Saying is construed as proceeding from Sayer to Receiver (she asked/told/commanded him — 'she addressed him'). In contrast, sensing embodies two complementary perspectives: either the Senser's involvement in the sensing ranges over the Phenomenon or the Phenomenon is construed as impacting on the Senser's consciousness (she likes the design : the design pleases her).
Figures of saying construe the addressee of exterior symbolic processing in the form of a participant, the Receiver, as in She told/asked/commanded him…; She said to him/ asked of him… . In contrast, interior symbolic processing cannot be addressed; figures of sensing cannot be configured with a Receiver.
Here there is a subtle difference between sensing and saying in their grammatical realisation by verbal and mental clauses that project reports. In the verbal case, the Receiver is a grammatical constituent of the verbal clause, as in she told him —> to leave. Being a constituent participant, it can serve as Subject in the verbal clause: he was told (by her) —> to leave. However, although the mental case, e.g. she wanted him to leave, looks similar, it is not, since mental clauses do not have a Receiver. The element him is a constituent of the reported clause: she wanted —> him to leave. Consequently, it cannot serve as Subject in the reporting mental clause; we cannot get He was wanted (by her) to leave. The difference also shows up clearly when the projected clause is in the passive voice; contrast the incongruence of she told the car to be washed with the acceptability of she wanted the car to be washed. The analysis shows the difference: she told the car —> to be washed (where the car gets interpreted as Receiver) : she wanted —> the car to be washed.¹
∞
¹ As always, there are departures from the general principle. For instance, while
she asked/told/persuaded/implored/encouraged/promised/threatened the car to be washed
is incongruent,
she ordered the car to be washed
is perfectly fine, which suggests the mental model of the constituency boundary between the projecting and the projected clause — he ordered —> the car to be washed. This gets support from the fact that the car was ordered to be washed is odd.
Sensing and saying construe the "Symboliser" along different lines. The interior Symboliser of sensing is construed as a participant engaged in conscious processing; hence it is endowed with consciousness by virtue of serving in a figure of sensing. Thus in an example such as the thermometer thinks it is 35 degrees, the Symboliser has to be interpreted as if it was a conscious being.
The "Symboliser" of a figure of saying often is a conscious speaker. However since saying is exterior rather than interior symbolic processing, the Symboliser of saying, unlike that of sensing, is not restricted to human consciousness; it may also be any kind of symbol source, a 'semiotic thing' such as institutions, documents and instruments of measurement (see Halliday, 1985:129-30). Thus alongside examples such as
In the hospital's newsletter, he tells of one patient who stopped a two-week-long bout.
we also find
The British medical Journal The Lancet recently reported a study at Oxford university's John Radcliffe Hospital.
And while the thermometer thinks it is 35 degrees requires a metaphorical reading, the thermometer says it is 35 degrees does not. We recognise the difference between a Symboliser of sensing and a Symboliser of saying by calling them Senser and Sayer, respectively.
"Symbolic processing" is a generalisation across sensing and saying that foregrounds the fact that they can both project. But sensing and saying differ in the level of projection: sensing projects interior content, ideas; saying projects exterior content, locutions. The level of the projected content determines the typical status of the projected content: locutions may be either quoted or reported, with quoting being favoured in many types of discourse; in contrast ideas are typically reported and only rarely quoted. That is, ideas are construed as being further removed than locutions from experience that is shared.
Projection thus construes a distinction between interior symbolic processing (sensing) and exterior symbolic processing (saying). The distinction between 'interior' and 'exterior' is reinforced by the internal organisation of figures of sensing and saying.
Projecting sequences differentiate rather sharply between figures of sensing and saying on the one hand and figures of doing and being on the other by selecting figures of sensing and saying as the ones that have the special power of setting up other figures as second order, semiotic reality. That is, projecting sequences construe figures of sensing and saying on two levels, the level of sensing/saying itself and the level of the content of sensing/saying. As we put it in Chapter 3, the projecting figure represents symbolic processing, processing that brings another figure into symbolic existence. Figures of symbolic processing involve the symbolic process itself (thinking, saying, etc.) and a participant engaged in the symbolic processing, as in 'Symboliser;' she + Process:' said/thought —> that he had left. The projected symbolic content is either a proposition (she said/thought —> he had left) or a proposal (she asked him —> to leave; she wanted —> him to leave).
