Desiderative Projections: Offer vs Command

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 584):

… a mental process of desideration projects an exchange of the goods-&-services type, i.e. a proposal. If the Subject of the projection is the same as that of the mental process clause, the proposal is an offer, as in she wants to do it; if the two are different, then the proposal is a command, as in she wants you to do it. In the first type, the Subject is not repeated, but is carried over from the desiderative clause. (It can then be made explicit by a reflexive, as in she wants to do it herself.) All such projections could be treated as clause nexuses, as in Figure 8-13.

Time Reference Of Verbal Group Complexes: Expansion vs Projection

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 584):

… a hypotactic verbal group complex of the ‘expansion’ type represented a single happening. Thus, there is only one time reference; if the reference is to tomorrow, then the tense of the primary group will be future:

(i) phase: he’ll start to do it tomorrow (not: he starts)
(ii) conation: he’ll try to do it tomorrow (not: he tries)
(iii) modulation: he’ll help to do it tomorrow (not: he helps)

An expression such as want to do looks at first sight very similar to these; but whereas we can say he’ll want to do it tomorrow, it is also quite normal to say he wants to do it tomorrow. The wanting and the doing have distinct time references. We can even say yesterday I wanted to do it tomorrow – but not yesterday I started to do it tomorrow.

The relation between want and to do is one of projection. A projection of do it, as in wants to do it, is a meaning, and thus does not imply ‘does it’ – whereas an expansion, such as tries to do it or starts to do it, does imply ‘does it’, even though the doing may be partial or unsuccessful.

Causative Modulation: Analyses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 583):

Analyses are shown in Figure 8-12.

Three Degrees Of Passive Causative Modulation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 582-3):

Furthermore, causatives have passives; so we can have

(high)       they were made/forced/required to accept
(median:) they were got/obliged to accept
(low:)       they were allowed/permitted to accept

and this enables us to interpret modulation as it occurs within the verbal group:

(high)       they are required to accept          they must accept
(median:) they are obliged to accept           they should accept
(low:)       they are allowed to accept          they may accept

Verbal modulation with must, etc., is now a kind of modality; it is semantically related to those passive causative modulations which have the circumstantial senses of ‘do under compulsion/from obligation/with permission’. What links this semantically to modality in the other sense, that of probability, is that both represent a judgement on the part of the speaker: just as in that may be John the may expresses the speaker’s judgement of likelihood (‘I consider it possible’), so in John may go the may expresses the speaker’s judgement of obligation (‘I give permission’).

Three Degrees Of Causative Modulation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 582, 582n):

Only one or two modulations have causative equivalents; e.g.

John remembered to do it
(caus.) Mary reminded John to do it

with the sense of ‘John did it according to attention’ and ‘Mary caused John to do it according to attention’. However, there is a special set that exist only as causatives, where the meaning is simply that of agency: make, cause, force, require, let, allow, permit, etc. These admit of three degrees of modulation:

(high:)      this made (forced, required) them (to) accept our terms
(median:) this had (got, obliged) them (to) accept our terms⁶
(low:)       this let (allowed, permitted) them (to) accept our terms

The concept of agency is inherently a circumstantial one. We have already seen in Chapter 5 that the Agent, which from one point of view is a participant in the clause (John did it), is from another point of view a kind of Manner (it was done by John). It is thus not surprising that the causative Agent enters into this kind of hypotactic structure, with the agency expressed as a process through verbs like force and allow.

 

⁶ Also imperfective: got them working, had him begging for mercy.

Causative Conation: Potentiality

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 582):

Here there are causative forms as follows:

(1) potential: the patient can see clearly
(caus.)           this enables the patient to see clearly 

(2) achieval:  John learnt to fly
(caus.)           Mary taught John to fly

Again, these causatives have passives: the patient is enabled to see clearly, John was taught to fly by Mary.

Causative Conation: Reussive

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 581):

There is no causative form of the conative – that is, no word meaning ‘make ... try’; this can, of course, be expressed analytically, for example

(she) | α made | (him) | ×β try | +γ to eat | (it)

The causative of the reussive has help, and perhaps enable:

reussive: John managed to open the lock
(caus.) Mary helped John to open the lock

Causative Time-Phase: Durative & Inceptive

 Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 581):

Here the same verbs keep, start/stop, also function causatively:

(1) durative:   the ball kept rolling

(caus.)            John kept the ball rolling 

(2) inceptive:  the ball started/stopped rolling

(caus.)             John started/stopped the ball rolling

Causative Reality-Phase?

