Non-Finite Dependent Clauses Without Verbs

Halliday (1994: 241):

Thematic Equatives And Their Unmarked Non-Equative Agnates

Halliday (1994: 42, 43):

Metaphorical Elaboration Is Made Possible By The Fractal Pattern Of Projection/Expansion

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 294-5, 296):

The whole metaphorical elaboration is made possible by a fractal pattern that runs through the whole system. We have suggested that the metaphorical elaboration is a token-value relation; but in order for it to be a token-value relation within the semantic system, it has to be natural in the sense that the token and value domains have to be similar enough to allow the token to stand for the value. For instance, a sequence has to be similar enough to a figure to allow it to stand as a metaphorical token for this congruent value. The principle behind this similarity is the fractal pattern of projection/expansion that we met throughout the semantic system of sequences, figures, and elements.

That is, while grammatical metaphor constitutes a move from one "phenomenal domain" to another — from sequence to figure, and from figure to element, this move is made possible because the fractal types engender continuity across these domains: the metaphorical move from one phenomenal domain to another takes place within one and the same transphenomenal domain. For example, the metaphorical shift from he added and smiled to he added with a smile is a shift from the phenomenal domain of sequence to the phenomenal domain of figure (accompanied by the shift from figure and smiled to element with a smile)', but the transphenomenal domain of 'extension' remains constant: the extending sequence he added and smiled is metaphorically agnate with the figure he added with a smile with an extending circumstance. …

Metaphor Evokes Its Non-Metaphorical Agnate

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 290):

For most types of metaphor, it is important to take account of the fact that the metaphor represents more than one construction of goings-on; the metaphor adds a further perspective on the phenomenon being represented, without displacing the perspective that is congruent Thus, Ali gave Frazier a punch is like Ali gave Frazier a rose; but it is also unlike it precisely because of its metaphorical status: it evokes a non-metaphorical agnate Ali punched Frazier. There are also grammatical distinctions between the two; for instance, there is no systematic proportion

Ali gave Frazier a rose : Ali gave a rose to Frazier : :

Ali gave Frazier a punch : Ali gave a punch to Frazier

The grammatical metaphor will typically show features of the congruent perspective as well as features of the metaphorical one.

Rank Shift As An Alternative To Metaphorical Class Shift

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 261):

… we find that rank shift sometimes operates as an alternative to class shift of this metaphorical kind. In examples A-1 and A-2, there is metaphorical class shift:

A-1 a cow is a ruminating quadruped [verb: adjective; process => quality]

A-2 your escape was a miracle [verb: noun; process => thing]

In B-1 and B-2, on the other hand, there is rank shift but no class shift; these are the agnate congruent forms:

B-1 a cow is a quadruped that chews the cud/ that ruminates

B-2 it was a miracle how/that you got away/ you escaped

Here 'ruminate' and 'escape' remain as process, without shifting in class. This now helps to explain the meaning of forms such as C-1 and C-2:

C-1 a cow is a cud-chewing quadruped

C-2 it was a miracle you/your getting away

These represent a kind of semantic compromise, a means of having it both ways. The junction is now as it were symmetrical, with the time line removed, so that 'chew + cud', 'you + escape' are simultaneously both figures and (parts of) elements. What the grammar is construing here is an exchange of functions without shifting class; the figure takes on a special kind of clausal structure which conserves the transitivity relations.

Syntagmatic And Paradigmatic Dimensions Of Grammatical Metaphor

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 249):

… we identified individual types of grammatical metaphor, such as "process => thing". For analytic purposes we treated these as isolates having just the two values "congruent/ metaphorical". We now need to consider two respects in which this is an idealised, oversimplified account of what actually happens. We need to add a dimension of complexity on both syntagmatic and paradigmatic axes.

Syntagmatically, instances of grammatical metaphor typically occur not in isolation but in organic clusters or "syndromes". Paradigmatically, there will typically be other wordings intermediate between an instance of grammatical metaphor and its "most congruent" agnate variant.

