Elaborating Hypotactic Verbal Group Complexes: Time–Phase

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 570-1):

The other part of the time-phase system that has remained as a category of phase is that of ‘duration/inception’: ‘durative’ going on, contrasting with ‘inceptive/conclusive’, starting and stopping. For example: 

||| I keep telling them || I give them the money || so long as they’ll leave. ||| 

||| The line needs to keep being shut down || to have mechanical work done on there. |||

||| If they stop performing their task, || they’re likely to be deprived of the opportunities [[ to dedicate themselves to intellectual work]] . |||

Of these, the ‘go on’ term takes the imperfective; starting and stopping take either, with little difference in meaning – except that stop requires imperfective; stop + perfective is now interpreted as a hypotactic clause complex of purpose, as in

||| α she stopped || ×β to think ||| ‘she stopped, in order to think’

There is also an inceptive-durative ‘start to go on’, as in they’ve taken to coming in at the back door instead of the front.

Elaborating Hypotactic Verbal Group Complexes: Time–Phase (Lost Opposition)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 570):

The time-phase system has split into two. The original opposition is doing/is to do (meaning, in modern terms, ‘keeps doing’ and ‘will do’) has disappeared, since both have turned into grammatical categories of the verbal group. The former has evolved into tense, defined along the dimension of future/present/past. Thus the be ... ing form, as in he is doing, which was originally two verbal groups like modern keeps doing, is now the secondary present tense form within the one group, meaning ‘present in ...’; e.g. is doing ‘present in present’, was doing ‘present in past’, will have been doing ‘present in past in future’, was going to be doing ‘present in future in past’, etc. The latter, the be to ... form, as in he is to do, similarly turned into a secondary future; but here there has been a further change: is to has now turned into a modal form, and its function as secondary tense has been taken over by is going to.

Elaborating Hypotactic Verbal Group Complexes: Reality–Phase

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 569-70):

The reality-phase, or realisation, system is based on the contrast between ‘apparent’ (seems to be) and ‘realised’ (turns out to be); both are perfective, the first being unreal, the second unreal emerging into real.

Witnesses said || the sand dredger seemed to go past the Marchioness || but suddenly smashed into the side || and went right over it. 

This offensive appears to be a sign of their strength, || but their position is highly contradictory. 

Both in terms of quantity and quality, FY 1998 proved to be a very challenging recruiting year. 

The 22 bibliophiles turned out to trail clouds of glory. 

There is a variant of the ‘realised’ which is imperfective, e.g. she turns out knowing all about it; this is looking at it from the ‘real’ end, as reality emerging from appearance. We can also relate the passive voice to this general meaning, with its original sense of ‘is (in a state of) having been realised’.

Elaborating Hypotactic Verbal Group Complexes: Phase

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 569-70):

Here the verb in the primary group is a very general one of the ‘intensive: ascriptive’ class, and it is elaborated by the verb in the secondary verbal group. The semantic relation between the two is one of PHASE (see Table 8-3). The basic notion is ‘be (intensive) + do’, using ‘do’ to stand for any process. The two dimensions of phase are time-phase and reality-phase.

The Meaning Of Perfective Vs Imperfective Aspect

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 568-9):

The difference in meaning between perfective and imperfective was referred to above. The general principle is that the perfective is ‘unreal’ and the imperfective is ‘real’; they may be opposed in any one of a number of contrasts, as future to present, appearance to reality, starting off to going on, goal to means, intention to action, or proposal to proposition; and sometimes the difference between them is minimal. The pairs of examples in Table 8-2 will give some feeling for the distinction.

The Secondary Verbal Group: Perfective Vs Imperfective Aspect

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 568):

The secondary group may be perfective, with or without to, e.g. (to) do; or imperfective, e.g. doing, in aspect. The other non-finite form, the ‘past/passive participle’, e.g. done, usually stands for the perfective, as in I want it (to be) done, consider it (to have been) done; but in itself it is neutral, and in other contexts it neutralises the distinction, e.g. I saw it (be/being) done.

