The Mood Of Finite Reported Proposals

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 525):

The finites are declarative, usually modulated with a modal auxiliary of obligation (should, ought to, must, has to, is to, might, could, would) serving as Finite, e.g.

[verbal]
||| The doctor ordered || that all the books and toys [[that the Boy had played with in bed]] must be burned. |||
||| Yet somebody told me || that I mustn’t repudiate my non-fiction, || because it’s saying very much || what the fiction is saying. |||
||| He told Philip || that he should demand higher wages, || for notwithstanding the difficult work [[he was now engaged in]], he received no more than the six shillings a week [[with which he started]]. ||| 

[mental]
||| I wish || you’d do something about that wall, Jane. |||
||| But until you’ve got kids || and are bringing them up ||| ... I wish || mine would hurry up || and grow up || and leave home. |||

The Finiteness Of Reported Propositions And Proposals

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 525, 525n):

With propositions, the reported clause is finite.* With proposals, it may be (a) finite or (b) non-finite. 

* Except for certain projected ideas, which may take a non-finite form on the model of the Latin ‘accusative + infinitive’, e.g. ||| I understood || them to have accepted ||| he doesn’t consider || you to be serious |||. These shade into attributed intensive relational clauses, e.g. [Attributor:] he [Process:] doesn’t consider [Carrier:] you [Attribute:] serious.

Reporting Proposals

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 524-5):

Like propositions, proposals can also be reported: projected hypotactically (1) by ‘verbal’ clauses as ‘indirect speech’ or (2) by ‘mental’ clauses as ‘indirect thought’. The former involves indirect commands, offers and suggestions; the latter desired (ideas of) states of affair. One central feature they share is the mode of the projected proposal: it is ‘irrealis’, or non-actualised, and the projecting clause represents the verbal or mental force of actualisation. The mode is reflected in the realisation of the reported clause. (Both mental and verbal reporting of proposals can be used to realise direct proposals).

Quoting Proposals

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 524):

As with verbs used to quote propositions, verbs such as moan serve in ‘behavioural’ clauses pressed into quoting service; for example:

||| ‘Say something nice to me,’ || she murmured. |||
||| ‘Oh, don’t go yet,’ || he cried. ||| ‘I must,’ || she muttered. |||
||| ‘Oh, don’t take him away yet,’ || she moaned. |||

These are the ‘direct commands’ of traditional grammar, to which we would need to add ‘direct offers (and suggestions)’; in other words, all proposals projected as ‘direct speech’. Just like non-projected proposals, quoted proposals may be realised by ‘imperative’ clauses; but they may also be realised by modulated ‘indicative’ ones:

||| ‘Then please tell him’, || Liz begged like a child. |||
||| ‘Don’t be ridiculous’, || Julia snapped. |||
||| ‘Perhaps you and your wife would like to look around together’, || Richard suggested with frosty politeness. |||
||| ‘You could still apply for it, you know – the managership’, || Andrew was suggesting helpfully. |||
||| ‘I shouldn’t keep him waiting, || if I were you’, || Eleanor tossed over her shoulder || as she left. |||

Blogger Comments:

Matthiessen's interpretation of the quoting clause as behavioural is problematic, because it creates unnecessary inconsistency and complication in the theory.  The simplest (and Hallidayan) interpretation is that the quoting clause is verbal, not behavioural, and that the lexical choice adds a behavioural feature to the process of saying.

This use of lexis is a common strategy in English, as shown by clauses like she talked her way into the press conference. In this instance, the lexical selection 'talk' adds a (near-verbal) behavioural feature to a material Process.  We know the clause isn't behavioural because the Range of the Process her way is not a Behaviour (as it would be for behavioural clauses).

Quoting Offers And Commands

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 523-4):

Offers and commands, and also suggestions which are simply the combination of the two (offer ‘I’ll do it’, command ‘you do it’, suggestion ‘let’s do it’), can be projected paratactically (quoted) in the same way as propositions, by means of a verbal process clause having a quoting function. For example (using an exclamation mark as an optional notational variant),

||| If we’re talking || when she’s writing up on the board, || all of a sudden she’ll turn round || and go || ‘will you be quiet!’ |||
||| she’ll go || will you be quiet |||
1               “2!

Here the verb go is the quoting verb. Further examples:

||| I said to Peter, || ‘Don’t say anything.’ |||
||| ‘The ark must be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high,’ || he said, || ‘big enough for you and your wife, your three sons, and their wives’. |||
||| He said, || ‘I could fix that hot-water heater!’ |||
||| ‘Let’s celebrate today, || because beginning tomorrow || there’s a lot of work [[to do]],’ || he said. |||

Quoting Thought

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 522-3):

This combination of a verbal process with ‘reporting’, although we are treating it as logically subsequent to quoting, being arrived at by analogy with the reporting of a mental process, is the normal way of representing what people say, in most registers of English today. The opposite combination, that of a mental process with ‘quoting’, is also found, although considerably more restricted. Here a thought is represented as if it was a wording, for example

I saw an ad in the paper for dachshunds, and I thought ‘I’ll just inquire’ – not intending to buy one, of course.
||| I thought || ‘I’ll just inquire’ |||
1                ‘2
||| ‘The gods must watch out for Kukul,’ || he thought to himself. |||
||| So I figured ||‘Well, then obviously it’s going to be a nineteenth-century American novel’. |||
||| ‘When all’s said and done,’ << he reflected, >> ‘she hasn’t had much chance.’ |||

The implication is ‘I said to myself ... ’; and this expression is often used, recognising the fact that one can think in words. Only certain mental process verbs are regularly used to quote in this way, such as think, wonder, reflect, surmise.

