Ellipsis In The Verbal Group (Complex)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 639):

Since the verbal group consists of Finite plus Predicator, it follows automatically that any clausal ellipsis in which the Mood element is present but the Residue omitted will involve ellipsis within the verbal group: the Predicator will be ellipsed together with the rest of the Residue, as in Have a shower! – I can’t [∅: have a shower]. There is no need to repeat the discussion of this phenomenon. The ellipsis may affect only part of the Predicator, as when the Predicator is realised by a verbal group complex and only the first part of the complex is retained together with the infinitive marker to:

Have you do you read very much Kafka? I am trying to [∅: read very much Kafka], yes, ... [Text 125] 

“Can you hop on your hind legs?” asked the furry rabbit. – “I don’t want to [∅: hop on my hind legs],” said the little Rabbit. [Text 28]

Here the rest of the verbal group serving as Predicator is ellipsed together with the remainder of the Residue.

The Cohesiveness Of Ellipsis And Substitution

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 639):

The elliptical or substitute clause requires the listener to ‘supply the missing words’; and since they are to be supplied from what has gone before, the effect is cohesive. It is always possible to ‘reconstitute’ the ellipsed item so that it becomes fully explicit. Since ellipsis is a lexicogrammatical resource, what is taken over is the exact wording, subject only to the reversal of speaker-listener deixis (I for you and so on), and change of mood where appropriate.

Clausal Ellipsis Substitution And Unmarked Information Focus

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 639):

Thus clausal ellipsis/substitution occurs typically in a dialogue sequence where in a response turn everything is omitted except the information-bearing element. … A clause consisting of Mood only, such as I will, could equally occur in either the yes/no or the WH- environment; typically, in a yes/no environment, the focus would be on will, which bears the polarity (‘Will you ... ?’ – I will.), whereas in a WH- environment, the focus would be on I, which carries the information (‘Who will ... ?’ – I will.).

WH- Ellipsis And Substitution: Part Of The Clause

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 638-9):

Sometimes in a WH- clause, or its response, the Mood element is left in and only the Residue is ellipsed. For example, with WH- Subject:

Has the time come for these local divinities [[to give way to perhaps a [ bigger concept of deity, a bigger concept of religion]]? – Who knows [∅: whether the time has come ...]? 

And Hugo told you that, too. – Who did [∅: tell me that too]?

Similarly if the WH- element is part of the Residue:

||| I think || that’s why my generation is so tediously over-serious. ||| How could we not be [∅: so tediously over-serious]? ||| 

Yes, I think you’d better look at it. – I don’t see any particular reason why I should [∅: look at it].

The Mood element may be represented by negative polarity alone:

Yes, Dad, but we mustn’t even lean on this guitar today. – Why [∅: must we] not [∅: lean on this guitar today]?

WH- Ellipsis And Substitution: The Whole Clause

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 638):

In a WH- sequence the entire clause is usually omitted except for the WH- element itself, or the item that is the response to the WH- element:

I desperately, desperately need them. – What? – The scissors.

What have you read? – [∅: I have read] Lord of the Flies. 

Well I prefer Lord of the Flies. – Why [∅: do you prefer Lord of the Flies]? – Because I don’t think I understood Pincher Martin.

The substitute not may appear in a WH- negative:

The kind of approach to reality and to ideas which the book offers us, is it a realistic book? – No, I don’t think so. – Why [∅: do you] not [∅: think so]?

Substitution is less likely in the positive, except in the expressions how so?, why so?.

Yes/No Substitution: The Residue

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 637-8):

With a declarative response, if there is a change of Subject only, we may have substitute so, nor, neither in initial position ( = ‘and so’, ‘and not’) followed by the Mood element.

... but I heard some water in it. – I did too. – So did I. 

I love them. – So did I. – Me, too. 

||| This drags down the bibliophiles’ score; || and so does the disgraced Nixon, || ranked at 23 in Siena. ||| 

I didn’t want to see it all. – No, neither did I.