Non-Final Verbal Groups And Transitivity

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 568n):

Non-final verbal groups may realise features that relate to the transitivity of the clause (and this is always the case with causative constructions). For example, while phase does not constrain the interpretation of the Subject as a particular type of participant, connation does; it implies that the Subject is like a Behaver in addition to whatever other participant roles it serves. Contrast [phase:] she seemed to like him with [conation:] she tried to like him. This is why phased existential clauses present no problem, but conative ones are odd: there seemed to be a person on top of the hill vs. there tried to be a person on top of the hill. As we have seen in Chapter 5, there in existential clauses serves as Subject, but it does not play a participant role; so when a participant role interpretation is ‘imposed’ by a conative verbal group complex, there is a clash in the grammar.

The Last Secondary Group Realises The Process Type Of The Clause

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 568):

It is the secondary group, or last secondary group if there is more than one, that realises the process type of the clause, e.g. [material:] she seemed to mend it, [behavioural:] she seemed to laugh, [mental:] she seemed to like him, [verbal:] she seemed to tell us, [relational:] she seemed to be nice.

Primary Vs Secondary Verbal Group: Finiteness

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 568):

The primary group (α) may be finite or non-finite; it is the primary group that carries the mood of the clause, e.g. she tried to do it, what was she trying to do, was she trying to do it, try to do it, having tried to do it etc. The secondary group (β γ δ ...) is always non-finite, this being the realisation of its dependent status.

Hypotactic Verbal Group Complexes Are Always Progressive

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 568):

The hypotactic sequence is always progressive – α ^ β (as in tried to do), α ^ β ^ γ (as in began to try to do), α ^ β ^ γ ^ δ (as in wanted to begin to try to do) .... While the groups making up the complex are typically contiguous, as in the examples above, the complex may be discontinuous:

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

||| Again, a first requirement is [[ to do no harm to organisational frameworks [[ that, through years of evolution, are finally at the stage [[ where they are supporting programs [[ that are actually helping us to get on with the business [[ of increasing understanding]] ]] ]] ]] ]] . |||

The Traditional Analysis Of Hypotactic Verbal Group Complexes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 567n):

The traditional analysis was to treat the primary group as Predicator in its own right and the secondary group together with elements following it in the clause as an embedded non-finite clause serving as Complement, and this type of analysis was taken over in modern formal approaches, at least initially. 

Comparing the two types of analysis in a meaningful way is not possible within the space available here. However, we can note that while the traditional analysis is forced on us if our only model of structural organisation is that of constituency, the analysis we present here becomes possible once we recognise tactic interdependency structures. It allows us to show the analogy, and agnation, between sequences of verbs, and sequences of clauses, with areas of indeterminacy between the two. It enables us to throw light on so-called ‘serial verb constructions’ in a range of languages, interpreting the findings that have emerged, particularly in the past 15 years or so. 

Further, it enables us to show how categories of the simple verbal group have evolved from verbal group complexes (cf. references below to tense, modality and voice). And it also makes it possible to avoid one of the major drawbacks of the traditional analysis: the secondary verbal group plus the elements following it do not in fact behave as Complements. For example, if they were Complements, the wh- interrogative should be what is she trying?; but it is not: it is what is she trying to do?. 

Verbal group complexes have also been discussed under the heading of ‘catenatives’, reflecting the fact that the verbs in such a series are concatenated.

Hypotactic Verbal Group Complexes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 567-8):

Like a paratactic verbal group complex and a simple verbal group, a hypotactic verbal group complex, e.g. tried to do, serves only one set of functions in the clause (and only in the clause, since it cannot be embedded on its own): it is the Process in the experiential transitivity structure, and the Finite (...) Predicator in the interpersonal modal structure. For example:

||| We tried to open windows || to escape. ||| 

||| In 1960 he began to travel. ||| 

The centre is helping field the 150,000 inquiries [[ flooding in nationally each day]] . 