Expansion And Projection As Resources For Figures Of Speech

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 225, 226):

Thus our concept of "construing experience through meaning" refers to the construal in human consciousness of an ideational system in which such motifs play a critical part. Expansion and projection are, as we put it earlier, fractal principles; they generate organisation within many environments in the ideation base, at different strata and at different ranks within one stratum. These environments are thus related to one another through the local manifestations of these different motifs; and this opens up the system's potential for alternative construals of experience: for example, the types of expansion create new meaning potential through "figures of speech" (see Figure 5-15).

Fractal Agnation

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 223-4):

Sequences, figures and elements, and their subclasses, constitute different environments within the ideation base. If we construe some phenomenon of experience as a sequence of qualification, we give it a location in the overall ideational system that is quite distinct from the location it would be assigned if it was construed as a figure of circumstantial cause. These two types are thus not particularly close agnates in the system, However, the fractal types constitute an additional order of agnation that is projected onto the ideational system as a whole. We can refer to this as fractal agnation. Because of this, a qualifying sequence and a figure of circumstantial being, such as cause, are agnate: they are both manifestations of the fractal type of enhancement For example, the sequence ebola broke out so 52 people died is agnate with the figure the outbreak of ebola caused 52 deaths even though they are quite far apart in their semantic structure.

Circumstances That Are More Like Figures Than Participants

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 221-2):

But even within one language, however they are construed grammatically, the status of circumstantial elements is variable. In English, those that are nearer the centre of our helix are more like participants, as shown by the examples above; while those that are on the periphery are more like figures. We can give some examples of agnate pairs of this kind.

Agnation Between Participants, Circumstances And Figures

 Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 218-20):

Table 5(5) combines the two perspectives, showing their relationship both to participants and to figures. We referred to the cline from participants to circumstances as the "degree of involvement" in the actualisation of the process. This degree of involvement ranged from the closest, the Medium, which is part of the nucleus of the figure, to those that appear most remote, circumstances such as Matter (e.g. concerning your request) and Angle (e.g. in my own opinion). Somewhere in the middle was an area of overlap, where participants and circumstances are very closely akin. The two overlap because there are some functions which can be construed either as a form of participant in the process or as a circumstance attendant on it.

Table 5(5): Agnation between participants, circumstances and figures

Qualities Of Enhancement

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 212):

Qualities of enhancement also resemble those of 'elaboration: identity' and those of extension in that they construe a relation between the thing they are assigned to and another thing. This is brought out by the fact that they are agnate with processes relating participants circumstantially: 

subsequent : be (come) after, 
preceding : be (come) before/precede, 
interior : be within, 
exterior : be outside, 
as in previous occasions : occasions coming before this one, 
interior design : design of what is within a house. 

This relation is typically a temporal or spatial one involving the thing as a discoursal instance rather than the thing as a general experiential class. Consequently, like qualities of extension, qualities of enhancement tend to serve as deictic elements (Post-Deictic) rather than as Epithets; as Post-Deictics, they come before Numeratives in the structure of the nominal group: the preceding/ subsequent two meetings. Here they relate a specific referent, recoverable in the current situation: the subsequent two meetings : the two meetings that followed this one. 

But the spatial qualities can also, being taxonomic, serve to subclassify the thing they are assigned to: interior monologue, external pipes. Here they relate to a general class of thing, inferable from the experiential system: interior monologue : monologue that is within a person, external pipes : pipes that are outside a house.

Qualities Of Elaboration: Identity

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 212):

Qualities of elaboration, subtype identity are not inherent properties, but rather are comparative. Thus the standard of comparison can always be construed: their car is the same/similar/different : their car is the same as/similar to/different from ours; and they are agnate with processes: their car is/resembles/differs from ours. The line between elaboration: identity and enhancement: manner, comparison is a fuzzy one; and processual agnates such as their car resembles ours are within the domain of enhancement.

Qualities Of Elaboration: Attribution

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 211-2):

The most prototypical qualities are those of elaboration, subtype attribution: they stand in a purely intensive relation to the thing they are assigned to, being construed as inherent qualities. They are typically scalar, but certain types are taxonomic or binary. 

As Epithets (or Classifiers) they are agnate with the Attribute of a figure of being. Many of them can serve as the Attribute of a figure of doing (as in he squashed it flat, she painted it blue) and are related to the outcome of such figures (cf. she heated/widened/enlarged it : it was hot/wide/large). 