A Strategy For Construing Processes Of Saying That Externalise Processes Of Consciousness

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 522, 523):

In addition to the verbs listed in Table 7-23, we also find a pattern with verb: express + a noun of sensing such as belief, confidence, suspicion; hope, desire; apprehension, concern, disappointment, frustration, fear(s), anger, outrage, regret (+ to nominal group) + that-clause. 

This pattern could be analysed as a ranged ‘verbal’ clause: Process: express + Verbiage: [nominal group: Head: fear, etc. + Qualifier: that-clause]; we also find such nouns of sensing (often nominalisations of verbs of sensing) serving as Head and configured with phrases as Qualifier, as in express + fear of attack / childbirth / for safety / about labour unrest. 

However, looked at ‘from above’, this pattern can be interpreted as a strategy for construing processes of saying externalising processes of consciousness. They may be configured with an element that can be interpreted as Receiver, and they often occur in the environment of hypotactically projecting verbal clauses; for example:

Assange expressed fears that cyberspace had its limits. 

The coach of the Peruvian Football, Sergio Markarian, expressed confidence that their pupils achieve a victory over Colombia and said it is in the semi-finals of the Copa America. 

Many viewers have expressed frustration that the supposedly feminist Joss Whedon would create a story about a glorified, high-tech form of prostitution. However, I argue here that in his feminist repertoire, Dollhouse gives us just as much fodder for thinking about gender, feminism, and power as Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which drew its appeal by resisting the very forms of systemic oppression, both male and female disempowerment, that Dollhouse sought to make explicit. 

After Warren died from HIV in 1995, I expressed regret to Kirk that I hadn’t seen more of Warren in his last years, and Kirk suggested that one way I could respond would be by seeing more of him – which I did, and was glad to do.

… 

Verbs That Assign Interpersonal And/Or Behavioural Features To The Speech Event

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 522, 522n):

On the other hand, many verbs that assign interpersonal and/or behavioural features to the speech event, and are used to quote especially in narrative contexts, are never used to report because they do not contain the feature ‘say’. Thus we are unlikely to find … Poirot mused that discretion was a great thing, and even more unlikely to find examples involving behavioural processes that are closer to the physiological end of the behavioural end of the spectrum.*

*But they do occur when they embody assessment, as is illustrated by the following selection from the web:

(a) Drinking in the view across the Potomac River, Kennedy reportedly mused that he could stay in that spot forever; 

(b) When we invented the wheel, people moaned that we’d forget how to walk; 

(c) Citizens have long grimaced that their votes are the only input they gave into government; 

(d) I muttered, embarrassed, something about having never been to see him all this time and she frowned that I had never gone to see him; 

(e) The careful telephonic questions of Dictator Mussolini were followed by abrupt commands. Consul Riccardi gulped that he understood, hung up, donned resplendent attire, and fairly strutted to the residence of Provincial Governor Stumpf.

However, there do not (at the time of writing!) appear to be examples of reporting with hiccupped (hiccoughed) that, coughed that, spat that.

'Reporting Only' (Usually) Verbs

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 521-2):

Many semantically complex verbs for elaborated speech functions are used only in reporting, e.g. insinuate, imply, remind, hypothesise, deny, make out, claim, maintain. These verbs are seldom used to quote; there is too much experiential distance between them and the actual speech event.

Speech Function Is Made Explicit In The Reporting Verb

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 521):

In quoting, the word say can project sayings of every mood, whereas in reporting we find say, ask and tell: see examples in Table 7-22.

Note also the reporting form Henry told Janet who was there ‘answered Janet’s question “who’s here?” ’, to which there is no quoting equivalent.

Verbs Reporting Statements And Questions

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 521):

Verbs used in reporting statements and questions are often the same as those used in quoting; but there is one significant difference. In quoting, the independent status of the proposition, including its mood, is preserved; hence the speech function is as explicit as in the ‘original’. In reporting, on the other hand, the speech function is, or may be, obscured, and is therefore made explicit in the reporting verb.

The Projection Of Minor Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 520):

While minor clauses can be quoted, they cannot be reported; that is, the quoting clause nexus He said ‘Ah!’ has no reporting agnate. Similarly, while non-linguistic sounds can be quoted (often with go as the Process, as in she went (sound of a sigh)), they cannot be reported.

Verbal Reports: Wordings Represented As Meanings

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 519-20):

It is possible to ‘report’ a saying by representing it as a meaning. This is the ‘reported speech’, or ‘indirect speech’, of traditional Western grammars; for example, the noble Brutus hath told you Cæsar was ambitious. In this instance, Brutus had, indeed, said those very words …

But the principle behind this hypotactic representation of a verbal event is that it is not, in fact, being presented as true to the wording; the speaker is reporting the gist of what was said, and the wording may be quite different from the original …

This is not to suggest, of course, that when a speaker uses the paratactic, ‘direct’ form he is always repeating the exact words; far from it. But the idealised function of the paratactic structure is to represent the wording; whereas with hypotaxis the idealised function is to represent the sense, or gist.

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 Reason For The Typical Pattern For Projecting Meanings

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 518):

When something is projected as a meaning, we are not representing ‘the very words’, because there are no words. If we want to argue about whether or not the experts held this opinion, we have no observed event as a point of reference. Hence, in combination with the tactic system, the basic pattern for projecting meanings is not parataxis, which treats the projection as a free-standing event, but hypotaxis, which makes it dependent on the mental process clause. In other words, the typical pattern for representing a ‘thinking’ is the hypotactic one …

Wordings As 'Twice Cooked'

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 518):

So, for example, the phenomenon of water falling out of the sky may be construed as a meaning, by a mental process of cognition, in (she thought) it was raining; but when the same phenomenon is represented by a verbal process, as in (she said:) ‘it’s raining’, it is the meaning ‘it is raining’ that has been reconstrued to become a wording. A wording is, as it were, twice cooked. … We are unconsciously aware that when something has the status of a wording it lies not at one but at two removes from experience; it has undergone two steps in the realisation process.