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 580-1):

It would be possible to recognise causative forms of reality-phase, as follows:

(1) apparent: John seems to be responsible
(caus.)           Mary considers John to be responsible 

(2) realised:  John turns out to be responsible
(caus.)          that proves John to be responsible

But consider and prove are better treated as, respectively, mental and verbal processes, with the proposition/process being projected; note the closely agnate finite clauses with that, and cf. it seems/turns out that John is responsible.

Blogger Comments:

Lest this be misunderstood, at clause rank, the causative examples are relational processes with (1) mental assignment and (2) verbal assignment.

Analytic Causative By Expansion Type

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 580):

Causatives with make, get/have and let are of the enhancing type. But there are causative forms in all three types of expansion: see Table 8-6. 

Analytic Causative: Discontinuous Verbal Group Complex Serving As Process

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 579-80):

In the transitive analysis we introduced the notion of an Initiator, a participant who brings about the action performed by the Actor. This function appears in the explicit causative structure with the verb make. We can then, of course, extend the agency further: Mary made John roll the ball, as in Figure 8-10:

Note that in the ergative analysis the function of Agent recurs, allowing for indefinite expansion along the lines of Fred made Mary make John ...

But there is still only one process, that of rolling; so we can still represent it as two verbal groups in hypotactic relationship. In this instance, however, they are discontinuous, as shown in Figure 8-11).

Analytic Causative: An Alternative Realisation Of ‘Effective’ Agency

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 578-9):

We shall now turn to hypotactic verbal group complexes of expansion that also include a feature of causation. Such complexes are involved in the realisation of the transitivity system of AGENCY. We saw in Chapter 5 that there is a causative element in the structure of the English clauseFor example, John rolled the ball can be interpreted either as ‘John (Actor) did something to the ball (Goal)’ or as ‘John (Agent) caused the ball (Medium) to do something’.

We can always express this agency analytically, by saying John made the ball roll, where made ... roll is a hypotactic verbal group complex. Here the causative verbal group complex is thus an alternative realisation of the feature of ‘effective’ agency: an additional participant is introduced into the clause through the expansion of the verbal group realising the Process. In the ergative analysis this looks the same as John rolled the ball; but in the transitive it does not, and this enables us to interpret the difference between them: in John rolled the ball, he acted directly on it, whereas in John made the ball roll he may have done so by leverage, psychokinesis or some other indirect force (Figure 8-9).

As always, it is the combination of the two analyses, the transitive and the ergative, that gives the essential insight.

Blogger Comments:

The transitive interpretation of the participants in John rolled the ball as Actor and Goal contradicts the discussion (pp351-2) where the participants of such clauses (the police exploded the bomb, the sergeant marched the prisoners) are interpreted as Initiator and Actor.

Behavioural Conatives

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 578):

The hypotactic verbal group complexes we have looked at so far are, in principle, confined to features of the Process itself – features of phase, conation and modulation. But we have noted that conative hypotactic verbal group complexes with verbs of behaviour in the primary verbal group tend to add the role of Behaver to the experiential interpretation of the Subject, as is brought out by the contrast in voice.

Passive Enhancing Hypotactic Verbal Group Complex: Modulation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 577-8):

Many of the ‘enhancing’ verbal group complexes are simply inappropriate in the passive; they characterise an approach or attitude to the process, and this is likely to apply to an Actor but not to a Goal – it does not make much sense to say she hastened to be reassured, or your word ventures to be doubted. Others, such as happen and tend, are impersonal and so are indifferent to the selection of voice; e.g.

The house happened to have been built facing the wrong way. 

If the student is of the right calibre to pursue a course, which the Ministry enacts is a worthwhile full-time course, he shall receive the same justice from Britain whatever authority he happens to have been born under. 

How I happened to be marooned at Balicou doesn’t interest you in the faintest degree. 

One other aspect of oral work – the memorisation and speaking of prose and verse – tends to be considered by many teachers as quite extraneous to the normal class work. 

If conduct in prison were a deciding consideration selection would tend to be left to a time near the date of release.

Since they are all metaphorical, in the sense that the verbal group is representing a circumstance and not some aspect of a process, the functional analysis provides only a partial interpretation; to get the full picture we would need to take account of the congruent form, e.g. by chance the house had been built facing the wrong way. There would be no change of role in the passive (see Figure 8-8).

Conation Or Simple Negative?

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 576n):

Note the incongruence of the form people failed to accept her, meaning ‘people did not accept her despite her efforts’. Here failed to is functioning as a simple negative, such that there is a proportion

she was not accepted : people did not accept her ::
she failed to be accepted : people failed to accept her

Compare examples such as I sent them a letter but it failed to arrive, the banks failed to support them. These should perhaps be interpreted as a form of enhancement, meaning ‘do negatively’!

