Clause Elaboration

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 461):

In elaboration, one clause elaborates on the meaning of another by further specifying or describing it; … The secondary clause does not introduce a new element into the picture but rather provides a further characterisation of one that is already there, restating it, clarifying it, refining it, or adding a descriptive attribute or comment. … The thing that is elaborated may be the primary clause as a whole, or it may be just some part of it — one or more of its constituents.

Expansion: Regions Of Continuous Semantic Space

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 460):

As with all other systems such as the system of process type, we have to think of the system of type of expansion as defining regions within a continuous semantic space … the different types of expansion shade into one another at certain points; and expansion itself can come very close to projection.

Clause Complex Representation & Mode

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 457):

The clause complex is of particular interest in spoken language, because it represents the dynamic potential of the system — the ability to ‘choreograph’ very long and intricate patterns of semantic movement while maintaining a continuous flow of discourse that is coherent without being constructional. This kind of flow is very uncharacteristic of written language. Since grammatical theory evolved as the study of written language, it is good at synoptic-type ‘product’ representations, with constituency as the organising concept, but bad at dynamic-type ‘process’ representations, which is what is needed for the interpretation of speech.

Representing Dependency Structures

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 456-8):

The box diagram and the tree diagram both show how the clause complex is made up of clauses; but they have the disadvantage that they make the structure of the clause complex look like a constituency structure even though it is in fact a dependency structure. … we present a diagrammatic form of representation that brings out both constituency and dependency relations, as in Figure 7-13.

Taxis & Ordering

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 455-6): 

In parataxis there is no dependence of either element on the other; so there is no ordering other that which is represented by the sequence. This is why we use the numerical notation. … The only modification is that which arises through internal bracketing or nesting… 

In a hypotactic structure the elements are ordered in dependence, and this ordering is largely independent of the sequence. Hence we can have various sequences: dependent clause

(i) following dominant,

(ii) preceding dominant,

(iii) enclosed in or

(iv) enclosing dominant …

Hypotactic structures may also involve nesting …

Clause Dependency & Finiteness

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 454-5):

In a hypotactic clause nexus, dependent clauses may be finite or non-finite … In a non-finite dependent clause, the Subject is typically ellipsed. … Other clauses in the clause complex are finite. Paratactically related clauses that are nested within a dependency are of course dependent for this purpose;

Taxis & Classes Of Conjunction

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 454):

Conjunctions may be used to mark the secondary clause in both parataxis and hypotaxis; but different classes of conjunction are used. With parataxis, linkers are used, but only when the logico-semantic relation is one of expansion (e.g. and, or, but). Linkers may also serve a cohesive function. With hypotaxis, binders are used, in the environment of both projection (that; whether, if) and expansion (e.g. when, while; because, since, if, although) and also, in the case of certain non-finite clauses, conjunctive prepositions (e.g. after, before; because of, despite). Both parataxis and hypotaxis may involve correlative conjunctions, where a second conjunction marks the primary clause.

Taxis & Symmetry

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 452):

This basic pattern may be modified by the nature of the logico-semantic relationship, for example, ‘quote’ as a paratactic relation is clearly not symmetrical: ‘John says, quote: its raining’ cannot be reworded as ‘it’s raining, quote: John says’. But whenever it is logically possible, a given semantic relationship will be symmetrical and transitive in combination with parataxis but not in combination with hypotaxis.

Hypotaxis: Logically Non-Symmetrical & Non-Transitive

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 452):

Hypotaxis is the binding of elements of unequal status … The dominant element is free, but the dependent element is not.The hypotactic relation is logically (i) non-symmetrical and (ii) non-transitive. For example, ‘when’: (i) ‘I breathe when I sleep’ does not imply ‘I sleep when I breathe’; (ii) ‘I fret when I have to drive slowly’ and ‘I have to drive slowly when it’s been raining’ together do not imply ‘I fret when it’s been raining’.

Parataxis: Logically Symmetrical & Transitive

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 452):

Parataxis is the linking of elements of equal status … Both the initiating and the continuing elements are free, in the sense that each could stand as a functioning whole. In principle, the paratactic relation is logically (i) symmetrical and (ii) transitive. This can be exemplified by the ‘and’ relation. (i) ‘salt and pepper’ implies ‘pepper and salt’, so the relationship is symmetrical; (ii) ‘salt and pepper’, ‘pepper and mustard’ together imply ‘salt and mustard’, so the relationship is transitive.

The Properties Of Parataxis And Hypotaxis

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 451-2, 453):

Parataxis and hypotaxis are general relationships that are the same throughout the grammar: they define complexes at any rank (clause complex, group or phrase complex, word complex; in addition hypotaxis defines the logical organisation of groups. (In contrast, multivariate structures differ from one grammatical unit to another.) The distinctive properties and patterns of realisation of parataxis and hypotaxis are summarised in Table 7-7.