Blogger Comments:

unconsciously adverb 'without awareness'

Mental Projections As Meanings

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 517-8):

Something that is projected as a meaning is still a phenomenon of language – it is what was referred to above as a ‘metaphenomenon’; but it is presented at a different level – semantic, not lexicogrammatical. When something is projected as a meaning it has already been ‘processed’ by the linguistic system – it is a phenomenon of experience that has been construed as a meaning; but processed only once, not twice as in the case of a wording, where a phenomenon of experience is construed first as a meaning and then in turn as wording.

Mentally Reported Questions [2]

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 517):

But they also include clauses where the uncertainty is represented grammatically in the projecting clause by a feature of negative polarity or interrogative mood, or by projection or expansion within the verbal group serving as Process, or by perfective aspect in a purpose clause; for example:

||| I do not know || whether you have seen it. ||| 

||| It is not known || whether the mystics could give objective certainty to their experiences. ||| 

||| Who knows || whether his debt was true or false? ||| 

||| So I want to know || whether this devious and hypocritical me could have been whole and innocent at least as a boy. |||

Mentally Reported Questions [1]

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 516):

The projected idea clause is either an indirect statement or an indirect question; … different sets of verbs are associated with these two types. In the environment of ‘mental’ projection, the contrast between statement and question is not concerned with the speech functional orientation of giving vs. demanding information but rather with the status of the validity of the information. In a statement, it is fixed with respect to the polarity and the elements of transitivity (realised by an indirect declarative clause optionally introduced by that), but in a question, it is open with respect to the polarity (realised by an indirect yes/no interrogative clause introduced by whether or if) or one (or more) of the elements of transitivity (realised by an indirect wh- interrogative clause introduced by who, which, when, where, etc.). Consequently, mental clauses representing an ‘undecided’ state of mind are used to project indirect questions. These include clauses of wondering and doubting, finding out and checking, and contemplating, which tend to be characterised by special lexical verbs such as wonder, ascertain; for example:

||| Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak said Tuesday || he doubted || President Clinton could broker an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal before the end his presidential term on Jan. 20. ||| 

||| I’ll ask Jenny about laptops || and find out || whether we have got any. ||| 

||| She had not been in || when he had phoned || to check || whether they were going out for dinner that night. ||| 

||| It should be noted || that the first step taken by the underwriter or agent is [[[ to examine the policy || to ascertain || whether the loss is recoverable thereunder]]] . ||| 

||| He investigated || whether his feeling [[ that the veena produced the most exquisite musical sound]] was a subjective reaction || or has a sound physical basis. ||| 

||| Let us now consider || whether the arrangement of the stanzas in the particular order bears out any such meaning [[ as we have got from it]] . |||

Verbs Serving As Process In ‘Mental’ Clauses Projecting Ideas

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 516, 517):

Examples of verbs serving as Process in ‘mental’ clauses projecting ideas are set out in Table 7-21. The verbs are largely restricted to two of the four types of sensing – cognition and desideration (but usually not perception and never emotion). So far we have concentrated on clauses of the ‘cognitive’ type; these always project propositions. Here a proposition is, as it were, created cognitively; it is brought into existence by a process of thinking.

Projection & Orders Of Experience: Phenomenon vs Metaphenomenon

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 516):

As with nexuses projecting locutions, nexuses projecting ideas consist of a phenomenon — the projecting clause — and a metaphenomenon — the ‘content’ of the projecting clause; for example, in some experts believe that people someday will have their unique genetic code on smart cards ... , the phenomenon is some experts believe and the metaphenomenon is that people someday will have their unique genetic code on smart cards ... .

Uses Of Mental Reporting

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 515):

The uses of this kind of projecting nexus include

(i) the representation of the speaker’s thinking in dialogue (often as a way of assessing what is projected, where the projecting clause comes to stand for a modality of probability);
(ii) the representation of the addressee’s thinking in dialogue, often as a way of probing for information;
(iii) the representation of a character’s consciousness in narrative;
(iv) the representation of institutional or expert opinions and beliefs in news reporting and scientific discourse;
(v) the representation of the speaker’s angle in scientific discourse, often as the result of a chain of reasoning.

Mental Projection

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 515):

Talking is not the only way of using language; we also use language to think. Hence a process of thinking in a ‘mental’ clause also serves to project; the process is typically of the ‘like’ [emanating] type, but the ‘please’ [impinging] type is also possible:

(a) ‘like’ type
||| So you believe || that the short story is better at dealing with real-life, human emotions. |||
||| Mum, do you know || where the scissors are? |||
||| Naval authorities believe || the boat may have capsized || because it was carrying a heavy load of construction materials in choppy waters. |||
||| Therefore, I believe || that the protocol will do absolutely nothing [[ to protect the antarctic region]]. ||| 

(b) ‘please’ type
||| It strikes me || that Eve’s disloyalty and ingratitude must be contagious! |||
||| When I attended at Bombay’s C.J. Hall the Kal Ke Kalakar festival, || it struck me || that, although we did not have the resources, || this particular festival had the potential of an Avignam Nervi or Spoletto. |||
||| It did not occur to him || that I might want to stay on and watch the cricket. |||
||| Then it dawned on me || that I was talking to a cricketer [[ who had so recently been crucified at the altar of expediency ]]. |||

Verbal Quoting Clauses: Verbs With The Circumstantial Feature Of Manner Specifying Connotation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 515):

A very wide range of different verbs can be pressed into service under this heading, verbs which are not verbs of saying at all but serve in ‘behavioural’ clauses, especially in fictional narrative, to suggest attitudes, emotions or expressive gestures that accompanied the act of speaking, eg sob, snort, twinkle, beam, venture, breathe; e.g.

