Paratactic Group/Phrase Complexes

Halliday (1994: 275-6):

Hypotactic Nesting

Halliday (1994: 223):

Paratactic Nesting

Halliday (1994: 222):

Modification With Internal Regressive Bracketing In A Clause Complex

Halliday (1994: 217):

Modification With Internal Bracketing In A Clause Complex

Halliday (1994: 217):

Examples Of The Principal Categories Of Expansion

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 118):

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.)

Nesting, Taxis & Logico-Semantic Type

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 450):

… internal nesting always occurs when there is a change in taxis. That is, any logical sequence of clauses is always either paratactic (1 2 3 …) or hypotactic (α β γ …). It is never a mixture of the two; … If there is a switch in taxis, this automatically leads to nesting … . By the same token, any logical sequence of clauses is always constant in logico-semantic type — projection of ideas, projection of locutions, elaboration, extension or enhancement. It is never a mixture of types; … If there is a switch in logico-semantic type, then nesting automatically occurs …

Nesting (Internal Bracketing)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 442):

This is where what is being linked by a logico-semantic relation is not a single clause but rather a ‘sub-complex’ — a clause nexus in its own right. …

 

We can show nesting in either of two ways.

• (i) The nesting can be represented explicitly as internal bracketing — eg 1 ^ 2 (α ^ β);
• (ii) or it can be represented as a simple string — eg 1 ^ 2α ^ 2β.

Sequences: Constraints

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 122):

Thus sequences are formed by binary logico-semantic relations which may relate either single figures or sequences of figures [i.e. internal nesting]. 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.