 

Univariate And Multivariate Structure

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 452):

Multivariate Structure Types By Metafunction

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 451):

… the relationships among the elements in a multivariate structure can be characterised as segmental from an experiential point of view but as prosodic from an interpersonal point of view and as cumulative from a textual one. A prototypical example of a segmental structure is the transitivity structure of a clause, a prototypical example of a prosodic structure is the tone contour that typically extends over a clause, and a prototypical example of a culminative structure is thematic prominence at the beginning of the clause (followed by rhematic non-prominence).

Multivariate Structure

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 451):

A multivariate structure is a configuration of different functional relationships, like Theme + Rheme, Mood + Residue + Moodtag, or Actor + Process + Recipient + Goal.  Note that, although it is the functions that are labelled, the structure actually consists of the relationships among them.

Univariate Structure

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 451):

The tactic structures of complexes are relational in nature; they are the kind of structure that we have called univariate, to distinguish it from the multivariate structures … .  A univariate structure is an iteration of the same functional relationship; … Such iterative structures are unique to the logical mode of meaning; they are formed out of logico-semantic relations.

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 …

Projection: Idea (‘thinks’)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 444):

one clause is projected through another, which presents it as an idea, a construction of meaning.

Projection: Locution (‘says’)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 444):

one clause is projected through another, which presents it as a locution, a construction of wording.

Expansion: Enhancing (‘so, yet, then’)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 444):

one clause expands another by embellishing around it: qualifying it with some circumstantial feature of time, place, cause or condition.

Expansion: Extending (‘and, or’)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 444):

one clause expands another by extending beyond it: adding some new element, giving an exception to it, or offering an alternative.

Expansion: Elaborating (‘i.e., e.g., viz.’)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 444):

one clause expands another by elaborating on it (or some portion of it): restating in other words, specifying in greater detail, commenting, or exemplifying.

Subtypes Of Expansion And Projection

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 444):

Within the general categories of expansion and projection, we recognise first of all a small number of subtypes: three of expansion, and two of projection. The names of these, with suggested notation, are as follows:

(1) Expansion:

(a) elaborating = (‘equals’)
(b) extending + (‘is added to’)
(c) enhancing x (‘is multiplied by’)

(2) Projection:

(a) locution “ (double quotes)
(b) idea ‘ (single quotes)

Logico-Semantic Relations Between Primary & Secondary Members Of A Clause Nexus

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 443):

(1) Expansion: the secondary clause expands the primary clause by (a) elaborating it [= ‘equals’], (b) extending it [+ ‘is added to’] or (c) enhancing it [x ‘is multiplied by’].

(2) Projection: the secondary clause is projected through the primary clause, which instates it as (a) a locution [“ double quotes] or (b) an idea [‘ single quotes].

Expansion relates phenomena as being of the same order of experience, while projection relates phenomena to phenomena of a higher order of experience (semiotic phenomena — what people say and think).

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.

Clause Nexus: Primary And Secondary Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 441-2):

a clause complex is formed by means of tactic relations; and it is developed or built up as a chain, one pair of clauses at a time.We will refer to any one pair of clauses related by interdependency, or ‘taxis’, as a clause nexus. … The clauses making up such a nexus are primary and secondary.  The primary is the initiating clause in a paratactic nexus, and the dominant clause in a hypotactic; the secondary is the continuing clause in a paratactic nexus and the dependent clause in a hypotactic. This is set out in Table 7-4.

 

Interdependency: Rejected Terminology

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 440n):

An earlier name for the higher term in the dependency relation, that on which something is dependent, was terminant. The problem with this turns out to be that it is too readily misinterpreted as ‘coming last in sequence’. The dependency relation, however, is neutral as regards the sequence in which the elements occur. Another possible set of terms would be ‘main clause’ for the dominant clause and ‘subordinate clause’ for the dependent clause. However, this could lead to confusion since ‘subordination’ has usually been used to refer to both hypotaxis and embedding without the critical distinction between the two. Further, the term ‘parataxis’ does not correspond to ‘coordination’ (in contrast with ‘subordination’); it covers not only ‘coordination’ but also ‘apposition’.

Taxis: Degree Of Interdependency

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 440):

Degree of interdependency is known technically as taxis; and the two different degrees of interdependency as parataxis (equal status) and hypotaxis (unequal status). Hypotaxis is the relation between a dependent element and its dominant, the element on which it is dependent. Contrasting with this is parataxis, which is the relation between two like elements of equal status, one initiating and the other continuing.

Hypotaxis And Mood

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 440):

Alternatively, two clauses related as interdependent may be treated as being of unequal status [hypotactic] … While the main clause constitutes a proposition in its own right and can thus be tagged … the qualifying clause does not and cannot be tagged … the qualifying clause can be placed either before or after the ‘head’ clause … The choice is determined by textual considerations.