The limiting case of qualities of attribution are quantities; they are assigned to a thing as a discoursal instance rather than as a general experiential class. Consequently, they do not serve as Epithets; they have a special role, that of Numerative (as in two/many brave volunteers).

Qualities Of Expansion

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 210):

Qualities of expansion cannot normally be assigned to metathings. They expand the thing they are related to by elaboration, extension or enhancement. These different subtypes display different patterns of agnation, but as Epithet (or Classifier) + Thing configurations they are all agnate with figures of being & having.

Qualities Of Projection As Agnate With Modality and Attitude

 Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 210):

As we have seen, sensing is agnate with modality and, in the case of emotive sensing, with attitude. Similarly, qualities of projection extend to include modalities and attitudes; when the thing (or metathing) they are assigned to is agnate with the Phenomenon, these qualities are construed as objective, impersonal ones: it is certain/likely/possible that the moon's a balloon. (Contrast: I'm certain the moon's a balloon.) With qualities of usuality, this is the only possible orientation.

Qualities Of Projection As Agnate With Processes Of Sensing

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 210):

Qualities of projection are all scalar and they are, as we just noted, agnate with processes of sensing in figures of sensing; they are often realised by participial verb forms used as adjectives. The thing they are assigned to, as Attribute or as Epithet, is agnate either with the Senser (the 'like' type, realised by v-en if verbal in origin: happy, sad, angry, afraid, frightened, certain, sure) or with the Phenomenon (the 'please' type, realised by v-ing if verbal in origin: sad(dening), tragic, irritating, scary, certain). 

From this it follows that when they are agnate with the Senser, they are ascribed to conscious beings (as in an angry child/boss/cat), whereas when they are agnate with the Phenomenon, they can be ascribed not only to things but also to metathings, i.e. to projections (as in it's sad(dening)/tragic/irritating/scary/certain that they ignore world opinion). In the former case, these qualities may be 'transferred' to tokens of the senser's sensing, as in an angry face/look/letter/reaction.

Qualities Of Projection And Expansion

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 209-10):

Qualities can be distinguished according to the transphenomenal types of projection and expansion. Qualities of projection and qualities of expansion differ in a number of respects. Most fundamentally, they differ in their patterns of agnation. 

Qualities of projection are agnate with processes in figures of sensing; for example, happy in the happy child (or the child is happy) is agnate with rejoice in the child rejoices. 

In contrast, qualities of expansion display patterns of agnation within figures of being & having, with variation according to subtype. 

This fundamental difference explains other differences; for example, qualities of projection tend to occur in agnate pairs of the 'like' and 'please' type that we find with figures of sensing (e.g. afraid/scary, suspicious/suspect, bored/boring), whereas qualities of expansion do not.

Angle

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 174-5):

This type of circumstance relates to projection rather than expansion, and specifically to the projecting not the projected component Hence there is no agnate participant; instead, the Angle corresponds to the process of saying (grammatically, the projecting verbal clause in a 'locution' nexus) or the process of sensing (grammatically, the projecting mental clause in an 'idea' nexus). Thus according to the newspaper corresponds to the newspaper says; and to her students corresponds to her students think.

Manner: Comparison

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 174):

This category lies on the borderline of elaborating and extending: compare he spoke like an expert 'in the manner of', he spoke as an expert 'in the role of'. The analogous participant is that of Attribute in an ascriptive clause as in he was/seemed an expert, which is construed as elaborating; but the analogous sequence is an enhancing clause complex he spoke as if he was an expert.

Blogger Comments:

The 'elaborating' interpretation of Manner: comparison disappears if the analogous ascriptive clauses are instead:

Accompaniment

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 174):

The circumstance of Accompaniment does not correspond to any one particular participant role. Rather, it corresponds to an extending of the participant itself, by addition or variation: John came with Mary is agnate to both John and Mary came; Mary came without John is agnate to Mary but not John came; Mary came instead of John is agnate to not John but Mary came. Grammatically, the analogous type of participant is one represented by a nominal group complex.