‘It is a great thing, discretion,’ mused Poirot.

Here the implication is that Poirot is trying to give the impression of thinking aloud, while making sure the listener ‘overhears’.

Verbs Used In Quoting Propositions And Proposals

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 514, 515):

Verbs used in quoting ‘verbal’ clauses include those listed in the ‘proposition’ column in Table 7-20. … Verbs used in clauses quoting proposals — offers and commands — are also listed …

26 In addition, we find the verb go used in quoting clauses. This verb is also used to project representations of non-linguistic semiosis, as in the tires went [sound of screeching]. A more recent addition to quoting verbs in casual speech is be like; for example: I was like ‘Are you in the right show?’; ‘My friends were like, “Eddie, you’re drinking too much, you’re out too much, you’ve got to, like, slow down.” And that was true,’ he said...

The Projection Of A Verbal Process: A Lexicogrammatical Metaphenomenon

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 514):

The projected clause here stands for a ‘wording’: that is, the phenomenon it represents is a lexicogrammatical one. Take for example ‘I’m not so sure,’ replied the Fat Controller. While the projecting clause replied the Fat Controller represents an ordinary phenomenon of experience, the projected clause I’m not so sure represents a second-order phenomenon, something that is itself a representation. We will refer to this as a ‘metaphenomenon’. If we want to argue, the issue is not ‘is he or is he not, so sure?’ – that is a separate question; it is ‘did he, or did he not, say these words?’ The total structure, therefore, is that of a paratactic clause complex in which the logical-semantic relationship is one of projection; the projecting clause is a verbal process, and the projected clause has the status of a wording.

The Main Function Of The Projecting Clause Of A Quoting Nexus

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 512):

In written English, the projection is signalled by quotation marks (‘inverted commas’; for the significance of double and single quotation marks see below). In spoken English, the projecting clause is phonologically less prominent than the projected: if it comes first, it is often proclitic (non-salient and pre-rhythmic, while if it follows all or part of the projected, instead of occupying a separate tone group, it appears as a ‘tail’, a post-tonic appendage that continues the pitch movement of the preceding projected material … .

The reason for this is that the main function of the projecting clause is simply to show that the other one is projected: someone said it. There is nothing in the wording of a paratactic projected clause to show that it is projected; it could occur alone, as a direct observation.

A Quoting Nexus

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 512):

In a quoting nexus the ‘tactic’ relationship, the type of dependency, is parataxis; the two parts have equal status. The projected clause retains all the interactive features of the clause as exchange, including the full mood potential (with the option of mood tagging in ‘declarative’ and ‘interrogative’ clauses), vocatives and expletives, tone selections, and (textual) continuatives.

System Network Of Projection

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 511):

This is represented systemically in Figure 7-19 below. The fact that minor clauses cannot be reported is represented by means of a conditioning relationship: ‘if minor, then quoting’.

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.

Relative Probabilities Of Four Kinds Of Projection Nexus

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 510, 510n):

… all combinations of taxis and mode of projection are not equally probable; while some are very frequent in text, others are relatively rare. As the numbers in Table 7-17 indicate, out of 1,392 instances of projection nexuses in a sample of texts from a range of spoken and written registers, there were only 15 instances of paratactically projected ideas; in other words, 97.5% of all 595 projected ideas in the sample were reported rather than quoted. In contrast, projected locutions were more evenly balanced between quoting and reporting in the total sample – around 46% and 54%, respectively. The sample contains more projection nexuses from spoken texts (845) and from written texts (557); but it is still interesting to note that in spoken discourse paratactic locution (quoting: 53%) is favoured over hypotactic locution (reporting: 47%)*, whereas in written discourse it is the other way around: paratactic locution (quoting: 39%) is significantly less common than hypotactic locution (reporting: 61%).

* In spoken casual conversation, this difference is even more marked: quoting accounts for two thirds (65%) and reporting for one third (35%). In written news reports, the ratio is almost the reverse.

Four Kinds Of Projection Nexus

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 509-10):

Level of projection and mode of projection intersect to define four kinds of projection nexus … see Table 7-17.

Modes Of Projection: Direct & Indirect Speech & Thought

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 509):

The distinction between these two modes of projection was recognised in traditional accounts as the contrast between direct and indirect speech; but as we have already noted, we need to take account of direct and indirect thought as well.

Mode Of Projection: Quote Vs Report

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 509):

… projection combines with the same set of interdependencies that have been shown to occur with expansion – (1) the two tactic interdependency relations of parataxis and hypotaxis and (2) the constituency relation of embedding. 

For instance, ‘We really have to have mandatory child safety trigger locks, and photo license IDs for the purchase of new handguns,’ is projected paratactically by Gore told the crowd. This means that the projection is represented as a quote. 

In contrast, she saw one young man open fire after a feud between youths became violent is projected hypotactically by Nakisha Johnson, 17, said. This means that the projection is represented as a report – as something that is dependent on the projecting clause and thus cannot serve on its own. … 

In addition to the two tactic modes of projection – paratactic projection of quotes and hypotactic projection of reports, there is one further environment in which projected clauses occur – that of embedding: the witness’s claim that she saw one young man open fire seems plausible.

Level Of Projection: Meaning Vs Wording

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 509):

Through projection, one clause is set up as the representation of the linguistic “content” of another — either the content of a ‘verbal’ clause of saying or the content of a ‘mental’ clause of sensing. … There are thus two kinds of projections.  On the one hand, the projection may be a representation of the content of a ‘mental’ clause — what is thought; we call such projections ideas.  On the other hand, the projection may be a representation of the content of  ‘verbal’ clause — what is said; we call such projections locutions.  Projection may thus involve either of the two levels of the content plane of language — projection of meaning (ideas) or projection of wording (locutions).

