Calls

Halliday (1994: 95):

Vocatives

Halliday (1994: 85):

The Perspectives Of Hypotactic vs Paratactic Projection

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 519):

As pointed out earlier, the hypotactic relationship implies a different perspective. If we contrast the following pair of examples:

(a) Mary said: ‘I will come back here to-morrow’.
(b) Mary thought she would go back there the next day.

then in (a) the standpoint in the projected clause is that of the Sayer, Mary; she is the point of reference for the deixis, which thus preserves the form of the lexicogrammatical event, using I, here, come, tomorrow. In (b) on the other hand the standpoint in the projected clause is simply that of the speaker of the projecting one; so Mary is ‘she’, Mary’s present location is ‘there’, a move towards that location is ‘going’, and the day referred to as that immediately following the saying is not the speaker’s tomorrow but simply ‘the next day’. Furthermore, since the saying clause has past time the projected clause carries over the feature of temporal remoteness: hence would (future in past – the past defined by thought), not will (simple future). Hypotactic projection preserves the deictic orientation of the projecting clause, which is that of the speaker; whereas in paratactic projection the deixis shifts and takes on the orientation of the Sayer. And while paratactic projection can represent any dialogic features of what was said, hypotactic projection cannot; for example, vocative elements and minor speech functions can be quoted but not reported …

The Speech Function Of Quoted Vs Reported Projection

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 510-1):

… paratactic projection allows for a greater [speech functional] range: we can quote not only propositions and proposals but also minor speech functions such as greetings and exclamations … . This is part of the general principle whereby reporting reduces the potential for projecting dialogic features. For example, while Vocative elements can be quoted … they cannot be reported. … Adding this third systemic variable to our account, we can now expand Table 7-17: see Table 7-18.

Vocatives In Major Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 196):

When a vocative functions within a major clause, it is fairly ‘loosely’ integrated: it falls outside the Mood + Residue structure.

Minor Speech Functions: Calls

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 196):

Calls are calling to attention another person, or other entity treated as capable of being addressed: deity, spirit, [nonhuman] animal or inanimate object. These do relate to the clause as exchange; the structural function is that of Vocative … Under this heading we could include the response to a call, where relevant; typically yes on a rising tone.

Interactive Features Missing From Bound Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 172):

‘Bound’ clauses are, as we have suggested, presented as presumed rather than as negotiable. They lack a number of the interactive features of ‘free’ clauses. They are very unlikely to be tagged even if they are ‘finite’ and thus look structurally like ‘declarative’ clauses. … And ‘non-finite’ clauses cannot be tagged. Similarly, Vocatives and speech-functional comment Adjuncts – both highly interactive features – are unlike to occur with ‘bound’ clauses.

Vocatives: Function

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 159):

In using a Vocative the speaker is enacting the participation of the addressee or addressees in the exchange. This may serve to identify the particular person being addressed, or to call for that person’s attention; but in many dialogic contexts the function of the Vocative is more negotiatory: the speaker uses it to mark the interpersonal relationship, sometimes thereby claiming superior status or power. The Vocative is also brought in as a text signal, for example, when signing off in a telephone conversation.

Vocatives: Distribution

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 159):

Another element that figures in the structure of the clause as exchange, but outside the scope of the Mood and Residue, is the Vocative. This also is fairly mobile, occurring (a) thematically; (b) at the boundary between Theme and Rheme (not usually between Mood and Residue) or (c) clause–finally; and with the same intonation patterns as the comment Adjuncts. The Vocative can accompany a clause of any mood, but it is relatively more frequent in ‘demanding’ clauses (interrogatives and imperatives) than in ‘giving’ ones (declaratives).

Interpersonal Elements In Neither Mood Nor Residue

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 143n):

The combination of Mood plus Residue embody the proposition or proposal of the clause (with the Mood element as the key to the distinction between the two); but, as we shall see below, there are certain interpersonal elements of the clause that do not belong to either the Mood element or the Residue: the Vocative, and comment and conjunctive Adjuncts. These relate to, but are not part of the proposition/proposal enacted by the clause.

Interpersonal Themes: Characteristically Thematic

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 110):

If there is a Vocative in the clause, or a modal or comment Adjunct, it is quite likely to be thematic: these items are characteristic of dialogue, in which the speaker may be calling the attention of the listener, or else expressing his or her own angle on the matter in hand, whether probable, desirable and so on, and hence they tend to be brought in as key signature to the particular move in the exchange – in other words, as Theme of the clause.

Quoting Vs Reporting: Dialogic Features Of Locutions

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 453):

And while paratactic projection can represent any dialogic features of what was said, hypotactic projection cannot; for example, vocative elements and minor speech functions can be quoted but not reported.