The order is Finite ^ Subject (to get the Subject under unmarked focus). If the Subject is unchanged, so that the focus is on the Finite, the order is Subject ^ Finite:

S04: At their age you were an orphan. You didn’t have to. – S05: Not quite. – S04: You were. – S05: Oh yes. So I was.

The negative has various forms:

They’ve never replied. – So they haven’t/Nor they have/Neither they have [∅: replied].

Not infrequently, the Residue is substituted by the verbal substitute do, as in:

They say an apple a day keeps the doctor away. – It should do [∅: keep the doctor away], if you aim it straight.

If the focus is on the Residue (and hence falls on do), the substitute form do so may be used (as an alternative to ellipsis):

||| Tempting as it may be, || we shouldn’t embrace every popular issue [[ that comes along]]. ||| When we do so || we use precious limited resources || where other players with superior resources are already doing an adequate job. |||

Yes/No Ellipsis: Part Of The Clause: Residue

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 637):

As an alternative to the ellipsis of the whole clause, there may be ellipsis of just one part of it, the Residue. For example:

||| Mum, you’re not enjoying your dinner, are you? ||| – ||| I am [∅: enjoying my dinner]. ||| 

||| I’ve had a headache. ||| – ||| Have you [∅: had a headache]? ||| 

||| Could you put your issue of Rapale literacy in the numeracy study. ||| – ||| Oh I suppose || I could [∅: put my issue of Rapale literacy in the numeracy study]. |||

Negative Clause Substitution vs Positive Clause Ellipsis

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 637):

In addition, the substitute not is used when the answer is qualified by a negative in some way:

||| Is that [[ what it really is about]] , a cock and a fox? ||| – ||| No, not really. |||

where a positive clause is simply presupposed by ellipsis:

||| Did you feel || that you were taking a risk || in being so open about [[ what you were doing]] ? ||| – ||| Oh, sure, in some ways. |||

Yes/No Substitution: The Whole Clause

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 637):

Corresponding in meaning to yes and no are the clause substitutes so and not. (Etymologically the word yes contains the substitute so; it is a fusion of (earlier forms of) aye and so.) In certain contexts these substitute forms are used: (i) following if – if so, if not; (ii) as a reported clause – he said so, he said not; (iii) in the context of modality – perhaps so, perhaps not. Examples:

||| Better than The Rainbow? ||| – ||| I think || so [∅: that it is better than The Rainbow], yes, || because I think || it shows Lawrence as a man more Lawrence in his life. ||| 

||| Well, do I have to do more in the afternoon? ||| – ||| No, [∅: you] probably [∅: do] not [∅: have to do more in the afternoon]. ||| Just do half an hour now. |||

The general principle is that a substitute is required if the clause is projected, as a report; with modality (perhaps) and hypothesis (if) being interpreted as kinds of projection, along the lines of:

he said so–I thought so–I think so–it may be so–perhaps so–let us say so–if so

Yes/No Ellipsis: The Whole Clause

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 636-7):

In a yes/no question-answer sequence the answer may involve ellipsis of the whole clause, e.g.

||| You mean || you were interested in him as a man in private life. ||| – ||| Yes, yes. [∅: I was interested in him as a man in private life.] |||

||| Have you been interviewed by Bedford yet? ||| – ||| No. [∅: I haven’t been interviewed by Bedford yet.] |||

||| ... and the value deal is three large pizzas delivered from $22.95. ||| Would you like to try that? – ||| Ah no thanks. [∅: I would not like to try that.] |||

The first clause in such a pair is not necessarily a question; it may have any speech function, e.g.

||| I think || it is it must be very tough indeed. ||| – ||| Yes. [∅: It is very tough.] |||

||| You feel || it must be English. ||| – ||| Yes [∅: I feel it must be English]; || because I am English, || I feel || that I must study English literature || – that’s why. ||| 

||| I mean || that should mean [[ that an autobiography is your ideal]] . ||| – ||| Yes [∅: an autobiography is my ideal]; || but it also is a very good novel || I think. |||

Here yes and no serve as mood Adjuncts of polarity and the rest of the clause is elided.