Clause Complex Vs Cohesive Sequence

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 439-40):

When clauses are combined with the status of equal, there is a closely agnate version where the two clauses are not brought together structurally in a clause complex but rather form a cohesive sequence:

Kukul crouched low to the ground. He moved slowly.

In this version the elliptical Subject of the second clause has to be reinstated, since such Subject ellipsis is not possible outside the domain of a clause complex. 

The two versions are treated differently in the graphology: in the cohesive sequence, the two clauses are separated by a full stop; but in the clause complex, there is no full stop separating the clauses (though there could have been a comma or even semi-colon). 

This reflects the typical realisation in the phonology: in the cohesive sequence, the first clause would be spoken on tone 1 (falling), and then followed by the second clause also on tone 1; but in the clause complex, the first clause would be spoken on tone 3 (level), and then followed by the second clause on tone 1. Here tone 3 indicates that there is more to come – by the expansion of the clause to form a clause complex.

Parataxis And Mood

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 438):

All clauses linked by a logico-semantic relation are interdependent: that is the meaning of a relational structure — one unit is interdependent on another unit. Two clauses related as interdependent in a complex may be treated as being of equal status [paratactic] … each constitutes a proposition in its own right and could thus be tagged … They could in fact select for different moods …

Types Of Relation Between Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 438):

Two basic systems determine how one clause is related to another; they are set out in Figure 7-3, together with some more delicate subsystems that will be discussed below:

(i) taxis (degree of interdependency)
(ii) the logico-semantic relation.

 

Multivariate Sentence Structure?

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 437-8):

There are syntagms that may look as if they need to be interpreted in terms of a multivariate sentence structure, involving textual or modal Adjuncts or Vocative elements as Theme:

||| However << after the results of many studies were published, >> there was a shift towards the theory being quite unacceptable. |||
||| Interestingly, <<< as I left my small town || and explored the world via the military >>> I realised || I really like to learn, || and I was good at it. |||
||| Larry, Larry, Larry, << when you’re in the public eye >> you don’t do anything. |||

However, these can all be analysed as hypotactic clause combinations, where the dependent clause is included within the main clause after the textual and/or interpersonal Theme and before the topical Theme: main clause << dependent clause >> – more specifically, main clause [textual + interpersonal Theme] << dependent clause >> main clause [topical Theme ^ Rheme]. The motivation behind such sequences with included dependent clauses is thus textual: the main clause is powerfully contextualised first by its own textual and/or interpersonal Theme, and then, within the domain of the clause complex, by the dependent clause that qualifies it, and finally by its own topical Theme.

Blogger Comments:

Nevertheless, it will be seen later that there is one type of clause complex that is interpreted as a multivariate (Theme^Rheme) structure — though not acknowledged as such.  Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 552):

Why The Clause Complex Is Not Interpreted As A Ranked Unit

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 437):

But does the clause complex need to be interpreted as a ranked unit (a ‘sentence’) analogous to the group? We believe the answer is no; the essential nature of a clause complex is brought out by treating it as a univariately structured complex rather than as a multivariately structured unit. In a clause complex, the tendency is much more for any clause to have the potential for functioning with any value in a multi-clausal complex. In other words, the relations among the clauses in a clause complex are generally more like that of a string of nouns such as railway ticket office staff, which could be explained as a (univariate) word complex, than that of these two old railway engines, which could not. We shall assume, therefore, that the notion of ‘clause complex’ enables us to account in full for the grammatical combination of clauses.

Why The Group Is A Distinct Rank In The Grammar (Rather Than Just A Word Complex)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 437):

Although groups are word complexes, they cannot be fully accounted for as complexes. Groups have developed their own multivariate constituent structures with functional configurations such as the Deictic + Numerative + Epithet + Classifier + Thing of the nominal group in English. Here the elements are

• (i) distinct in function,
• (ii) realised by distinct classes, and
• (iii) more or less fixed in sequence.

A configuration of such a kind has to be represented as a multivariate structure. Treating the group simply as a ‘word complex’ does not account for all these various aspects of its meaning. It is for this reason that we recognise the group as a distinct rank in the grammar.

Why 'Nominal Group' Rather Than 'Noun Phrase'

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 437n):

It is important to maintain the terminological distinction between group and phrase, which is lost if a nominal group is referred to as a ‘noun phrase’. Although group and phrase are both of intermediate rank as constituents, they have arrived there from different ends: a group is a bloated word, whereas a phrase is a shrunken clause. In Bloomfield’s (1933: 194–195) terms, groups are endocentric constructions whereas phrases are exocentric ones.

The Location Of 'Sentence' In SFL Theory

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 436):

… the clause complex is realised graphologically as a ‘sentence’, in the way that this has evolved, over the centuries, as a unit in the written language. The sentence is the highest unit of punctuation on the graphological rank scale and has evolved in the writing system to represent the clause complex as the most extensive domain of grammatical structure. We will use the term sentence to refer only to this highest-ranking graphological unit of punctuation. … Hence in the analysis of a written text each sentence can be treated as one clause complex, with the ‘simple’ (one clause) sentence as the limiting case. … Table 7-3 shows the location of clause complex and sentence in relation to other units and complexes of units in the total linguistic system.