... these doctrines, || which are highly serviceable to power and authority, || but seem to have no other merits. 

||| I always tried to avoid tearing her web || and save her repair work, || but she was a quick and efficient spinner. ||| 

||| I’ve been reading a lot of Lawrence; || I’ve been trying to read most of the works of Lawrence. |||

'Narrowing' In Prepositional Phrases (Embedding) And Nominal Groups (Hypotaxis)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 567):

Perversely, however, English tends to go the other way [see previous post], and this employs embedding not hypotaxis (hence many of the prepositions could be replaced by of):

(it’s) [ at [ the back right-hand corner [ in/of [ the top drawer [ in/of [ the small cupboard [ against [ the far wall [ in/of [ the main bedroom [ to the left of [ the landing [ upstairs]]]]]]]]]]]]]

The address on the outside of an envelope forms a similar sequence.

This ‘narrowing’ relationship is in fact the same as that found in the nominal group, where the ‘logical’ structure of the Premodifier is a hypotactic sequence of words. This also goes ‘in reverse’, hence the ordering ... γβα; but it is hypotactic, not embedded:

ζ those ε two δ splendid γ old β electric α trains

Enhancing Hypotactic Prepositional Phrase And Adverbial Group Complexes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 566-7):

With prepositional phrases and adverbial groups of place and time there is also a hypotactic relation of enhancement, with the special semantic feature of ‘narrowing’, as in tomorrow before lunch. Examples, starting with a constructed sequence:

(it’s) | α upstairs | ×β to the left of the landing | ×γ in the main bedroom | ×δ against the far wall | ×ε in the small cupboard | ×ζ in the top drawer | ×η at the back right hand corner | 

Starting from Narmada, || take the main turn-off south towards Praya.

From Beleka the road continues north, || rejoining the main east-west axis near Kopang, about 30km east of Mataram. 

You know || what’s happening tomorrow at five o’clock, don’t you?

Extending Hypotactic Prepositional Phrase And Adverbial Group Complexes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 566):

The hypotactic extension of adverbial groups/prepositional phrases is essentially the same as that for nominal groups, with as well as, instead of, rather than, etc.:

In government as well as in commerce, obviously, power was being defined as wealth, the accumulation of economic resources [[[ by which to live more comfortably || and to command more authority]]] . 

It was far better for a weapon used for retaliatory purposes to be under the sea rather than on land. 

A very important development is the building of research stations on the farms instead of in neighbouring towns. 

By the time the Great Central was built || the trains could manage the gradients much more easily || and the Great Central line usually went across the valleys ... instead of round them like the earlier railways || so the distances were shorter || and you got better views.

Prepositional Phrase Complex Vs Prepositional Phrase With Nominal Group Complex

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 566):

Note the difference between these, which have two prepositional phrases in hypotactic relation, and phrases with between, which consist of one prepositional phrase with two paratactic nominal groups as Complement:

(he stood) between [ the door + | 2 and the window ]

It may be helpful to diagram these, as shown in Figure 8-2.

Elaborating Hypotactic Prepositional Phrase And Adverbial Group Complexes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 565):

This is the relationship that is found in sequences such as:

She remained in Lincoln from 1911 until 1919 when she moved owing to the illness of her father, one time Archdeacon of Leicester, and later Canon of Peterborough, and settled in Kettering. 

I took a freighter from New York, all the way up the Amazon into Peru ... 

This twists around a shady, lush river gorge [[ thick with bamboo]] to Bagudesa, || then continues through extensive rice-fields to Kumbung. 

In 1990, London prefixes had changed from 01 to 071 or 081. 

In the present period, the issues arise across the board, <<as they commonly do>>: from personal relations in the family and elsewhere, to the international political/economic order

Here the hypotactic complex construes a path through time or space, including abstract space.

Hypotactic Adverbial Group And Prepositional Phrase Complexes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 565):

As with parataxis, adverbial groups and prepositional phrases can be linked hypotactically: the tactic relationship is based on identity in function rather than difference in internal structure. Hypotaxis is used to construe spatial and temporal paths and to construe gradual narrowing of the specification of a location. It combines with (i) elaborating, (ii) extending and (iii) enhancing relations.