Ellipsis And Substitution In The Clause

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 636):

Ellipsis in the clause is related to mood. Specifically, it is related to the question-answer process in dialogue; and this determines that there are two kinds: (a) yes/no ellipsis, and (b) WH- ellipsis. Each of these also allows for substitution, though not in all contexts.

Grammatical Domains Of Ellipsis And Substitution

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 635-6):

There are three main contexts for ELLIPSIS and SUBSTITUTION in English. These are (1) the clause, (2) the verbal group and (3) the nominal group: see Table 9-14.

Ellipsis And Substitution

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 635):

Ellipsis and substitution are variants of the same type of cohesive relation. There are some grammatical environments in which only ellipsis is possible, some in which only substitution is possible, and some, such as I preferred the other [one], which allow for either.

Substitution

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 635):

Sometimes an explicit indication may be given that something is omitted, by the use of a substitute form; for instance one in the following examples:

||| He ran out on his wife and children, || became a merchant seaman, || was washed off a deck of a cargo ship || and miraculously picked up, not his own ship but another one, way out in the middle of nowhere. |||

||| ... so my decision was [[ that I should do three separate books, one on each generation]] . ||| – ||| What happened to the middle one? |||

||| ... if I am totally incapable of doing anything || or go into a stroke again || (the last one I had was on my right) || if I got a really whopping one || and could neither see || nor speak || – I would ask to be taken away. |||

The substitute is phonologically non-salient and serves as a place-holding device, showing where something has been omitted and what its grammatical function would be; thus one functions as Head in the nominal group and replaces the Thing (with which the Head is typically conflated).

Ellipsis

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 635):

Ellipsis marks the textual status of continuous information within a certain grammatical structure. At the same time, the non-ellipsed elements of that structure are given the status of being contrastive in the environment of continuous information. Ellipsis thus assigns differential prominence to the elements of a structure: if they are non-prominent (continuous), they are ellipsed; if they are prominent (contrastive), they are present. The absence of elements through ellipsis is an iconic realisation of lack of prominence.

Reference vs Ellipsis

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 635):

Reference is a relationship in meaning. When a reference item is used anaphorically, it sets up a semantic relationship with something mentioned in the preceding text; and this enables the reference item to be interpreted, as either identical with the referent or in some way contrasting with it.

Another form of anaphoric cohesion in the text is achieved by ELLIPSIS, where we presuppose something by means of what is left out. Like all cohesive agencies, ellipsis contributes to the semantic structure of the discourse. But unlike reference, which is itself a semantic relation, ellipsis sets up a relationship that is not semantic but lexicogrammatical – a relationship in the wording rather than directly in the meaning.

Cataphoric Comparative Reference Exemplified

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 634):

Like personals and demonstratives, comparative reference items can also be used cataphorically, within the nominal group; for example much more smoothly than a live horse, where the reference point for the more lies in what follows.

Comparative Reference Exemplified

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 633):

Any expression such as the same, another, similar, different, as big, bigger, less big, and related adverbs such as likewise, differently, equally, presumes some standard of reference in the preceding text. For example, such, other, more in (a), (b) and (c):

(a) ||| Two men were killed by lethal injection in Texas this year, || even though they were 17 || when they committed their offences, || and another 65 juveniles are on death row across the country. ||| “Such executions are rare world-wide,” || the report says. ||| 

(b) ||| Zoo visitors were shaken by the episode. ||| “I am not bringing them back. || These are my grandkids. || It is not safe,” || said Sandra Edwards, || who was visiting the zoo with her grandchildren || when she heard the shots || and saw youths fighting. ||| Nakisha Johnson, 17, said || she saw one young man open fire || after a feud between youths became violent. ||| She said || the children who were wounded were caught in the middle of the two groups of youths. ||| “He was just shooting at the people he was fighting” || but struck the children bystanders, || Johnson said. ||| Other witnesses said || the shooting occurred || when a bottle was thrown from one group of youths to another. ||| 