 

The Location Of The Clause Complex: Metafunction, Rank & Stratification

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 435):

(1) In terms of metafunction, it is organised by the logical mode of the ideational metafunction, contrasting with circumstantial augmentations of the clause (experiential) and cohesive sequences (textual). … 

(2) In terms of rank, it is located at the highest rank of the grammar — clause rank; and it is thus related to the clause in terms of logical complexing rather than in terms of experiential constituency. … 

(3) In terms of stratification, the clause complex realises a semantic sequence of projection or expansion; and it is, in turn, realised by a sequence of tones in speech and by a sentence in writing.

Grammatical Realisations Of Sequences As Scale Of Integration

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 434-5):

These grammatical opportunities for realising a sequence of projection or expansion form a scale defined by two poles: one pole is the simple clause with a circumstantial element and the other is the cohesive sequence of two independent clauses. The clause complex thus covers the region intermediate between these two poles. … closer to the pole of circumstantial augmentation, there are clause combinations where one clause is dependent on a dominant clause, the two thus being of unequal status [hypotaxis]; closer to the pole of cohesive sequences, there are clause combinations where the two clauses are interdependent on one another, the two having equal status [parataxis]. This scale of degree of grammatical integration and interdependence in the realisation of projection and expansion is represented diagrammatically in Figure 7-2.

Grammatical Realisations Of Sequences

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 434):

A sequence of projection or expansion may be realised by two clauses that are combined structurally to form a clause complex, as in a happened and then b happened or after a happened, b happened.  But there are two alternative forms of realisation.  On the one hand, the sequence may be realised by two clauses that are not combined structurally but are linked cohesively instead: A happened.  Then b happened.  Here the grammar provides a ‘clue’ as to the nature of the semantic link; but it does not integrate the two clauses into a grammatical construction.  On the other hand, the sequence may be realised by a single clause with a phrase (or adverbial group) serving as a circumstantial element within it: after the time of a, b happened.

Augmentation By Circumstance Vs By Clause Complexing: Semiotic Weight As Motivating Factor

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 434):

In the creation of text, we choose between augmenting a clause ‘internally’ by means of a circumstantial element and augmenting it ‘externally’ by means of another clause in a complex. The decision depends on many factors; but the basic consideration has to do with how much textual, interpersonal and experiential semiotic ‘weight’ is to be assigned to the unit: the more weight it has, the more likely it is to be constructed as an interdependent clause in a clause complex rather than as a circumstantial phrase (or adverbial group) augmenting a clause.

Augmentation: Circumstances Vs Clause Complexing

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 434):

… a circumstantial element in a clause contains only a minor process, not a major one; so unlike a clause it cannot construe a figure, it cannot enact a proposition/proposal and it cannot present a message. In contrast, clause complexing always involves assigning clause-hood to an augmentation of expansion or projection: the augmentation has the full potential of a clause, in terms of experiential, interpersonal and textual systems. … while circumstantial elements are part of the ‘configurational’ organisation of the clause, clauses in clause complexes are part of a chain-like or serial structure.

Projection And Expansion Manifested In Clause And Clause Complex

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 432-3):

Circumstances augment the configuration of process + participants in the clause in terms of either projection or expansion. These two types of relation correspond, in turn, to different process types: projection corresponds to verbal and mental clauses, and expansion corresponds to relational clauses. Projection and expansion are also manifested as the logico-semantic relations that link clauses together to form clause complexes. The manifestations of projection and expansion in the clause and the clause complex are set out in Table 7-2.

 

The Semantic Effect Of Clause Complexing

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 430-2):

Semantically, the effect of combining clauses into clause complexes is one of tighter integration in meaning: the sequences that are realised grammatically in a clause complex are construed as being sub-sequences within the total sequence of events that make up a whole episode in a narrative. … But the integrating and choreographing effect achieved by clause complexes is not, of course, restricted to narratives; it is a feature of texts of all kinds.

Adjectives Serving as Event In A Verbal Group In A Hypotactic Verbal Group Complex

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 427n):

Certain adjectives can serve as Event in a verbal group in a hypotactic verbal group complex, e.g. (conation: potentiality:) be able/apt/prone/likely → to do; (modulation: time: frequency:) be wont → to do; (modulation: manner: quality:) be wise/right/wrong → to do; (projection:) be willing/keen/eager → to do; be afraid/scared → to do.

Word Classes And Their Typical Group Functions

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 426-7):

… the mapping between classes at group/phrase rank and functions at clause rank is fairly complex: a group/phrase of a given class can typically serve a number of different clause functions (the exception being the verbal group). When we move down one step along the rank scale to consider the relation between word classes and group/phrase functions, we find there is a stronger tendency towards a one-to-one relationship: a word of a particular class tends to serve only one group/phrase function: see Table 6-19. The major exception is the class of adverb; but this is partly a matter of delicacy: certain adverbs function only as Head, whereas others function only as Modifier or Sub-Modifier.