Extending Hypotactic Nominal Group Complexes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 565):

In exactly the same way as with elaboration, a nominal group may be extended hypotactically by a prepositional phrase, the preposition having the same sense as when used to introduce a non-finite extending clause – (1) addition (positive): as well as, in addition to; (2) variation, replacement: instead of, rather than, unlike; (3) variation, subtraction: except for. Examples:

Its four levels include a sculpture garden, contemporary collections of Australian and European prints and drawings, 20th century British and European art, an impressionist exhibition as well as a new coffee shop and theatre space.

We have pursued a number of initiatives in recent years || to enhance the capabilities of both our forces forward-deployed on the peninsula and our reinforcing elements, as well as the forces of our South Korean Allies.

Our intent is [[ to develop the most advanced, reliable, and effective equipment || and to field it || when and where it’s needed, || using the Chairman’s Combating Terrorism Readiness Initiative Fund in addition to resources [[ allocated by the formal budget process]] ]] .

Venice was developed in 1904 || and was intended to be a western American cultural center like its Italian namesake, with canals instead of streets, and opera houses rather than amusement piers.

The nitrogen compounds (except for nitrous oxide) dropped from 8 to 10 parts per billion by volume (ppbv) to only 1.5 to 2 ppbv. 

Proteins, unlike carbohydrates and fats, cannot be stored for future use.

Hypotactically Elaborating Phrase vs Hypotactically Extending Clause

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 565):

Note that with a little of me thrown in in the following example

Those two guys, << with a little of me thrown in, >> came together as Lewis Moon.

is a clause, not a phrase; there are two elements of transitivity (a little of me + thrown in):

Elaborating Hypotactic Nominal Group Complex

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 564):

We saw in Chapter 6 that a nominal group can have as Postmodifier not only an embedded clause (‘defining relative’ clause) but also an embedded prepositional phrase, as in the man = [ in the moon ]. There is the same contrast between embedding and hypotaxis with a phrase as there is with a clause. Parallel to

(a) || (this is) my new house, = || β which Jack built ||
(b) || (this is) the house = [[ that Jack built ]] ||

we have

(c) (have you seen) | my new hat, = | β with the feather in
(d) (have you seen) | my hat = [ with the feather in] |

The secondary element in (c) is a descriptive phrase, ‘note that it has a feather in it’, not a defining one as in (d). Examples:

It began with worship at St. John’s Episcopal Church, across Lafayette Park from the White House 

Before the Opera House was completed || the Town Hall’s Centennial Hall, with seating for 2,000, was Sydney’s main concert venue.

Hypotactic Nominal Group Complexes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 564):

In a hypotactic nominal group complex, the dominant element can, in principle, serve the same function as the whole complex, but dependent elements cannot. Thus instead of have you seen (α) my new hat, (β) with the feather in, we can also say have you seen my new hat, but not have you seen with the feather in. While the dominant element has to be a nominal group, dependent elements can be adverbial groups or prepositional phrases. In nominal group complexing, hypotactic relations are either (i) elaborating, or (ii) extending; but we do not find enhancing ones.

Hypotactic Group Complexes And Logico-Semantic Type

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 564):

When groups and phrases are linked hypotactically, they are given unequal status, one serving as the dominant element (α) and the remainder as dependent ones (β γ δ ...). Hypotactic verbal group complexes involve either expansion or projection, but hypotactic nominal group complexes and hypotactic adverbial group/prepositional phrase complexes are based only on expansion.

