Demonstrative 'The'

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 630-1):

Consider the following examples:

(a) The sun was shining on the sea.
(b) This is the house that Jack built.
(c) Algy met a bear. The bear was bulgy. The bulge was Algy.

In (a) we know which ‘sun’ and which ‘sea’ are being referred to even if we are not standing on the beach with the sun above our heads; there is only one sun, and for practical purposes only one sea. There may be other seas in different parts of the globe, and even other suns in the heavens; but they are irrelevant. In (b) we know which ‘house’ is being referred to, because we are told – it is the one built by Jack; and notice that the information comes after the occurrence of the the. In (c) we know which bear – the one that Algy met; and we know which bulge – the one displayed by the bear; but in this case the information had already been given before the the occurred. Only in (c), therefore, is the anaphoric.

Like the personals, and the other demonstratives, the has a specifying function; it signals ‘you know which one(s) I mean’. But there is an important difference. The other items not only signal that the identity is known, or knowable; they state explicitly how the identity is to be established. …

In other words, the merely announces that the identity is specific; it does not specify it. The information is available elsewhere. It may be in the preceding text (anaphoric), like (c) above; in the following text (cataphoric), like (b); or in the air, so to speak, like (a). Type (a) are self-specifying; there is only one – or at least only one that makes sense in the context, as in Have you fed the cat? (homophoric).

Demonstratives

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 630):

In some languages, as pointed out earlier, there is a close correspondence of demonstratives and personals, such that there are three demonstratives rather than two, and the direction of reference is near me (this), near you (that) and not near either of us (yon). This pattern was once widespread in English and can still be found in some rural varieties of Northern English and Scots. In modern standard English yon no longer exists, although we still sometimes find the word yonder from the related series here, there and yonder; but another development has taken place in the meantime.

Given just two demonstratives, this and that, it is usual for that to be more inclusive; it tends to become the unmarked member of the pair. This happened in English; and in the process a new demonstrative evolved which took over and extended the ‘unmarked’ feature of that – leaving this and that once more fairly evenly matched. This is the so-called ‘definite article’ the. The word the is still really a demonstrative, although a demonstrative of a rather particular kind.

Cataphoric Demonstrative Reference Exemplified

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 629):

endophoric: cataphoric

||| Rather, I think || we will be stronger and more effective || if we stick to those issues of governmental structure and process, broadly defined, that have formed the core of our agenda for years. |||

Anaphoric Demonstrative Reference Exemplified

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 629):

endophoric: anaphoric

||| Though Amnesty has long criticised the widespread US use of the death penalty, || it found || there has now been another worrying development in this process.||| 

||| The way that Icelandic expresses the phrase “I dreamed something last night” is “It dreamed me”. ||| Though that’s also modern Icelandic, || this is a mediæval idea. ||| 

||| During the European scramble for Africa, Nigeria fell to the British. ||| It wasn’t one nation at that point; || it was a large number of independent political entities. ||| The British brought this rather complex association into being as one nation || and ruled it until 1960 || when Nigeria achieved independence. ||| 

||| They have to be given instruction of course || and learn to read the signals; || then they’ll take a driving test || and there are track circuits as on all electrified lines || so that once a train gets into a section || no other train can move on to that section || and run into it || but that’s just standard equipment. |||

Exophoric Demonstrative Reference Exemplified

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 629):

exophoric

||| Here, I’ll help with this one. ||| 

||| Yes, Dad, but we mustn’t even lean on this guitar today. ||| 

||| We could move that table. ||| 

||| It wouldn’t matter to him really; || he’s half deaf after all these years working at this place. ||| 

||| I’ve been eating like this for the last ten years || and nothing happens. ||| 

||| What is that? ||| Hmm, Hungarian pastry. |||

Demonstrative Reference

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 628-9):

Personal reference items create co-reference in terms of the category of person. As we noted above, there is another related, but distinct, co-referential strategy – that of demonstrative reference. Here the reference item is a demonstrative, this/that, these/those. Demonstratives (see Table 9-11) may also be either exophoric or anaphoric; in origin they were probably the same as third-person forms, but they retain a stronger deictic flavour than the personals, and have evolved certain distinct anaphoric functions of their own.

Tracking A Referent

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 627):

That is, there are two primary anaphoric strategies for tracking a referent as a text unfolds. The speaker or writer can use either (i) a personal reference item (personal pronoun or possessive determiner) or (ii) a specified noun. A ‘specified noun’ is either an inherently specific one – a proper noun – or else a common noun (serving as Thing) modified by a demonstrative determiner as Deictic. For example: he vs. the Rabbit or his vs. the Rabbit’s (or of the Rabbit). The term ‘pronoun’ suggests that a pronoun stands for a noun; and the term ‘pronominalisation’ suggests that something is turned into a pronoun. But both terms are misleading: the unmarked anaphoric strategy is to use the pronoun, and the lexical variant or a proper name is used only if there is a good reason to vary from the unmarked strategy. 