The Notion Of Non-Ranged Prepositional Phrases (And In/Transitive Prepositions)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 426):

If prepositional phrases are interpreted as ‘compressed’ or ‘shrunken’ clauses with the structure of Predicator/Process + Complement/Range, then it makes sense to ask whether alongside these ‘ranged’ phrases, there are ‘non-ranged’ ones: this is a question that arises automatically from our clause-like analysis of prepositional phrases. Consider an agnate pair of clauses such as he crossed and he crossed the street. Here the agnation has to do with the absence or presence of the Range; the two clauses are ‘non-ranged’ and ‘ranged’, respectively. Are these two clauses analogous to a pair of phrases such as across and across the street? In other words, is there a proportion:

he crossed : he crossed the street ::
(he walked) across : (he walked) across the street

If there is, this would mean that in traditional terms prepositions can be either intransitive (across) or transitive (across the street). … In discussing prepositions and adverbs, Jespersen (1924: 88) suggests that there is an ‘exact parallel’ between examples such as put your cap on and put your cap on your head, on the one hand, and he was in and he was in the house, on the other. More recently, in their reference grammar of English, Huddleston & Pullum (2002: 612 ff.) argue that certain ‘adverbs’ should be analysed as prepositions without ‘NP complements’; for example, they show that in belongs to the same category in the owner is not in and in the owner is not in the house. In our terms, this would mean that prepositional phrases can be ‘non-ranged’ (in) as well as ‘ranged’ (in the house).

Blogger Comments:

Note that Pullum argued on Australian Radio that bush in go bush is a new Australian preposition.  Unsurprisingly, he did not produce any prepositional phrases with bush as minor Predicator/Process.

Prepositional Phrases With 'Of'

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 425):

We noted above that prepositional phrases serve either as Adjunct or as Postmodifier. The exception is prepositional phrases with of, which normally occur only as Postmodifier; the reason is that they are not typical prepositional phrases, because in most of its contexts of use of is functioning not as minor Process/Predicator but rather as a structure marker in the nominal group (cf. to as a structure marker in the verbal group). 

Hence of phrases occur as clause elements only in two cases: 

(1) as circumstance of Matter, e.g. Of George Washington it is said that he never told a lie, 

(2) as one of a cluster of circumstances expressing a sense of ‘source’, all ultimately deriving from abstract locative ‘from’: died/was cured of cancer, accused/convicted/acquitted of murder, and so on.

Why Prepositional Phrases Are Not Groups But A Kind Of Minor Clause

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 425):

But note that prepositional phrases are phrases not groups; they have no logical structure as Head and Modifier, and cannot be reduced to a single element. In this respect, they are clause-like rather than group-like; hence when we interpret the preposition as ‘minor Predicator’ and ‘minor Process’ we are interpreting the prepositional phrase as a kind of ‘minor clause’ — which is what it is.

Prepositional Phrase: Experiential Structure

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 425):

Likewise on the experiential dimension the preposition functions as a minor Process. The nominal group corresponds in function to a Range. But the constituency is the same whether we represent the prepositional phrase experientially, as in Figure 6-26 (a), or interpersonally, as in Figure 6-26 (b).

 

Prepositional Phrases Vs Non-Finite Clauses [Diagnostics]

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 425):

There is in fact an area of overlap between prepositional phrases and non-finite clauses; some instances can be interpreted as either, and some non-finite verb forms can be classified as prepositions, for example regarding, concerning, including.  In principle, a non-finite clause implies a potential Subject, whereas a prepositional phrase does not; but the prevalence of so-called ‘hanging participles’ shows that this is not always taken very seriously (e.g. it’s cold not wearing a hat).  More significant is the fact that non-finite clauses are clauses; that is, they can be expanded to include other elements of clause structure, whereas prepositional phrases cannot. One can say either he left the city in his wife’s car or he left the city taking his wife’s car; but only the latter can be expanded to he left the city taking his wife’s car quietly out of the driveway.

Why Many Prepositional Complements Have The Potential To Become Subject

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 424):

… prepositional Complements increasingly tend to have the same potential for becoming Subject, as in this floor shouldn’t be walked on for a few days.  No doubt one reason for this tendency has been the lexical unity of phrasal verbs; because look up to is a single lexical item, with a one-word near-synonym admire, it is natural to parallel people have always looked up to her with she’s always been looked up to.

Prepositional Phrase: Interpersonal Structure

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 424):

A prepositional phrase consists of a preposition plus a nominal group for example, on the burning deck. We have explained a preposition as a minor verb. On the interpersonal dimension if functions as a minor Predicator having a nominal group as its Complement;

Prepositional Phrase: Functions

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 424):

The prepositional phrase serves as Adjunct in the modal structure of the clause.  Like the adverbial group, it can serve as circumstantial Adjunct or, less commonly, as interpersonal Adjunct; and like the conjunction group, it can serve as conjunctive Adjunct.  In addition, it can be rank-shifted to serve as Postmodifier in a nominal group or adverbial group.