Kinds Of Projection

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 509):

There are in fact three systems involved in the differentiation of different kinds of projection:

(i) the level of projection (idea vs locution),

(ii) the mode of projection (hypotactic reporting vs paratactic quoting), and

(iii) the speech function (projected proposition vs projected proposal).

Projection

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 508):

… Projection [is] the logico-semantic relationship whereby a clause comes to function not as a direct representation of (non-linguistic) experience but as a representation of a (linguistic) representation.

Different Environments In Which Expansion Is Manifested

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 507-8):

The different environments in which expansion is manifested are summarised in Table 7-16.

Metaphenomena And Process Types

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 506-7):

Metaphenomena – projections – can be associated only with certain types of process, essentially saying and sensing, plus in certain circumstances being. Macrophenomena – expansions – can enter into material processes. Thus you can say [[ = crushing him like that]] broke his bones. But you cannot say it broke his bones that you crushed him like that, because finite that (‘indirect’) clauses can only be projections, not expansions. (You can on the other hand say it broke his heart that you crushed him like that, because heart-breaking, unlike bone-breaking, is a mental process.)

Complication arises because the names of metaphenomena, nouns such as belief and fact, can sometimes enter into material processes where the metaphenomena by themselves cannot. For example, although we cannot say it destroyed his life that the experiment had failed, we can say the knowledge that the experiment had failed destroyed his life – not the idea as such, but his knowledge of it, was the destroyer. We may also note abstract material processes used metaphorically to construe mental phenomena:

The passage of time, romantic travellers’ tales – of which Marco Polo’s supply the classic example – and wishful thinking, all combined to build up the late medieval belief [[ that Prester John was a mighty, if probably schismatical Christian priest-king ]].

We might also say the fact that the experiment had failed destroyed his life; here fact stands for a state of affairs, rather than for a projected metaphenomenon as in its prototypical sense. In other words, although projections cannot participate in processes other than those of consciousness, the names of projections can, because they can be used to label events or states of affairs. Here we have reached the borderline between expansion and projection; the two come together under conditions of nominalisation, where there is metaphor in the grammar and many of the semantic distinctions expressed in the clause tend to be neutralised.

Act (Macrophenomenon) vs Projection (Metaphenomenon)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 505-6):

(2) Projections: we saw that the boats had been turned. If I say I can see the boats turning, this is an event. A process ‘the boats are turning’ is being treated as a single complex phenomenon – a ‘macrophenomenon’. If I say I can see that the boats are turning, this is a projection. The process ‘the boats are turning’ is being treated as the projection or idea of a phenomenon – a ‘metaphenomenon’, something not just bigger but of a different order of reality. So we can say I can see that the boats have been turned but not I can see the boats having been turned – because you cannot see a past event. You can see the state of affairs resulting from that past event; but the past event itself can only be treated as a projection. In the present, both are possible; but the meaning is slightly different. If the ‘seeing’ is understanding, or what is seen is a report in writing, then again the relationship must be one of projection.

Process Nominal Groups

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 505):

We have now reached a point where we can relate these clauses to their close relatives that lie just beyond the bounds of expansion, on different frontiers. [i.e. process nominal groups and projections]

(1) Process nominal groups: we saw the turning of the boats. Here the process has been nominalised at the word rank, with turning as noun; cf. the departing/departure of the boats. The structure is that of a nominal group having a prepositional phrase with of as Postmodifier; the Complement of the of phrase corresponds to what would be the Complement if the process was realised as a clause. Examples:

| The building [ of [ the bridge ] ] | presented a problem.
Devaluation is taken to be | a humiliation [ akin to [ the defacing [ of [statues [ of [national heroes ] ] ] ] ] ] ] |

Where there would be an explicit Subject, if the process was realised as a clause, what corresponds to this is the ‘possessor’ of the process serving as Deictic in the structure of the nominal group, as in his handling of the situation, nobody’s peeling of potatoes is as careful as mine, or as Qualifier, marked by either by or of, as in Letters to the press indicate a ground-swell of rejection of this display, by catholic and non-catholic members of church communities and Yet another contributory factor is the disappearance of the horse from our farms.*

 ∞

* Since a possessor can also be realised as an of phrase, this leads to the well-known ambiguity of expressions such as the visiting of relatives: going to visit relatives, or having relatives come to visit?

Perceived Acts: Imperfective vs Perfective

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 505):

Here what is being perceived is again some action or event; the clause is typically imperfective, but sometimes perfective (without to) to highlight the end state as distinct from the process (cf. Kirsner & Thompson, 1976):

[imperfective:]
I saw the boats turning/(passive) being turned 

[perfective:]
I saw the boats turn/(passive) turned

If the embedded clause is used as Postmodifier the Head noun is usually one of sight or sound: I heard the noise of ... , I had a view of ... , etc. (cf. the smell of something burning); …

In this case the clause is always imperfective.

Environments Of Acts

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 506):

Blogger Comments:

Mental: emotive examples:

I enjoy [[exposing the charlatan]] / [[exposing the charlatan]] pleases me

I hate [[him getting away with fraud]] / [[him getting away with fraud]] outrages me

Typical Grammatical Environments Of Acts

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 504):

[relational: attributive]

It was careless of him [[ = to put another man’s helmet on ]]

[relational: identifying]

[[ Not being much of a reader]] hardly affected the ascent of George W. Bush or his father.