(c) ||| Survey results, combined with feedback [[ gathered by leaders from all the Services during field and fleet visits]] , have convinced us || that long-term retention is not well served by the Redux retirement plan. ||| Our men and women deserve a retirement system [[ that more appropriately rewards their service]] . |||

Comparative Reference Items

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 632-3):

Comparative reference items function in nominal and adverbial groups; and the comparison is made with reference either to general features of identity, similarity and difference or to particular features of quality and quantity: see Table 9-12.

⁷ Also as SubModifier in adverbial group or nominal group.

Comparative Reference (vs Co-Reference)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 632):

Whereas personals and demonstratives, when used anaphorically, set up a relation of co-reference, whereby the same entity is referred to over again, comparatives set up a relation of contrast. In comparative reference, the reference item still signals ‘you know which’; not because the same entity is being referred to over again but rather because there is a frame of reference – something by reference to which what I am now talking about is the same or different, like or unlike, equal or unequal, more or less.

Locative And Temporal Demonstratives

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 631):

The locative demonstratives here and there are also used as reference items; here may be cataphoric, as in (g), or anaphoric and ‘near’ as in (h); there is anaphoric but not ‘near’, as in (j), where it means ‘in what you said’:

(g) ||| “So here’s a question for you. ||| How old did you say you were?” ||| … 

(h) ||| “I think you ought to tell me || who you are, first.” |||
“Why?” || said the Caterpillar. |||
Here was another puzzling question; ... ||| 

(j) “Suppose he never commits the crime?” || said Alice. |||
“That would be all the better, wouldn’t it?” || the Queen said, ... |||
Alice felt there was no denying that. ||| “Of course it would be all the better,” || she said: || “but it wouldn’t be all the better [[ his being punished]] .” |||
“You’re wrong there, at any rate,” || said the Queen. |||

The temporal demonstratives now and then also function as cohesive items, but conjunctively rather than referentially.

The Marked Demonstratives

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 631):

Thus the is an unmarked demonstrative, while this and that are both ‘marked’ terms – neither includes the other. Their basic deictic senses are ‘near’ and ‘remote’ from the point of view of the speaker. But they are also used to refer within the text. The ‘near’ term this typically refers either anaphorically, to something that has been mentioned immediately before … or is in some way or other being treated as ‘near’  … or else cataphorically …

The ‘remote’ term that refers anaphorically to something that has been mentioned by the previous speaker … or is being treated as more remote or from the listener’s point of view…

Demonstrative 'The'

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 630-1):

Consider the following examples:

(a) The sun was shining on the sea.
(b) This is the house that Jack built.
(c) Algy met a bear. The bear was bulgy. The bulge was Algy.

In (a) we know which ‘sun’ and which ‘sea’ are being referred to even if we are not standing on the beach with the sun above our heads; there is only one sun, and for practical purposes only one sea. There may be other seas in different parts of the globe, and even other suns in the heavens; but they are irrelevant. In (b) we know which ‘house’ is being referred to, because we are told – it is the one built by Jack; and notice that the information comes after the occurrence of the the. In (c) we know which bear – the one that Algy met; and we know which bulge – the one displayed by the bear; but in this case the information had already been given before the the occurred. Only in (c), therefore, is the anaphoric.

Like the personals, and the other demonstratives, the has a specifying function; it signals ‘you know which one(s) I mean’. But there is an important difference. The other items not only signal that the identity is known, or knowable; they state explicitly how the identity is to be established. …

In other words, the merely announces that the identity is specific; it does not specify it. The information is available elsewhere. It may be in the preceding text (anaphoric), like (c) above; in the following text (cataphoric), like (b); or in the air, so to speak, like (a). Type (a) are self-specifying; there is only one – or at least only one that makes sense in the context, as in Have you fed the cat? (homophoric).