The system of figures construes experience as falling into four broadly conceived domains of goings-on: doing (including happening), sensing, saying and being (including having). Each type of figure has its own set of participant roles: see Table 4(1).
There are two interlocking aspects of the configuration of a figure:(i) the domain of experience to which the figure belongs; and(ii) the nature of the interaction among its participants.To put this another way: as a theory of experience, the semantic system of figures embodies two subtheories: one concerning different domains of experience and one concerning the ways in which participating phenomena can interact.
… a figure is a basic fragment of experience that embodies one quantum of change. As such, it is like a little drama — it is a constellation of actors and props; and it unfolds through time. We can recognise here two complementary perspectives on a figure: composition, and time.Compositionally, figures are phenomenal units that are formed by configurations of other phenomena (elements). Being "units" means that they are constituted as organic wholes with functionally distinct parts. In this respect they differ from sequences, which are not compositional units but loci of serial expansion and projection.Concomitantly, figures take place in time; but the temporal aspect of a figure is typically construed in association with one particular element, the process. We shall therefore deal with this aspect of figures under the heading of process, in the context of our discussion of elements. For the remainder of this chapter we concentrate on the compositional aspect of figures.
Sequences at lower ranks than that of figures retain the logical mode of realisation in the grammar. Expansion and projection thus flow throughout the system, forming sequences. This is in fact an instance of a general principle: expansion and projection are trans-phenomenal categories in the sense that they are manifested over the system as a whole — not merely in different logical environments across ranks but also experientially. For example, projection manifested within a sequence: Brutus said Caesar was ambitious; projection manifested within a simple figure: According to Brutus, Caesar was ambitious. This feature is particularly exploited when the system is expanded through grammatical metaphor.
One question that arises here is the extent to which the semantics and the grammar are in phase with one another. It is conceivable that a semantic sequence of figures could be realised in the grammar by a single clause with complexes at group/word rank — i.e., the sequencing is downranked in course of realisation.
One argument in favour of exploring this possibility is that it would be possible to sort out the potential ambiguity of examples such as Henry and Anne went to the movies — grammatically, we have a group complex (Henry and Anne), but semantically, it could be either a sequence of figures (on the reading 'separately': 'Henry went to the movies and Anne went to the movies') or a sequence of elements (on the reading 'together': 'Henry and Anne went to the movies'). This was, of course, an area investigated in terms of transformational grammar with different deep structures posited for the readings 'separately' and 'together'.
It is clear that there are grammatical group complexes which cannot be expanded semantically as sequences of figures; for example, Henry and Anne chatted is not likely to be a grammatical compression of 'Henry chatted and Anne chatted'; rather, it is agnate with Henry chatted with Anne. In such cases the problem of ambiguity does not arise.
The limiting case is that where what is being expanded is not a figure but an element of a figure, in which case instead of a sequence of figures we get a sequence of elements, realised by group or phrase complexes. Thus instead of Schank conceived of scripts and Abelson conceived of scripts as a solution to this problem, a sequence of figures where there are two processes of conception, we get Schank and Abelson conceived of scripts as a solution to this problem, a single figure with a sequence of elements (serving as Senser of a single process). Putting this in terms of the grammar, the sequential relationships remain constant, but the rank at which the complex occurs depends on the domain being related: see Figure 3-11.
We have identified two primary types of sequence (ways of relating figures), projection and expansion; and with both of these the figures that are related may be either equal or unequal in status. To say that these relations are between figures means in principle that they hold between figures as a whole; that is, given a pair of related figures the domain of the expansion or projection relation between them is each of the figures in its entirety.