These examples show typical contexts for such nominalisations: relational clauses, especially attributive ones where the attribute is an evaluative term and identifying ones where they are related to a nominalisation. There is one other common environment, namely that of clauses of perception, either mental (inert perception) or behavioural (active perception). Examples:

[behavioural + mental: perceptive]

We were watching [[ = the catch being brought in]] and you could see [[[ = the boats turn || × as they rounded the headland]]]

[behavioural: perceptive]

We went and watched [[ = these kids try to produce ‘Hair’ ]] .

[mental: perceptive]

Here you can see [[ = beer being brewed ‘on sight’]]

Embedded Clauses: Acts

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 503):

There is one further function of embedded clauses which is related to expansion in that, although there is no Head noun (so the embedded clause itself functions as ‘Head’), the embedded clause is the nominalisation of a process. For example, [[threatening people]] will get you nowhere.  Such a clause is the name of an action, event or other phenomenon.  It represents a ‘macro-phenomenon’ … ; let us call it an act.

An ‘act’ clause may also occur as Postmodifier to a Head noun of the appropriate class, for example the act [[= of threatening people]].  Hence it is reasonable to treat these as elaborations.

A Typical Context For A Nominal Group With Embedded Enhancing Clause

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 503):

A typical context for a nominal group with embedded enhancing clause is as Value in an identifying clause; cf. Figure 7-18. In this example the Token is also an embedded enhancing clause, this time functioning as Head. Such clauses often display a similar variation; for example:

Another reason is [[ that the quantity of the literature is not overwhelming yet]] .
Now the reason [[ they hired me]] is [[[ because they knew || I didn’t know anything about food]]] .

Identifying clauses of this kind, with nouns of expansion as the Head of the nominal group realising the Value, make an important contribution to the creation of discourse, making it possible to distribute information. Thus the textual impact of the time to leave is when people start to yawn is very different from that of you leave when people yawn: the former sets up the relationship as an exclusive identity, with the Value/Identified as Theme and the Identifier/Token as New (cf. the discussion of thematic equatives in Chapter 3, Section 3.2).

Circumstantial Feature In Noun Serving As Head: Non-Finite Clause As Qualifier: Imperfective vs Perfective

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 502-3 ):

There is the same difference between imperfective and perfective as with dependent clauses: other things being equal (that is, if occurring simply with their respective structure markers of and to), the imperfective is associated with the actual (e.g. the time of planting), the perfective with the potential, or virtual (e.g. the time to plant); sometimes the difference is minimal, as with the best way of finding out/the best way to find out – although even here can still be recognised. But the specific semantic force of the Head noun, or the conjunction or conjunctive preposition, will always dominate; e.g. the purpose of raising funds, the best occasion for trying out new methods.

Circumstantial Feature In Noun Serving As Head: Non-Finite Clause As Qualifier

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 502):

The non-finite clauses may occur with or without explicit Subject, e.g.

I just don’t see the point [[ × of having three or four different lists of people]] .
That’s the reason [[ × for keeping the sheets]] .
Soon the time came [[[ × for Kukul to take his place among the men of his nation]]] .

Sometimes the enhancing relation is marked by an explicit binder, e.g. why, where, when; here the Subject has to be implicit:

Chinchilli day is a reason [[ why to go to Las Vegas]] .
Carrasco, a place [[[ × where to return from work || and feel on holidays]]]

Expressions Beginning 'The Time ...'

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 501-2):

An expression beginning the time ... may thus have three distinct functional values:

(1) as hypotactic enhancing clause ‘(on the occasion) when ... ’, e.g.

||| [×β:] the time we first met || [α:] he hardly spoke to me at all |||

(2) as nominal group with elaborating embedded clause ‘the time which ... ’, e.g.

||| the time [[ = (which) I like best ]] is the hour before dawn |||

(3) as nominal group with enhancing embedded clause ‘the time when ... ’, e.g.

||| the time [[ × (when/that) you should leave ]] is when the lights go out |||

A hypotactic enhancing clause introduced by the time is agnate with other hypotactic temporal clauses and, by a further step, with paratactic temporal clauses: when we first met, he hardly ... ; we first met in June; then he hardly ... . The expression the time has come to serve as a structural conjunction; and the item time can thus no longer be modified in the way the Head noun of a nominal group can be (an example such as the early time we first met, he hardly spoke to me at all is impossible).* In contrast, the nominal groups in (2) and (3) can be expanded, since they have the full potential of nominal groups: the early time (which) I like best is the hour before dawn; the latest time (when/that) you should leave is when the lights go out. As illustrated by the examples, such enhanced nominal groups typically serve as participants in ‘relational’ clauses.

∞

* However, certain conjunctive features may be included in the nominal expression: the first time we met/the last time we met/the only time we met, he hardly spoke to me at all.

Circumstantial Feature In Noun Serving As Head: Finite Clause As Qualifier

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 501):

The special characteristic of the finite clauses is that, since these nouns are inherently ‘enhancing’ in sense, the circumstantial relation may, or may not, be restated within the clause: we may have either the day when/on which you came, with when, on signalling time, or simply the day (that) you came, with no indication of the temporal relation other than the Head noun day. In other words, the finite clauses are either like those of type (i) above or like elaborating clauses – that is, typical ‘defining relative’ clauses, except that they cannot take which without a preposition (you cannot say the day which you came). Examples:

I don’t see any particular reason [[ × why I should]]
This was the first occasion [[ × that I had to help in doing an experiment on a living man]] .
The only other place [[ × I would want to live ]] (is New Zealand)
The people downstairs – there’s no way [[ × they could have got out]] .
That’s the only reason [[ × I quit with Far Tortuga]] .
We shared a place in Italy the summer [[ × I was working on it]] .