Complex Prepositions Vs Prepositional Phrases [Diagnostics]

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 423):

Complex prepositions such as in front (of), for the sake (of), have evolved from prepositional phrases, with front, sake as ‘Complement’.  Many expressions are indeterminate between the two … however, there is a difference; those that have become prepositions typically occur without a Deictic preceding the noun (in front of not in the front of), and the noun occurs in the singular only (in front of not in fronts of).  In some instances duplex forms occur: beside has become a full preposition, but because it is often used in an abstract or metaphorical sense a modern version of the original complex form by the side of has reappeared along with it, and this, in its turn, is now starting to follow the same route towards prepositional status.

Preposition Group Vs Prepositional Phrase

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 423):

It is important to make a distinction between a preposition group, such as right behind or immediately in front of, which is a Modifier-Head structure expanded from and functionally equivalent to a preposition, and a prepositional phrase, which is not an expansion of anything but a clause-like structure in which the Process/Predicator function is performed by a preposition and not by a verb.

Preposition Group

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 423):

Prepositions are not a sub-class of adverbials; functionally they are related to verbs.  But they form groups by modification, in the same way as conjunctions; e.g. right behind, not without, way off as in right behind the door, not without some misgivings, all along the beach, way off the mark. Again, there are more complex forms such as in front of, for the sake of which can be left unanalysed.  These are also subject to modification, as in just for the sake of, immediately in front of.

Conjunction Group

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 423):

Within the 'primary' word class of adverbials, there is another class besides adverbs, namely conjunctions. […] they form three subclasses, namely linker, binder and continuative. Conjunctions also form word groups by modification, for example even if, just as, not until, if only.  These can be represented in the same way, as β^α structures (or α^β in the case of if only).  Note, however, that many conjunctive expressions have evolved from more complex structures, eg as soon as, in case, by the time, nevertheless, in so far as.  These can be treated as single elements without further analysis.  They are themselves, of course, subject to modification, eg just in case, almost as soon as.

The Domain Of Comparative Postmodifiers

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 422-3):

Strictly speaking the domain of these comparative Postmodifiers is not the Head of the group but an item within the Premodifier: as, more, less, too (the exception is -er comparatives like faster). This could be shown as in Figure 6-25 (a); cf. the nominal group, where given a better man than I am we could show than I am as dependent on better rather than on man.* (* Cf. the brightest star in the sky, where in the sky would modify brightest.)

 

But this is not really necessary: structure is not the appropriate concept for interpreting semantic domain, and the locus of comparison may in any case be part of the Head (the -er in faster, readilier) or even part of the Postmodifier (the exceptional form enough, which follows the Head). It seems unnecessary to represent pairs such as too fast (for me) to follow, slowly enough (for me) to follow, or as fast as I could count, faster than I could count, as having different structures. They can be analysed as in Figure 6-25 (b).

Comparative Postmodifier: Embedded Clause Or Phrase?

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 422):

There are also the type favoured in grammar tests, such as John runs faster than Jim, where the embedded element is said to be a clause with the Finite and Residue presupposed by ellipsis: ‘than Jim runs’. It appears however that these are now embedded prepositional phrases, since the normal form of a personal pronoun following than or as is oblique/absolute rather than nominative: John runs faster than me (not than I). The same applies in the nominal group when the Head is an adjective: John isn’t as tall as me.

Adverbial Group Postmodification: Comparison

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 422):

Postmodification is of one type only, namely comparison. As in the nominal group, Postmodifiers are rank-shifted, or embedded; they may be (a) embedded clauses, or (b) embedded prepositional phrases. Examples:

(a) much more easily [[ than you would have expected ]]
as grimly [[ as if his life depended on it ]]
too quickly [[ for us to see [[ what was happening]] ]]
not long enough [[ to find my way around ]]
(b) as early [as two o’clock]
faster [than fifteen knots] …

This is the only instance of embedding other than in a nominal group. All other embedding in English is a form of nominalisation, where a group, phrase or clause comes to function as part of, or in place of (ie as the whole of), a nominal group.

The Negative Adverb 'Not' And Premodifier Types In Combination

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 421):

Note that in the case of polarity, the negative adverb not has the adverbial group as its domain, not the clause in which the adverbial group serves; this can be checked by adding a Moodtag: with the clause not infrequently the supply of communication services in fact precedes the growth of incomes the unmarked tag would be negative (doesn’t it), following the general principle of reversed polarity and thus showing that the clause itself is positive. 

The different types may, of course, combine, as with polarity + intensification and intensification + comparison; for example:

Not altogether surprisingly, my wife had fainted.