But in some instances, some subdomain may be particularly implicated. This is perhaps especially true with elaborating sequences — the grammar of hypotactic elaborating clause complexes tells us as much: the elaborating dependent clause includes a relative reference expression (if the clause is finite) and the clause is placed immediately after the domain that is being elaborated, whether that is the whole clause (Mary could never feel comfortable with him, which was perfectly understandable) or some element within the clause (Mary, who was very sensitive, could never feel comfortable with him).
(in) In addition, one or more of the figures in the clause may be realised by something 'less than' a clause. One major source of this is ideational grammatical metaphor. But there are also other cases such as circumstances of Rôle with temporal implications — for example:
as a child, he was very shy 'when he was a child, he was very shy'.
The grammar forms complexes at ranks below the clause, of course: melted butter, a few shreds of lemon rind, a squeeze of lemon juice and chopped parsley. It is always possible to interpret certain instances of these as sequences that have been 'shrunk' by the grammar because they share one or more elements. Thus Henry and Anne went to the store might be interpreted as a simple figure if they went to the store together but as a sequence if they went there separately.
(ii) On the other hand, a clause complex may in principle correspond to a figure rather than a sequence. This happens through grammatical metaphor of an interpersonal kind (see Halliday, 1985: Section 10.4): an interpersonal modality that would be realised congruently as a modal auxiliary (can, may, will &c) or a modal adjunct (perhaps, probably &c) is 'upgraded' to the status of a projecting clause in a clause complex; for example:
I don't suppose || there's very much 'there is probably not'I think || I might have walked out too from all the accounts 'I probably might have'
As we noted in Chapter 1, Section 1.5, semantics and grammar evolve together (in all three senses of semohistory we discussed). In the present context that means that sequences and clause complexes evolve together. The basic principle is that a sequence is realised by a clause complex. But the two may become dissociated from one another.
(i) On the one hand, a sequence may extend beyond a single clause complex. That is, the general potential is simultaneously semantic and grammatical; but in the creation of this particular text, this potential may be taken up semantically to create a sequence that is more extensive than the clause complexes realising it. Here is a very simple example of a sequence which is realised by two clause complexes:
Prepare and cook the potatoes in sea-salted water to which has been added lemon juice. Drain and serve with melted butter, a few shreds of lemon rind, a squeeze of lemon juice and chopped parsley.
The sequence has been grouped into two clause complexes in the grammar. However, this grouping is by no means arbitrary; it serves to indicate the two major phases of the preparation of new potatoes with lemon. In other words, once sequence and clause complex have become partly disassociated so that one sequence does not automatically imply one clause complex, the decision how to associate them in realisation becomes a meaningful, significant choice. (The significance may vary from one register to another, but the principle that the choice is meaningful is quite general.)
We can generalise as follows: the logical resources for forming sequences have evolved in the environment of ideational meaning as sequences of figures. But these highly generalised resources can then also be applied in an interpersonal environment to form interactional sequences. (We should note here, however, that evidence from language development studies suggests that the logical-semantic relations are first construed in interpersonal contexts: see Phillips, 1985, 1986; Halliday, 1993a.) In producing a text, we may use either or both, depending on the nature of the text: see Figure 3-10…
As already noted, text organisation also draws on the interaction base; and there are certain parallels with the ideation base with respect to sequences. The interaction base certainly has text forming resources that are uniquely interpersonal. In particular, it has the resources for the collaborative exchanges that are embodied in the notion of interaction — for producing dialogue jointly by means of coordinated moves alternating between the interlocutors.
But these interpersonal moves may also form sequences of moves in a way that is similar to the formation of sequences of figures in the ideation base. Typical examples involve motivating condition ('I invite you to accept x, if you want x'; for example: If you're thirsty, there's beer in the fridge) and evidence ('I think, infer/ you should believe x because y'; for example: John's in Germany because I just talked to him).