All of these have four variants, two explicitly enhancing (e.g. the reason why/for which I like her) and two like elaborating (e.g. the reason (that) I like her).

Circumstantial Feature In Noun Serving As Head

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 500-1):

There is a second type of embedded enhancing clause in which the circumstantial relation is construed not in the clause itself but in the Head noun to which the clause stands as Postmodifier. These nouns form a distinct class, with two subclasses: those that can take either finite or non-finite postmodifying clauses and those which can take only non-finite – see Table 7-14.

Embedded Clauses Enhancing A Premodifying Element

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 500):

Like elaborating clauses, enhancing clauses of this type may have some premodifying element as their strict semantic domain, typically either Numerative or Epithet in a nominal group or an intensifying Premodifier in an adverbial group; these are clauses of comparison and result used in comparative constructions, e.g.

[comparison:]
I’m as certain of it [[ × as if his name were written all over his face ]] 

The actual formation of shale is somewhat more complex [[ × than indicated in Table 4-3]] . 

[result:]
Another survivor, soaked, wide-eyed with shock and too distressed [[ × to give his name]] , said ‘We were having a wonderful time when it turned into a nightmare.’ 

Within the vortex, temperatures become cold enough [[ × to form stratospheric ice crystals]] . 

Then he told us anecdotes of how he had gone across the Channel when it was so rough [[ × that the passengers had to be tied into their berths, and he and the captain were the only two living souls on board who were not ill]] .

The embedded clauses relate respectively to [the underlined Premodifiers]. Again, however, there is no need to represent this relationship in terms of a different structure.

Non-Finite Embedded Enhancing Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 500):

The non-finite variant corresponds to the dependent enhancing clauses with conjunctive preposition; e.g.

death [[ × by drowning]]
a pain [[ × like having a red-hot needle stuck into you]]
Blu-ray: death [[ × by streaming]]
The trouble [[ × with predicting climate change]]
Children need help [[ × in learning to control their emotions]] .
In Seoul, there seems to be anger [[ × at being taken for granted as an American satellite]]

Since the noun functioning as Head is generally the name of a process or property, these often have close hypotactic parallels, e.g. he was angry || × β at being accused; if you help me || × β in cooking the dinner; it’s difficult || × β with everyone having a part. 

The non-finites could in fact be reworded in the same way as the finites; e.g. the trouble with everyone having a part as the trouble [[[ = which arises || × β with everyone having a part]]]. But there is no need to treat either kind as other than embedded enhancing clauses.

Finite Embedded Enhancing Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 499):

The finite variant is illustrated by examples such as the applause [[ × when she finished singing]], the scar [[ × where the bullet entered]], the difference [[ × since I started taking Brandex]]. These are condensed variants of an embedded nexus consisting of an elaborating clause with an enhancing clause dependent on it:

the applause [[ = which erupted || × β when she finished singing ]]
the scar [[ = which has formed || × β where the bullet entered ]]

The items when and where are structural conjunctions rather than relative adverbs; they do not have the sense of preposition + which: we cannot say e.g. the scar at which the bullet entered. Contrast Some may precipitate directly from sea water in areas [[where volcanism releases abundant silica]]. Here where is a relative adverb; and it is related to the prepositional phrase in which: ... in areas in which volcanism releases abundant silica.

Embedded Enhancing Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 499):

Here the embedded clause is not a relative clause with a relative of enhancement; rather it is the same type of enhancing clause that occurs non-rankshifted in hypotactic nexuses. In general, the noun functioning as Head is the name of a process or property. There is (1) a finite variant and (2) a non-finite one.

Embedded Enhancing Non-Finite Relative Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 499):

The non-finite clause corresponds to the finite, having some variant of a WH- prepositional phrase as the relative; these may be ordinary imperfectives in -ing, e.g.

the solution [[now being experimented with]]

but perhaps the most typical are ‘destiny’ clauses with to or for*, e.g.

New progressivism is a cause [[ × to fight for ]]

Only the ‘destiny’ type allow an explicit Subject, with for:

Together they would create an artwork [[ × for the community to celebrate]].

∞

* If the relative functions as means (instrument), where the usual preposition is with, there may in fact be no preposition, the sense of instrument being derived from the ‘destiny’ sense of the clause as a whole: e.g.

Alice had no more breath [[ × for talking]] , i.e. ‘for talking with’, ‘with which to talk’.

Contrast the elaborating type

no more water [[ = for drinking]], 

where there is no circumstantial sense (and therefore no preposition could occur).

Embedded Enhancing Finite Relative Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 497-9):

Here the embedded clause contains a relative that serves as a circumstance in the clause. The clause may be either (1) finite or (2) non-finite. … If the embedded clause is finite, the relative is a WH- prepositional phrase: that is, a prepositional phrase with WH- Complement (e.g. in which) or one of its variants which ... in, that ... in, ... in:

(you’re) the one [[ × I’ve always done the most for ]]

Sometimes where or when can be used in this ‘defining relative’ function, for example:

Some may precipitate directly from sea water in areas [[ × where volcanism releases abundant silica]].
We are at a juncture in history [[ × when the options are finished]].

Here where and when are relative adverbs serving as the Head of an adverbial group.

Circumstantial Feature In The Embedded Clause

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 497):

In this type it is the clause that expresses the temporal, causal or other enhancing relation (in the same way as in a dependent clause):

the house [[ × ~ (which/that) she lived in _ / where she lived ]]
I was invited to one [[ × ~ which I spent the entire time in _ ]]

Such clauses are defining relative clauses, like the elaborating ones except that here the definition is circumstantial. Enhancing embedded clauses are either (1) finite or (2) nonfinite. There are two types, (a) embedded enhancing relative clauses and (b) embedded enhancing clauses.