Conative Adjunct

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 576-7):

The extending complex is a two-part process, in which the Subject fills a dual participant role: Behaver (in the conative component) plus Actor, or some other role, in the happening itself. For the same reason, Adjuncts in the clause may relate semantically to the conative component like hard, quickly in she tried hard to write well, she quickly learnt to tell them apart.

The Filipino tried hard to put in a storming finish, but his attacks were nearly all neatly countered by the clever champion.

There is no need in the analysis to tie these structurally to the primary verbal group; but it is useful to specify their function, by labelling them as ‘conative Adjunct’.

Passive Extending Hypotactic Verbal Group Complex: Conation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 576, 577):

Here the relation of passive to active is different, because a conative verb, although not constituting a separate happening, does in fact represent a behavioural process, and it retains its behavioural sense when the clause is passive. Thus an elaborating active/passive pair such as people started to accept her/she started to be accepted is not paralleled by the corresponding extending pair

(people) | tried | + β to accept | (her)
(she) | tried | + β to be accepted |

(see analysis in Figure 8-7). Examples:

He tried to be pleased at the idea. 

Francesca and Grazie were habitual committee chairmen and they usually managed to be elected cochairmen, equal bosses, of whatever PTA or civic project was being launched.

Passive Elaborating Hypotactic Verbal Group Complex: Phase

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 575-6):

Here the transitivity functions remain the same whether the clause is passive or active; there is an exact proportion ants are biting me: I’m getting bitten by ants :: ants keep biting me: I keep getting bitten by ants:

(ants) | keep | = β biting | (me)
(I) | keep | = β getting bitten | (by ants)

Compare:

no one seems to have mended the lights yet
the lights don’t seem to have been mended yet
when will they start printing the book?
when will the book start being printed?

See Figure 8-6 for the analysis in mood and transitivity.

Verbal Group Complexes: Taxis And Voice

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 575):

A clause containing a verbal group complex is still a single clause, and represents a single process. It has only one transitivity and voice structure.

If it is a paratactic complex, this process consists of two happenings – two actions, events or whatever. If the verbal group complex is hypotactic, on the other hand, there is only one happening. Thus in a paratactic complex each verbal group has a definite voice, although the voice must be the same in each case; but in a hypotactic complex only the group that expresses the happening, the secondary group, actually embodies a feature of voice. The primary group is active in form, but there is no choice involved. (The exception to this is when the clause is causative.)

The different types of hypotactic complex have different potentialities as regards the passive. If the secondary verbal group is passive, the meaning of the categories of phase is unaffected; but there is an effect on the interpretation of conative forms.

Enhancing Hypotactic Verbal Group Complex: Modulation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 574):

Here the primary verbal group is again not a separate process; but this time it is a circumstantial element in the process expressed by the secondary verbal group. If we say Alice ventured to ask something, this means she did ask it; but she did so tentatively. (The doubtful one here is hesitate, which perhaps belongs with the ‘projection’ type as a mental process.) Probably all of these would turn out to be metaphorical … . One of the examples above is analysed in Figure 8-5.

 

Blogger Comments:

Again, the table cells misrepresent the analysis of Finite and Predicator. The Predicator is tend to open and the Finite is 'do' ('present').

Enhancing Hypotactic Verbal Group Complex: Modulation: Examples

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 573-4):

Examples:

||| Yeah, I think || a good many writers tend to open their books || and groan. ||| 

||| Well that would be my contention || but let me hasten to add || that since the first Speaker was also the first Member for Wakefield || I’m not that anxious to emulate the first Speaker. ||| 

||| They don’t really own them, you see, || they just happened to be lying around in the same place as these things. ||| 

||| You will cherish them on your bookshelves for a long time – || unless, of course, someone borrows them || and somehow ‘forgets’ to return them. ||| 

||| Perhaps we could start by talking about that. ||| 

||| I came to love it || from drinking it in the war years, || but the fact must be faced, || it is an acquired taste. |||

Enhancing Hypotactic Verbal Group Complex: Modulation: Categories

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 573, 574):

Here the basic notion is that of ‘be (circumstantial) + do’, e.g. help to do ‘do being-with (someone)’. As with all instances of enhancement, there are a number of different kinds; the principal ones are set out in Table 8-5.

Extending Hypotactic Verbal Group Complex: Conation: Tense & Modality

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 573):

Once again these forms are related to tense and modality, the hypotactic verbal group complex being intermediate between the simple verbal group, as in has done, has to do, and the clause complex, as in, say, by trying hard Alice reached the key. One of the examples given above is analysed below in Figure 8-4:

Extending Hypotactic Verbal Group Complex: Conation: Perfective vs Imperfective

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 573):

Of the remainder of this type, most take the perfective form of the secondary verbal group, as in try to do. The imperfective occurs only (i) with the negative terms avoid, and (with in) fail: avoid doing, fail in doing; and (ii) with succeed (again with in). The difference between manage to do and succeed in doing is slight; the former implies attempt leading to success, the latter success following attempt. For try + imperfective (‘do as a means to an end’), e.g. try counting sheep, see the next subsection [on causal enhancement].