Texts and sequences are of the same order of abstraction; both are semantic phenomena. A text is a piece of language that is functional in context. It draws on the ideational meaning base but it involves the full metafunctional spectrum; i.e. there are interpersonal and textual contributions as well. Since text draws on the ideational meaning base, sequences are one principle for organising text. For example, the culinary procedure for making cauliflower surprise constitutes one text. Many text types are heavily influenced by patterns in the meaning base — they can be seen as 'macro-figures', i.e. as expansions of figures by means of logico-semantic relations. This is not to say that the relationship between organisation in the meaning base and discoursal organisation is always one-to-one even when a text is organised according to an ideational sequence. In particular, a text may leave to be inferred certain steps that would be specified in the sequence in the meaning base (e.g. to make explicit the inferential processes involved).
Sequences impose a certain order on our experience in terms of the relations that connect happening with another. Hence sequences can be used to store information about the world in the form of organised text— 'this is how to change tyres on your car', 'this is how to make cauliflower surprise', etc.. Such texts often fall into a clearly recognisable text type, such as procedures, proofs, explanations, and episodic narratives. Not all texts are as highly regulated as these; but it is usually possible to make some prediction about the kinds of sequence, and the complexity to which sequences extend, in most of our culturally recognised modes of discourse.
Blogger Comments:
In SFL Theory, text type is register viewed from the instance pole of the cline of instantiation. Text types can be identified according to the MODE that they realise (e.g. procedure, proof, explanation, episodic narrative) — MODE being the textual dimension of context: the rôle of language in a situation.
Thus sequences are formed by binary logico-semantic relations which may relate either single figures or sequences of figures. Certain relations may impose constraints on the phenomena being related; for example, a projecting relation can only obtain when the first figure is one of sensing or saying. But the range of different logico-semantic relations is highly varied, so that constraints tend to be specific to particular subtypes.
In the overview, we introduced two distinct types of structure — the relational organisation of sequences, and the configurational organisation of figures. In contrast to figures, sequences are not constructional units. We can specify the range of projecting and expanding relations available for further developing a sequence, but we cannot specify where a sequence has to come to an end — that is, we cannot specify a sequence as a unit whole with a conventional configuration of parts. Thus if we have expanded one figure we can always repeat the operation:A then BA then B then CA then B then C then D …In contrast, a figure is a unit with a finite number of elements:B follows AHence a sequence can be indefinitely complex, whereas a figure cannot.
Finally, the distinction between expansion and projection is less determinate than we have suggested. The logico-semantic relation of condition, which is prototypically construed as a form of enhancement, could also be construed as a kind of projection; and this is also brought out in the grammar. Conditions specify a potential and actualisable but non-actual situation. This potential situation can also be set up through projection:
If the power supply fails, what's the best thing to do?Supposing the power supply fails, what's the best thing to do?Say the power supply fails, what's the best thing to do?
Words such as supposing and assuming are verbs of projection which have come to function as conjunctions in conditional figures; while other words such as imagine and say retain more of their projecting force. Sometimes even variants of the same word have come to differ a little in their location on this cline: for example, suppose and assume seem closer to projection than their corresponding participial variants. This is an uncertain region in which a figure hangs in the air, so to speak, suspended between the hypothetical material plane and the semiotic one.
Blogger Comments:
Cf Imagine if that were true and What if that were true.
Relations of expansion are typically realised in the grammar by conjunctions or conjunctive expressions linking a pair of clauses, either paratactically or hypotactically (e.g. that is, in other words; and, but, or, also, besides; so, yet, then, when, if, because, unless). Some of these may realise more than one category; for example,but may be adversative 'and yet' (extending), or concessive 'and in spite of this' (enhancing);
while may be additive 'and in addition' (extending), or temporal 'and at the same time' (enhancing);
or may be alternative 'or else' (extending: alternatives in the external world, like take it or leave it), or restating 'in other words' (elaborating: alternatives in the world 'internal' to the discourse, like they are reduced to the smallest size, or microminiaturised.).Overlaps in realisation of this kind show that the primary categories we have set up do in fact shade into one another; in particular, extending in some sense occupies a space intermediate between elaborating and enhancing, and shares a fuzzy borderline with each.
