Quotes, Reports And Facts Are Categories Of Language

Halliday (1994: 272):

Examples Of Embedded Locutions And Ideas

Halliday (1994: 264):

Projection Of Propositions And Proposals Summarised

Halliday (1994: 260):

Four Types Of Projection Nexus

Halliday (1994: 255-6):

Reported Speech

Halliday (1994: 254-5:

Wording As Two Removes From Experience

Halliday (1994: 252-3):

The Nature Of A Quoted Clause

Halliday (1994: 252):

Quoting Locutions (Direct Speech)

Halliday (1994: 250-1):

Logico-Semantic Relations And Interdependency

Halliday (1994: 224-5):

Basic Types Of Clause Complex

Halliday (1994: 220):

Notation For Subtypes Of Expansion And Projection

Halliday (1994: 219):

The Differentiation Of Inner And Outer Experience

 Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 584-5):

This 'world view' can be depicted using the conventions of comic strips: see Figure 14-7.

The conventions of comic strips clearly differentiate between figures of sensing and saying on the one hand and figures of being & having and doing & happening on the other: the latter are represented graphically, whereas the former are represented linguistically, in terms of their projected content Comic strips thus codify the higher-order nature of projections and their constitution in language.

The Verbal Externalisation Of Consciousness

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 584):

The everyday grammar's contribution to the construal of sensing is thus both rich and varied. Some features of it are particularly significant to the uncommonsense model of mainstream cognitive science. The grammar separates out consciousness from the rest of our experience in the form of mental processes, capable of projecting ideas; but in addition, consciousness may also be 'externalised' in the form of verbal processes, capable of projecting locutions.

Figures Of Saying: Semantic Characterisation

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 151):

Here one participant, the Sayer, is involved as the originator of a process of symbolic (semiotic) activity, or "saying". There may be another participant the Receiver, whose role is that of 'decoding' what is said. What is said may itself be construed as a further participant, the Verbiage; or else it may be projected as another figure [locution] within the same sequence. Finally, there may be a participant functioning as Target of the saying process.

Grammatical Reactances For Figure Types: Projection

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 135):

Projection: Mental and verbal clauses are distinct from material and relational clauses in that the former can project ideas and locutions (quote or report). These represent the 'content' of sensing and saying, as in David thought —> the moon was a balloon, where the relation of projection is represented by an arrow. Verbal clauses are distinct from mental clauses in that the Sayer is not necessarily an entity endowed with consciousness; and in verbal clauses there may be a further participant, the Receiver, which is not found in a mental clause.

Interior vs Exterior Symbolic Processing

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 129):

"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.

The Possibilities Of Projecting Sequences Summarised

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 116):

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.

Projected Propositions vs Proposals

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 114):

The interpersonal system for dialogic interaction thus creates a fundamental distinction between 'content' as proposition and 'content' as proposal. This distinction is then reflected in the ideational system of projection: a figure is projected in one or other of these two modes, as a proposition or as a proposal. The two categories combine freely with ideas and locutions:

Blogger Comments:

The table confusingly presents verbally reported locutions as ideas. Instances of genuine reported ideas are:

• he thought —> that he had done the laundry (proposition)
• she wanted him  —> to do the laundry (proposal).

'Proposition ideas' are projected by cognitive mental Processes, whereas 'proposal ideas' are projected by desiderative mental Processes.

Thinking Ideas (Meanings) vs Saying Locutions (Wordings)

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 109, 110):

In (i) the 'content' of his thinking is the meaning. It remains internal to his consciousness and unrealised, i.e. unworded. In (ii) the 'content' of his saying is the wording. It has been externalised, realised as a wording. We will refer to these in the context of projection as (i) ideas and (ii) locutions. The contrast between these two statuses of projected figures is typically reflected in the shape of balloons in comic strip projections: see Figure 3-5.

Projected Content: Meaning (Idea) vs Wording (Locution)

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 109, 110):

We have seen that the content plane is stratified into two levels — semantics (the level of meanings) and lexicogrammar (the level of wordings). Consequently, we would expect projections to be located at either or both of these levels, and this is indeed what happens: a projected figure is either a meaning or a wording: see Figure 3-4.