Embedded Expansions: Enhancing

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 497-8):

Here the relation between the embedded clause and the Head noun is a circumstantial one of time, place, manner, cause or condition. There are two types, according to where this relationship is construed: (i) those where the circumstantial sense is located in the embedded clause itself; (ii) those where it is located in the noun functioning as Head. With both these types, the embedded clause may be either (a) a relative clause or (b) an enhancing clause. The different combinations are set out in Table 7.13 below, for both (1) finite and (2) non-finite clauses.

Embedded Expansions: Extending

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 497):

There are no embedded clauses corresponding to the paratactic and hypotactic categories of addition, replacement and alternation (and, instead, except, or). The only sense of extension which produces embedded clauses is that of possession, introduced by whose, of which/which … of or a ‘contact’ relative ending with of …

In one of those cities – one [[ + whose name has long been forgotten]] – there lived an old halac uinic, or chief. 

Note that here, as elsewhere in the grammar, possession is generalised possession; it includes not only concrete ownership but various kinds of concrete and abstract association.

Elaborating Embedded Finite Clause As Head Of Nominal Group

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 496):

In all the examples that have been discussed so far, the embedded clause functions as Postmodifier. It was pointed out in Chapter 6 that there are structures in which the Head is fused with the relative element in the embedded clause: this happens with what, meaning ‘that which’, and with whoever, whatever, whichever meaning ‘anyone who, anything that/which’, as in what we want ‘the thing + that we want’, whoever gets there first ‘anyone/the one + who gets there first’. … The effect of this fusion is that the embedded clause comes to function as Head, although it may be helpful to represent it separately in the analysis (Figure 7-17).

 

This analysis brings out the fact that such embedded clauses function as nominals rather than as clauses; so they take on the range of roles we find with nominals that (cf. what = that which), s/he (cf. whoever = s/he who), the way (cf. how = the way in which), and so on. This is reflected in forms like the one who.

Non-Finite Embedded Clause With The Preposition 'Of'

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 495):

Although a non-finite embedded clause with a preposition is generally circumstantial in meaning, and hence enhancing, there is one other type (in addition to the perfectives with to, already noted) that is elaborating; namely those with of where the relation is appositive, e.g. the job of cleaning the barracks where the job consists in cleaning the barracks. Some of these are uncertain, e.g. the advantage of shopping early, the problem with asking directions where shopping early, asking directions could be either elaborating (appositive) ‘which consists in’ or enhancing (circumstantial) ‘which results from’.

Embedding On A Premodifier

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 495-6):

Note that in examples such as the first person who came in, the best person to do the job, the embedded clause strictly has as its domain not the Head noun person but a premodifying element; the meaning is ‘the first-who-came-in person’, ‘the best-to-do-the-job person’. Compare a hard act to follow, the longest bridge ever built. We can express this relationship structurally as in Figure 7-16. 

 

But as already pointed out, constituency is not a very appropriate concept for representing semantic domain, and for most purposes it suffices to show the clause simply as embedded in the nominal group: a hard act [[to follow]].

Embedded Non-Finite Elaborating Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 494-5):

The elaborating clause is either (a) finite, where the relative is who(m), which, that or implicit (a ‘contact’ relative), or (b) non-finite, where the relative is typically implicit; …With the non-finite clauses, note again the difference between imperfective and perfective, as in the following set:

[imperfective:]

(a) operative the person taking pictures (‘who is/was taking’)

(b) receptive the pictures taken by Mary (‘which were/are taken’) (according to the tense of the outer clause)

[perfective:]

(a) operative

(1) the (best) person to take pictures (‘who ought to take’) [relative = Subject] 

(2) the (best) pictures to take (‘which someone ought to take’) [relative = Complement]

(b) receptive the pictures to be taken (‘which are/were to be taken’)

Glosses in parenthesis suggest the nearest equivalent finite form. In non-finite elaborating clauses, the implicit relative is normally the Subject, but in perfective operative clauses it may be either the Subject (as in the person to take pictures) or the Complement (as in the pictures to be taken). Here we thus see two principles in operation, viz. (1) the Subject may be presupposed in a non-finite clause; (2) the Complement may be presupposed in a defining relative clause. The second principle also extends to Adjuncts, as in the best time to take pictures (‘the best time at which to take pictures’); these are treated as enhancing.

Embedded Elaborating Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 494):

The typical defining relative clause, introduced by who, which, that, or in its so-called ‘contact clause’ form without any relative marker (e.g. he told in the tales he told), is elaborating in sense. The following example illustrates the contrast between an embedded, defining relative clause and a hypotactically dependent, non-defining one.

||| The only person [[ who was kind to him at all]] was the Skin Horse, || who had lived longer in the nursery than any of the others. |||

The relative element in an embedded clause restates the nominal antecedent; thus in

the man [[ who came to dinner ]] stayed for a month

the man who came to dinner and the man who stayed for a month are the same man. This is the same principle by which non-defining relatives are also elaborating in function. The defining ones, however, do not form a separate tone group, because there is only one piece of information here, not two – who came to dinner is not news, but simply part of the characterisation of that particular participant.

Analysis Of A Clause Containing A Nominal Group Containing An Embedded Clause

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 493):

Figure 7-15 shows the analysis of a clause containing a nominal group containing an embedded clause. (The analysis is given in terms of Mood; the embedding could, of course, equally well be incorporated into an analysis in terms of transitivity.)

Embedded Expansions

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 493):

The meaning of an embedded clause, or phrase, that is functioning as an expansion is essentially to define, delimit or specify. Thus the characteristic embedded expansion is the ‘defining relative clause’ (also called ‘restrictive’), like that Jack built in the house that Jack built. Its function is to specify which member or members of the class designated by the Head noun, in this instance house, is or are being referred to.