Items Serving As Adverbial Group Premodifiers

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 420-1):

The items serving as Premodifiers are adverbs belonging to one of three types — polarity (not), comparison (more, less; as, so) and intensification. The classes of adverbs that can

serve as Premodifier are thus considerably more restricted than the classes that can serve as Head; they correspond largely to adverbs from the degree class in Table 6-18. Those of intensification indicate higher or lower intensity; they are either general intensifiers that are interpersonally neutral (very, much, quite, really, completely, totally, utterly; rather, fairly, pretty,; almost, nearly), including the interrogative adverb how, or specific ones that derive from some interpersonally significant scale (amazingly, astonishingly, awfully, desperately, eminently, extraordinarily, horribly, incredibly, perfectly, terribly, terrifically, unbelievably, wonderfully).

Premodification In The Adverbial Group

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 419-20):

Premodifiers are grammatical items like not and rather and so; there is no lexical premodification in the adverbial group. What there is is therefore more like what we have called ‘submodification’ in the nominal group, with SubModifiers relating to an adjective as their SubHead. 

We can represent the adverbial group as a logical structure as shown in Figure 6-24.

Adverbial Group: Classes Of Adverb Serving As Head

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 419):

The adverbial group has an adverb as Head, which may or may not be accompanied by modifying elements. Adverbial groups serving as circumstantial Adjunct have an adverb denoting a circumstance as Head – for example, a circumstance of time (e.g. yesterday, today, tomorrow) or of quality (e.g. well, badly; fast, quickly, slowly). Adverbial groups serving as modal Adjunct have an adverb denoting an assessment as Head – for example, an assessment of time (e.g. still, yet, already) or of intensity (e.g. really, just, only, actually). Examples are given in Table 6-18. As the table shows, some classes of adverb have interrogative and demonstrative forms.

 

Adverbial Group: Clause Function

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 419):

The adverbial group serves as Adjunct in the modal structure of the clause — either circumstantial Adjunct or modal Adjunct (mood or comment). Examples:

(1) circumstantial Adjunct

You’ve coped beautifully tonight; you’ve coped so well compared to how I would have coped.

(2a) interpersonal Adjunct, mood

I actually didn’t have a lot of chicken; I had probably more vegetables.

(2b) interpersonal Adjunct, comment

Apparently he’s got a wife and a couple of kids.

Allerton's ‘Stretched Verb Constructions’ vs Phrasal Verbs

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 417-9):

As we have shown above, there are three types of phrasal verb: verb plus preposition, verb plus adverb or verb plus both. We can also note combinations verbs with nouns such as

Taking account of …
… to pay more attention to …
… ran great risks …

Such combinations are investigated by Allerton (2002) under the heading of ‘stretched verb constructions’. However, while it can be argued that these are also lexicalised verbs, just as phrasal verbs, ‘stretched verbs’ can still be accommodated in terms the transitivity patterns of the clause. They involve combinations of Process + Range, e.g. take + account of, pay + attention (to), run + risk, reach + conclusion, or Process + abstract circumstance of Place, e.g. put + at risk, come + to an end, arrive + at conclusion. The lexical verb serving as the Event of the verbal group functioning as Process tends to be fairly general, and the lexical content is represented by the noun serving as Thing in the nominal group functioning as Range in the clause, or in the prepositional phrase serving as Place. There tend to be collocational combinations of verb and noun, as illustrated by the examples above; compare also wreak + havoc, tender + resignation, lend + support. This noun is often a nominalisation of a verb, as with attention, conclusion, which reflects the fact that ‘stretched verb constructions’ embody grammatical metaphor. Like other instances of grammatical metaphor, clauses with ‘stretched verb constructions’ can thus be given more than one analysis, as illustrated in Figure 6-23. 

Diagnostic For Phrasal Verbs

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 417):

There will often be doubt about whether these complex lexical items can be interpreted grammatically as a single Process or not. In such cases it is important to consider the transitivity of the clause as a whole, to see whether it appears to be structured as process plus participant or process plus circumstance. Thematic variation often shows a preference one way or the other.

Phrasal Verb In Transitivity And Mood Structure

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 417-8):

Figure 6-21 gives the analysis of a clause with a phrasal verb of the adverbial type (i) in it, in terms of (a) transitivity and (b) mood. Similarly with the prepositional type (ii): in I’m looking for a needle, the mood constituents are looking Predicator, for a needle Adjunct, and this accounts for the ordering relative to other Adjuncts, e.g. I’ve looked everywhere for a needle. The third type includes some where both adverb and preposition are (or may be) part of the Process, e.g. look out for, put up with, put in for; and others where only the adverb is within the Process, e.g. let in for, put up to, as in he let me in for it, he put me up to it.