Demonstratives

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 630):

In some languages, as pointed out earlier, there is a close correspondence of demonstratives and personals, such that there are three demonstratives rather than two, and the direction of reference is near me (this), near you (that) and not near either of us (yon). This pattern was once widespread in English and can still be found in some rural varieties of Northern English and Scots. In modern standard English yon no longer exists, although we still sometimes find the word yonder from the related series here, there and yonder; but another development has taken place in the meantime.

Given just two demonstratives, this and that, it is usual for that to be more inclusive; it tends to become the unmarked member of the pair. This happened in English; and in the process a new demonstrative evolved which took over and extended the ‘unmarked’ feature of that – leaving this and that once more fairly evenly matched. This is the so-called ‘definite article’ the. The word the is still really a demonstrative, although a demonstrative of a rather particular kind.

Cataphoric Demonstrative Reference Exemplified

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 629):

endophoric: cataphoric

||| Rather, I think || we will be stronger and more effective || if we stick to those issues of governmental structure and process, broadly defined, that have formed the core of our agenda for years. |||

Anaphoric Demonstrative Reference Exemplified

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 629):

endophoric: anaphoric

||| Though Amnesty has long criticised the widespread US use of the death penalty, || it found || there has now been another worrying development in this process.||| 

||| The way that Icelandic expresses the phrase “I dreamed something last night” is “It dreamed me”. ||| Though that’s also modern Icelandic, || this is a mediæval idea. ||| 

||| During the European scramble for Africa, Nigeria fell to the British. ||| It wasn’t one nation at that point; || it was a large number of independent political entities. ||| The British brought this rather complex association into being as one nation || and ruled it until 1960 || when Nigeria achieved independence. ||| 

||| They have to be given instruction of course || and learn to read the signals; || then they’ll take a driving test || and there are track circuits as on all electrified lines || so that once a train gets into a section || no other train can move on to that section || and run into it || but that’s just standard equipment. |||

Exophoric Demonstrative Reference Exemplified

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 629):

exophoric

||| Here, I’ll help with this one. ||| 

||| Yes, Dad, but we mustn’t even lean on this guitar today. ||| 

||| We could move that table. ||| 

||| It wouldn’t matter to him really; || he’s half deaf after all these years working at this place. ||| 

||| I’ve been eating like this for the last ten years || and nothing happens. ||| 

||| What is that? ||| Hmm, Hungarian pastry. |||

Demonstrative Reference

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 628-9):

Personal reference items create co-reference in terms of the category of person. As we noted above, there is another related, but distinct, co-referential strategy – that of demonstrative reference. Here the reference item is a demonstrative, this/that, these/those. Demonstratives (see Table 9-11) may also be either exophoric or anaphoric; in origin they were probably the same as third-person forms, but they retain a stronger deictic flavour than the personals, and have evolved certain distinct anaphoric functions of their own.

Tracking A Referent

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 627):

That is, there are two primary anaphoric strategies for tracking a referent as a text unfolds. The speaker or writer can use either (i) a personal reference item (personal pronoun or possessive determiner) or (ii) a specified noun. A ‘specified noun’ is either an inherently specific one – a proper noun – or else a common noun (serving as Thing) modified by a demonstrative determiner as Deictic. For example: he vs. the Rabbit or his vs. the Rabbit’s (or of the Rabbit). The term ‘pronoun’ suggests that a pronoun stands for a noun; and the term ‘pronominalisation’ suggests that something is turned into a pronoun. But both terms are misleading: the unmarked anaphoric strategy is to use the pronoun, and the lexical variant or a proper name is used only if there is a good reason to vary from the unmarked strategy. 