The following passage of spontaneous conversation exemplifies the principal categories of expansion (note than it also contains one example of projection):
KEY: parataxis [equal]: 1, 2; hypotaxis [unequal]: 𝛂, 𝛃); elaboration: =; extension: +; enhancement: x. (Taken from Svartvik & Quirk, 1980:430.)
There is no sharp line between a figure and a sequence of figures: a quantum of experience is not defined before it is construed, and the grammar rather sets up a cline from sequence to simple figure. (This is, in fact, a variable across languages; we shall return to this point from a cross-linguistic point of view in Chapter 6.) For example:
From one standpoint the limiting case of expansion would be accumulation in a temporal sequence (hence our general term "sequence" for the product of this construal): 'a happens, then x happens'. This gives value to a as the temporal circumstance of x. From this we could derive a wide range of more complex enhancing relations: variations on the simple temporal sequence (after, before, at the same time, immediately after, &c.) and further circumstances such as cause, condition, concession, and their subcategories.
We shall not try to enumerate these here; they are familiar as categories at the level of lexicogrammar (see Halliday, 1985: Ch. 7; Matthiessen, I995b: Ch. 3). These are 'enhancements', multiplying one figure by another, as it were. But figures may also be added to one another, making them part of the same story without assigning any kind of logical priority to either: 'x as well as/instead of/in contradistinction to a'. We have referred to these as extensions. And there is the third type of accumulation where the logical relation is that of 'equals': 'x is the same figure as a'. Here at this end the limiting case is a simple repetition; this may be further elaborated in such a way that one figure is reworded as another, or else further clarified or brought out by an example.
Expansion can be thought of as construing another dimension of experience, so that superimposed, as it were, on the construal of a figure — a basic fragment of experience in the form of a quantum of change (event, action, behaviour &c.) — is the construal of a nexus between two figures, such that one such fragment is non-randomly (i.e. meaningfully) cumulated with another.
Expansion is a highly generalised type of relation, whereby one figure is joined logico-semantically to another figure by a relator to form a sequence of the same order of reality. It will be easier to characterise expansion at the next step in delicacy, in terms of its immediate subtypes: elaborate (reiterate), extend (add), and enhance (qualify):
(i) elaboration is a (partial) identity relation between figures: one is identified with another with a difference in perspective (it matters a lot; it plays an important role) or one is included under another as an example (it plays an important role; e.g., it provides the infrastructure). These are clearly related to one another: identity is the limiting case of inclusion and inclusion is partial identity.(ii) extension is an additive relation between figures: a sequence is made bigger by the addition of another figure. This may involve pure addition ('and': he is too young and he doesn't speak the language) or addition with an adversative feature ('and yet': he speaks the language but he is too young ). As a variant of addition, we also have alternation (he is too young or else he is just immature).(iii) enhancement is a circumstantial or qualifying relation between figures: it is, in a sense, extension plus a circumstantial feature — 'and' + time ('and then', 'and at the same time', etc.), 'and' + manner ('and in the same way', 'and likewise'), 'and' + cause ('and therefore', etc.), etc.: it is autumn, so the leaves are turning brown.
To sum up the distinctions discussed so far. In a projecting sequence, a figure of thinking or saying projects another figure as an idea or a locution, either of which may be a proposition or a proposal: see Figure 3-8.
We saw that quoted offers may be realised by modulated indicative clauses. This would seem to be an exception to the generalisation that indicative clauses realise propositions. However, it is a principled one: the type of indicative clause involved is precisely the type that lies closer in the interpersonal clause grammar to imperative clauses — modulated indicative clauses, i.e. those with an imperative modality. As can be expected, this is then also a possible realisation of commands; it is a metaphorical strategy for expanding the meaning potential, typically to vary the tenor between speaker and listener. For example:she told him: "Do the laundry!"; "You should do the laundry."she asked him: "Could you do the laundry?"Commands can be reported in the same way:she told him —> to do the laundry.she told him —> he should do the laundry.she asked him —> whether he could do the laundry.
