related by expansion; and this is recognised in writing by their being punctuated as one sentence. Typically in such instances the relation is one of elaboration as described above. But in both spoken and written English we find unconjoined sequences which seem to be functioning as clause complexes, yet which do not seem to be restricted to the elaborating type.

Multivalent Markers Of Expansion

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 487):

Certain markers of expansion are multivalent: they can mark either elaboration and extension or extension and enhancement. … Examples of such conjunctive markers with two (or more) senses are listed in Table 7-11. …The best strategy [for analysis] is to explore close agnates and to see if these are elaborating, extending or enhancing expansions.

Non-Finite Enhancing Clauses: Explicitness And Determinacy

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 486-7):

If the dependent clause is non-finite, the circumstantial relationship is made explicit by the structural conjunction or conjunctive preposition. The conjunctions are a subset of those occurring in finite clauses, and their meaning is essentially the same. The prepositions tend to be somewhat less specific, e.g. in turning the corner, on thinking it over, with you being away, without John knowing; and the meaning of the clause introduced by a preposition may vary according to the sense of the primary clause:

||| Without having been there || I can’t say what happened. |||
(cause: reason ‘because I wasn’t there’) 

||| Without having been there || I know all that happened. |||
(condition: concessive ‘although I wasn’t there’) 

||| Without having been there || I rather like the place. |||
(indeterminate)

Nevertheless, it is usually possible to assign these clauses to the categories of time, manner and cause, and to match the prepositions up in a general way with the conjunctions.

Perfective Non-Finite Enhancing Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 485):

Note that perfective non-finite clauses (e.g. to jazz up the title) typically express purpose, but they sometimes express result instead, just as finite clauses introduced by so that may express either result or purpose; in other words, purpose (‘irrealis’) may shade into result (‘realis’).

Adverbial Conjunctions

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 484):

Adverbial conjunctions are as/so long as, as/so far as, (as) much as, e.g. as long as you’re here ... , as far as I know ... , much as I’d like to ... (compare non-finite as well as, which is extending not enhancing). In origin these express limitation, a particular point up to which a certain circumstance is valid.

Nominal Conjunctions

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 484):

Nominal conjunctions include in case, in the event that, to the extent that, and the + various nouns of time or manner, e.g. the day, the moment, the way. These last have evolved from prepositional phrases with the enhancing clause embedded in them, e.g. on the day when we arrived; but they now function to introduce hypotactic clauses just like other conjunctions, e.g. their daughter was born the day we arrived, the way they’re working now the job’ll be finished in a week. One clear indication that such constructions have been reanalysed from nominal groups with embedded clauses to nominal conjunctions introducing hypotactically dependent clauses is that the former ‘nominal groups’ no longer have the potential for modification; thus while we can say on the beautiful day when we arrived, it would be odd (or impossible) to say their daughter was born the beautiful day we arrived.

Verbal Conjunctions

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 484):

Verbal conjunctions are derived from the imperative or from the present/active or past/passive participle + (optionally) that: provided (that), seeing (that/how), suppose/supposing (that), granted (that), say (that). In origin these are projections; their function as expanding conjunction reflects the semantic overlap between expansion and projection in the realm of ‘irrealis’: ‘let us say/think that ... ’ = ‘if ... ’, as in say they can’t mend it, shall I just throw it away?