From Conation To Readiness

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 573):

The other form that has turned into a finite element within the verbal group is the potential form can, in the sense of ‘have the ability to’; it is cognate with know, so ‘know how to’. This is now also a modal form, again of the modulation type — in this case not obligation but readiness (inclination/ability).

Extending Hypotactic Verbal Group Complex: Conation: Potential vs Actual

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 573):

Again, there are two dimensions: there is the potential, and the actual. The potential means having, or alternatively not having, the ability to succeed. The actual means trying, or not trying; and succeeding, or not succeeding. The form with have has evolved like the forms with be above. Originally two verbal groups, it is now either (i) + done, a secondary tense form ‘past in’, e.g. has done ‘past in present’, will have done ‘past in future’, was going to have done ‘past in future in past’ and so on; or (ii) + to do, a modal form (of the ‘modulation’ type), e.g. has to do ‘must do’. In other words, ‘possessing’ a process, if combined with past/passive, means past (success); if combined with ‘unreal’, it means (future) obligation.

Extending Hypotactic Verbal Group Complexes: Conation Categories

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 572):

This too has provided the resources for another tense form and another modality (see Table 8-4).

Extending Hypotactic Verbal Group Complexes: Conation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 572):

Here the basic notion is that of ‘have (possession) + do’; in other words, success. The semantic relation between the primary and the secondary verbal group is one of CONATION: trying, and succeeding. (The verb of the primary verbal group is usually one that can serve in a ‘behavioural’ clause.) … Examples:

||| Aware of his child’s ignorance of Indian life, the Indian parent tries to cram into the child’s little head all possible information during an ‘Excursion Fare’ trip to the mother country. |||

||| You try and do something responsible for your children || and you get forgotten. |||

||| I’m just going to try and attach my first semantics chapter for you || ’cause it’s not too big || and then you can start reading || when you have time. ||| 

||| If I tried to swan around, || I wouldn’t know how to behave. |||

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

||| And, while our military strength remains unmatched, || state or non-state actors may attempt to circumvent our strengths || and exploit our weaknesses || using methods [[ that differ significantly from our own]] . |||

||| The wide range of potential contributions by the RC has proven to be a bright spot || as we strive to match available resources to a demanding mission load, || and demonstrates clearly the enduring value and relevance of the citizen-soldier. |||

||| We succeeded to take our last steps to freedom in conditions of relative peace. |||

||| He feels || that he rarely succeeded in reaching the fibre of the characters [[ that he desperately wanted to attain]]. |||

||| He learned to walk in a certain way |||

Verbal Group Complexes With Respect To Finite And Predicator

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 571):

The analysis of one of the examples above is given in Figure 8-3. (Note that just like finite simple verbal groups, the primary verbal group splits into Finite and Predicator: Finite ‘did’ + Predicator ‘seem’. The Predicator then extends to include the secondary verbal group: ‘seem’ + ‘to go’. This is brought out by versions of the clause where Finite and Predicator are discontinuous, as with did ... seem to go in did the sand dredger seem to go past the Marchioness?)

Blogger Comments:

Figure 8-3 misrepresents the text (because of software limitations in splitting table cells).  The Finite is 'did' and the Predicator is 'seem to go':

the sand dredger	seemed		to go	past the Marchioness
Subject	Finite	Pre	dicator	Adjunct

Time-Phase And Reality-Phase: Stages Of Becoming

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 571):

At the deepest level time-phase and reality-phase are the same thing: both are concerned with the stages of becoming. A process is something that emerges out of imagination into reality, like the rising of the sun. Before dawn, the sun shines only in the future, or only in the imagination — as future turns into present, imagination turns into reality. The two categories of phase are related to modality and tense; but whereas modality and tense are interpreted as subcategorisations of one process (they are grammatical variants within one verbal group), phase is interpreted as a hypotactic relation between two processes: a general one of becoming, that is then elaborated by the specific action, event, mental process or relation that is being phased in or out.

'Phase' Verb Serving As Process

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 570n):

When the verbs serving in the primary, elaborated verbal group occur in simple, non-elaborated verbal groups that serve as Process in their own right, they tend to combine with metaphorical nominal groups, as in Tove Janson’s experimentation with slightly different themes began in 1957.