Why Pronominal Goals Usually Occur Within Phrasal Verbs

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 417):

This also explains something that is often presented as an arbitrary rule of English, but is in fact anything but arbitrary: that if the Goal is a pronoun it almost always occurs within the phrasal verb (they called it off rather than they called off it). This is part of the same story; a pronoun is hardly ever newsworthy, since it refers to something that has gone before, so if the Goal is a pronoun it is virtually certain that the Process will be under focus. (But not quite; the pronoun may be contrastive, and if so it can come finally, e.g. they rang up me, but apparently nobody else.)

Why Phrasal Verbs Have Flourished In Modern English

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 416):

The grammar enables us to explain why phrasal verbs have evolved to the extent that they have done in modern English. The leading edge is formed by those of type (i), the adverbial ones, which are particularly widely spread. Typically these have non-phrasal, one-word synonyms, or near-synonyms; yet the phrasal form tends to be preferred, and is strongly favoured in the spoken language. Why is this?

Suppose we have a two-participant clause, active in voice, in which the main item of news is the Goal. The Goal comes at the end, and this is where the prominence – the information focus – typically falls. We can express the process either phrasally or nonphrasally – there is nothing very much to choose between the two:

they cancelled the meeting      they called off the meeting

Suppose however that I want the focus of information to be the Process rather than the Goal. At this point a significant difference arises. If I say

they cancelled the meeting

the result is that the information focus is now non-final; this is a marked, strongly foregrounded option, and therefore carries additional overtones of contrast, contradiction or unexpectedness. I may not want these overtones; but the only way I can avoid them is to leave the focus unmarked – i.e. at the end. This means that the Process, not the Goal, must come last. … but in English it is impossible – I cannot say they the meeting cancelled – unless the Process is split into two parts. This, therefore, is what happens, with a phrasal verb: it splits the Process into two parts, one functioning as Predicator and the other as Adjunct, with the Adjunct coming in its normal place at the end:

they called the meeting off

Thematic Argument For Interpreting A Phrasal Verb As A Single Process

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 415-6):

The experiential configuration [i.e. phrasal verb serving as single Process] is reflected in the thematic variation. If the prepositional phrase for a needle was a circumstantial element it should be able to be thematised; but we do not say for that I’ll look; the more likely form is that I’ll look for. Similarly with the adverbial ones: see off is a single process, so whereas we would say there I’ll see John (= I’ll see John there but with there instead of I as Theme), there is no form off I’ll see John thematically related to I’ll see John off.

Phrasal Verbs Of Motion

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 414):

As the examples illustrate, verbs of motion are phased temporally to indicate durative motion (‘continue to go’) and spatially to indicate directed motion (‘go’ + direction). With the second type, the verb often denotes some specific manner of motion such as flit and clamber in the examples above; the phrasal verb thus makes it possible to combine manner and direction: verb [manner] + adverb [direction]. Similar patterns are found in languages with ‘serial verb constructions’ and ‘verb compounding’. Direction occurs naturally with motion, of course; but it may also be used as a phasal extension verbs of other kinds, as with direction of perception:

Frodo and Sam gazed out in mingled loathing and wonder on this hateful land.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, on grammatical criteria, gaze and gaze out serve as behavioural Processes, not mental Processes of perception.  For example, neither affords a Phenomenon — * gaze (out) this hateful land — but instead, like some other behavioural Processes, can take a Location circumstance that indicates the orientation of the behaviour, such as gaze (out) on this hateful land.

Less Prototypical Phrasal Verbs

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 414n):

Note that a number of the items functioning as spatial adverbs can also serve as prepositions; cf. they clambered down and the[y] clambered down the hill. These combinations of verb of motion + adverb of place are less like prototypical phrasal verbs in that the adverb can be treated textually in the same way as a circumstance of Place: down they clambered, it was down that they clambered.

Phrasal Verbs Classified For Phase

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 414, 415):

Where there are agnate pairs of verb ~ verb + adverb, the ‘phrasal’ variant involves a specification of phase, similar to the phasal specifications in Chinese by post-verbs although the English range of options is much more restricted since it involves adverbs rather than verbs. There are three types of phase, temporal, spatial (directional) and resultative: see Table 6-17. These occur with various semantic fields; among these, motion is an important one …

Phrasal/Non-Phrasal Verb Agnation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 414):

In the case of see off and many other phrasal verbs, the phrasal verb is thus not agnate with a non-phrasal counterpart. For example, there is no systemic proportionality such that see is related to see off as sound is to sound off. However, with many verbs, the simple verb is agnate with the combination of verb + adverb, e.g. break ~ break off (‘separate’), kill ~ kill off (‘kill in large numbers, rendering extinct’), take ~ take off (‘remove (clothing)’), beat ~ beat up (‘beat severely, inflicting injury’), drink ~ drink up (‘drink to the last drop’), go ~ go up (‘ascend’), go ~ go on (‘continue going’), although specialised senses may also evolve, as with break off in the sense of ‘abruptly stop talking’, beat up in the sense of ‘drum up support’, and go on in the sense of ‘talk at great length’.