Good reasons include (i) the need to indicate the beginning of a new rhetorical stage in the unfolding text and (ii) the need to further elaborate the reference when there are alternative antecedents around in the discourse.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, cohesive reference is not concerned with "tracking referents". This error ultimately derives from Martin's (1992) misunderstanding of reference as 'participant identification', and especially its further elaboration in Martin & Rose (2007). For evidence that these are misunderstandings, see the clarifying critiques here (English Text) and here (Working With Discourse).

The textual function of reference is to create cohesion in the text by presuming information that is recoverable from elsewhere in the text itself. Speakers do not need to "keep track" of referents, since they already know who they are talking about, and if speakers wanted to "track" referents for listeners, there are far more efficient ways of doing so than deploying potentially ambiguous reference items.

[2] To be clear, it is only the determiner of a nominal group that serves as a reference item, forming a cohesive tie with its referent, and proper nouns do not serve as reference items. Proper nouns only 'reference' in the sense of ideational denotation (wording realising meaning). Martin's relabelling of reference (IDENTIFICATION) routinely confuses textual reference with ideational denotation (and DEIXIS); evidence here.

As previously suggested, serious scholars seeking a theoretically (and internally) consistent understanding of cohesive reference are strongly urged to consult the original model in Cohesion In English (Halliday & Hasan 1976), and/or either of the first two editions of An Introduction To Functional Grammar (Halliday 1985; 1994).

Reference Chains

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 627):

For a somewhat more extended example, we can refer to a narrative for children about a Velveteen Rabbit. After this Velveteen Rabbit has been introduced, there are anaphoric references to this rabbit, forming a reference chain that runs throughout the narrative. The chain running through the extract consists of the following items:

[a velveteen rabbit] – he – his (coat) – his (ears) – he – his (paws) – him – the Velveteen Rabbit – he – he – him – ... – the Rabbit – he – him

Several of these reference items occur within the Theme (thematic references underlined): while reference items can occur anywhere, there is an unmarked relationship between referential identifiability and status as Given information, and between Given and Theme. There is therefore a strong tendency for reference items to be thematic. Most of the anaphoric references involve simply a personal pronoun or a possessive determiner; there are only two references with demonstrative the as Deictic and the lexical noun rabbit as Thing. This is the typical pattern in extended reference chains.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the unacknowledged source of the term 'reference chain' is Martin (1992: 140), which is, itself, his relabelling of Hasan's original notion of an identity chain (Halliday & Hasan 1989 [1985]: 84ff). However, this is subtly inconsistent with the notion of cohesive reference, and can lead to confusing reference with lexical cohesion. To explain:

As Halliday & Hasan (1976: 329, 330) point out:

The basic concept that is employed in analysing the cohesion of a text is that of a tie… [which]… includes not only the cohesive element itself but also that which is presupposed by it. A tie is best interpreted as a relation between these two elements. …

The presupposed item may itself be cohesive, presupposing another item that is still further back; in this way there may be a whole chain of presuppositions before the original target item is reached…:

The last word ended in a long bleat, so like a sheep that Alice quite started (1). She looked at the Queen, who seemed to have suddenly wrapped herself up in wool (2). Alice rubbed her eyes, and looked again (3). She couldn't make out what had happened at all (4). Was she in a shop (5)? And was that really — was it really a sheep that was sitting on the other side of the counter (6)? Rub as she would, she could make nothing more of it (7).

…the she in (5) has as the target of its presupposition another instance of she, that in (4); and in order to resolve it we have to follow this through to the occurrence of Alice in (3). We shall call this type a mediated tie.

In short, cohesive reference is a relation between reference item and referent, and this relation may be mediated by intervening reference items. It is not a chain of nominal groups, as misinterpreted in Martin's (1992) relabelling of reference as IDENTIFICATION.

Because Matthiessen tries to accommodate Martin's misunderstandings ('reference chain', 'tracking') in his rewriting of Halliday's exposition of reference, it is strongly recommended that serious scholars who want a theoretically consistent understanding of it should consult Halliday & Hasan (1976), and Halliday (1985, 1994).

Personal Reference

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 626-7, 628):

In personal reference, the category of person is used to refer: we described the basic principle in the previous subsection, suggesting that non-interactant personal pronouns and possessive determiners have come to be used primarily in anaphoric reference. The personal reference items of English are set out in Table 9-10. They are either ‘determinative’ or ‘possessive’. If ‘determinative’, they are personal pronouns serving as Thing/Head in the nominal group (as in a velveteen rabbit ... he). If ‘possessive’, they are determiners serving as Deictic in the nominal group and are conflated with either Head or Premodifier (as in a velveteen rabbit ... his coat).