Good reasons include (i) the need to indicate the beginning of a new rhetorical stage in the unfolding text and (ii) the need to further elaborate the reference when there are alternative antecedents around in the discourse.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, cohesive reference is not concerned with "tracking referents". This error ultimately derives from Martin's (1992) misunderstanding of reference as 'participant identification', and especially its further elaboration in Martin & Rose (2007). For evidence that these are misunderstandings, see the clarifying critiques here (English Text) and here (Working With Discourse).

The textual function of reference is to create cohesion in the text by presuming information that is recoverable from elsewhere in the text itself. Speakers do not need to "keep track" of referents, since they already know who they are talking about, and if speakers wanted to "track" referents for listeners, there are far more efficient ways of doing so than deploying potentially ambiguous reference items.

[2] To be clear, it is only the determiner of a nominal group that serves as a reference item, forming a cohesive tie with its referent, and proper nouns do not serve as reference items. Proper nouns only 'reference' in the sense of ideational denotation (wording realising meaning). Martin's relabelling of reference (IDENTIFICATION) routinely confuses textual reference with ideational denotation (and DEIXIS); evidence here.

As previously suggested, serious scholars seeking a theoretically (and internally) consistent understanding of cohesive reference are strongly urged to consult the original model in Cohesion In English (Halliday & Hasan 1976), and/or either of the first two editions of An Introduction To Functional Grammar (Halliday 1985; 1994).

Reference Chains

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 627):

For a somewhat more extended example, we can refer to a narrative for children about a Velveteen Rabbit. After this Velveteen Rabbit has been introduced, there are anaphoric references to this rabbit, forming a reference chain that runs throughout the narrative. The chain running through the extract consists of the following items:

[a velveteen rabbit] – he – his (coat) – his (ears) – he – his (paws) – him – the Velveteen Rabbit – he – he – him – ... – the Rabbit – he – him

Several of these reference items occur within the Theme (thematic references underlined): while reference items can occur anywhere, there is an unmarked relationship between referential identifiability and status as Given information, and between Given and Theme. There is therefore a strong tendency for reference items to be thematic. Most of the anaphoric references involve simply a personal pronoun or a possessive determiner; there are only two references with demonstrative the as Deictic and the lexical noun rabbit as Thing. This is the typical pattern in extended reference chains.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the unacknowledged source of the term 'reference chain' is Martin (1992: 140), which is, itself, his relabelling of Hasan's original notion of an identity chain (Halliday & Hasan 1989 [1985]: 84ff). However, this is subtly inconsistent with the notion of cohesive reference, and can lead to confusing reference with lexical cohesion. To explain:

As Halliday & Hasan (1976: 329, 330) point out:

The basic concept that is employed in analysing the cohesion of a text is that of a tie… [which]… includes not only the cohesive element itself but also that which is presupposed by it. A tie is best interpreted as a relation between these two elements. …

The presupposed item may itself be cohesive, presupposing another item that is still further back; in this way there may be a whole chain of presuppositions before the original target item is reached…:

The last word ended in a long bleat, so like a sheep that Alice quite started (1). She looked at the Queen, who seemed to have suddenly wrapped herself up in wool (2). Alice rubbed her eyes, and looked again (3). She couldn't make out what had happened at all (4). Was she in a shop (5)? And was that really — was it really a sheep that was sitting on the other side of the counter (6)? Rub as she would, she could make nothing more of it (7).

…the she in (5) has as the target of its presupposition another instance of she, that in (4); and in order to resolve it we have to follow this through to the occurrence of Alice in (3). We shall call this type a mediated tie.

In short, cohesive reference is a relation between reference item and referent, and this relation may be mediated by intervening reference items. It is not a chain of nominal groups, as misinterpreted in Martin's (1992) relabelling of reference as IDENTIFICATION.

Because Matthiessen tries to accommodate Martin's misunderstandings ('reference chain', 'tracking') in his rewriting of Halliday's exposition of reference, it is strongly recommended that serious scholars who want a theoretically consistent understanding of it should consult Halliday & Hasan (1976), and Halliday (1985, 1994).