Paratactic And Hypotactic Word Complexes Within Groups

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 563-4):

We are not in general going below the rank of the group. But note that paratactic relationships are also found within group structures, as relationships between words, as in three or four (days), bigger and better (bananas), (he) either will or won’t (object), (a) firm but gentle (voice). Figure 8-1 gives an example of a nominal group incorporating both a paratactic and a hypotactic word complex; the structure is:

Deictic / γ ^ Epithet / β 1 ^ β 2 δ ^ β 2 γ ^ β 2 β ^ β 2 α ^ Thing / α

Enhancing Paratactic Group Complexes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 563):

Here the semantic relationship involves a circumstantial relationship; this was not recognised as a distinct type in traditional accounts. As noted above, enhancing relationships are essentially between figures as a whole, and only rarely can they be interpreted as holding between particular elements of a figure. Examples are typically instances of time or cause:

[verbal group:]
(He) tried, but failed, (to extract the poison). ‘although he tried, he failed’ – concession 

[nominal group:]
All those on board, and hence all the crew, (must have known that something was amiss). 

Film hadn’t been important until the Italians with realism and Rossellini and De Sica, then the French nouvelle vague. 

Optimistu’s true nature dawned slowly. It became slightly nasty, then really rather awful, then unremittingly horrendous and then lethal only by degrees.

[adverbial group/prepositional phrase:]
(She took it) calmly enough, although not without some persuasion. 

I imagined my framed survey of Xitu hanging above the fire for a few years, then being moved to the spare room, then into the bathroom, then finally being confined to the attic. 

From this crossroads town follow the main road south through increasingly arid landscapes towards Rembitan, a pretty little village claiming a 17th-century mosque, then Sade, where tall, thatched lumbung (rice-barns) climb the slopes.

Again, there are some cliché-like instances, e.g. (he’s been here) thirty-five years if a day.

The Use Of Paratactic Extension To Indicate Degree

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 563):

Extension can be used iconically to indicate degree; for example:

Television is very dangerous || because it repeats and repeats and repeats our disasters instead of our triumphs.

Extending Paratactic Nominal Group Complex Reinforced By A Manner Circumstance

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 562-3):

An extending nominal group complex may be reinforced by a circumstantial Adjunct of Manner such as both, jointly, separately, individually, respectively:

||| We had a wonderful piece of property in Connecticut, back up in the hills, || and my brother and I were both very interested in snakes and birds. ||| 

||| Ross, << expected to go to the Middle East on Tuesday, >> intends to meet separately with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. ||| 

||| For FY99, our requests for regular and supplemental appropriations [[[ to fund these operations, || totalling $1.9 billion and $850 million respectively,]]] were also approved. ||| 

These indicate how the element realised by the nominal group complex takes part in the process of the clause – either jointly or separately.

A number of common expressions like slowly but surely, last but not least, by hook or by crook belong to this general pattern.

Extending Paratactic Group Complexes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 562):

This is the traditional category of ‘coordination’. Here the semantic relationship is one of ‘and, or, nor, but, but not’, as in the following examples:

[verbal group:] 

(I) neither like nor dislike (it). 

America can – and should – be proud of its soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. 

There are, and can be, no general answers. 

[nominal group:] 

All the King’s horses and all the King’s men (couldn’t put Humpty Dumpty together again). 

Bruce and Philip were friends, || Jane and I were friends || and then you and –  

Either you or your head (must be off, and that in about half no time).  

[adverbial group/prepositional phrase:] 

Swiftly and without a moment’s hesitation (he leapt into the fray).

Yes, insofar as they are driven to work by the need for survival; or by material reward, ...

Paratactically Elaborating Group vs Embedded Group As Qualifier

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 561):

It is important to distinguish between an elaborating group and an embedded group occurring as Qualifier: e.g. 

• (taxis, elaborating) his latest book, ‘The Jaws of Life’, 
• (embedded) his book ‘The Jaws of Life’. 

The former is related to a non-defining relative; it means ‘his latest book – which is “The Jaws of Life” ’, and is marked by tone concord:

//4 ^ his /latest /book the //4 jaws of /life was a //1 ghastly suc/cess //

The latter is related to a defining relative clause; it means ‘this particular book of his (he has written others)’ and has no tonic prominence on book.

Note that or in the sense of an alternative name for something is elaborating not extending; e.g.:

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

I understand || that later, you come to an age of hope, or at least resignation.