Co-Reference vs Comparative Reference

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 625-6):

Exophora and endophora are different directions of pointing – either to referents in the environment outside the text, or to referents introduced in the text itself before or after the reference expression. But how does this reference expression achieve the effect of ‘pointing’? All such expressions have in common the fact that they presuppose referents; but they differ with respect to whether what is presupposed is the same referent (co-reference) or another referent of the same class (comparative reference): see Table 9-9.

 

Structural Cataphoric Reference

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 625):

Cataphora is quite rare compared with anaphora. The only exception is structural cataphora (cf. Halliday & Hasan, 1976: 72), which is common. Here the reference is resolved within the same nominal group where the reference item appears; a Deictic the or that/those is used to indicate that the Qualifier of a nominal group is to be taken as defining. For example:

The age was one of transition as much as of transformation, the ongoing process or movement that has led all of us today to use the expression “What’s new?” as a common and casual greeting. Those who were opposed and fearful, as well as those who were excited and hopeful, recognised that the key to an understanding of the age was change.

Cataphoric Reference

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 625):

Alternatively, endophoric reference may point ‘forwards’ to the future of the unfolding text, that is, to a referent that is yet to be introduced. Thus in the following example, this guy indicates that more about this referent is to come:

||| One day I was sitting in the Dôme, a street café in Montparnasse quite close to [[ where we were living]] , || and this guy walked up || and said, || “I met you in 1948 or 1949. ||| My name is Harold Humes.” ||| He said || he was starting a new magazine, The Paris News-Post, || and would I become its fiction editor. |||

This type of endophoric reference is called cataphora, or cataphoric reference.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the cataphoric reference here is made by the demonstrative reference item this, not by the nominal group this guy.

Anaphoric Reference

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 625):

Endophoric reference may point ‘backwards’ to the history of the unfolding text, that is, to a referent that has already been introduced and is thus part of the text’s system of meanings. … This type of endophoric reference is called anaphora, or anaphoric reference, and the element that is pointed to anaphorically is called the antecedent.

Endophoric Reference

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 625):

Endophoric reference means that the identity presumed by the reference item is recoverable from within the text itself – or, to be more precise, from the instantial system of meanings created as the text unfolds. As the text unfolds, speakers and listeners build up a system of meanings – this is part of the process of logogenesis… . Once a new meaning has been introduced, it becomes part of that system, and if it is the right category of thing, it can be presumed by endophoric reference.

Exophoric Reference

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 624-5):

Exophoric reference means that the identity presumed by the reference item is recoverable from the environment of the text… . Here the reference links the text to its environment; but it does not contribute to the cohesion of the text, except indirectly when references to one and the same referent are repeated, forming a chain. Such chains are common in dialogue with repetition of references to the interactants by means of forms of I, you, we…

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the cohesive reference relation obtains between a reference item and its (endophoric) referent, not between reference items or between referents. A chain of reference items does not represent the cohesive relations of a text.

The Different Kinds Of Pointing, Or Phora

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 624):

It will be helpful to introduce the technical terms for the different kinds of pointing or phora: see Table 9-8. The basic distinction is between pointing ‘outwards’ and pointing ‘inwards’ – between (i) exophora and (ii) endophora.

From Deixis To Reference

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 624):

… it seems quite likely that reference first evolved as a means of linking ‘outwards’ to some entity in the environment. So, for example, the concept of ‘he’ probably originated as ‘that man over there’ – a reference to a person in the field of perception shared by speaker and listener. In other words we may postulate an imaginary stage in the evolution of language when the basic referential category of PERSON was deictic in the strict sense, ‘to be interpreted by reference to the situation here and now’. Thus I was ‘the one speaking’: you, ‘the one(s) spoken to’; he, she, it, they were the third party, ‘the other(s) in the situation’. The first and second persons I and you naturally retain this deictic sense; their meaning is defined in the act of speaking. The third person forms he, she, it, they can also be used in this way; … But more often than not, in all languages as we know them, such items point not ‘outwards’ to the environment but ‘backwards’ to the preceding text … – or, in effect, [to] the instantial system of meanings that is built up by speaker and listener as the text unfolds.

Cohesive Reference: Identifiability

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 623):

The textual status at issue in the system of reference is that of identifiability: does the speaker judge that a given element can be recovered or identified by the listener at the relevant point in the discourse or not? If it is presented as identifiable, then the listener will have to recover the identity from somewhere else (for a systemic description of this as a semantic system, see Martin, 1992). If it is presented as non-identifiable, then the listener will have to establish it as a new element of meaning in the interpretation of the text.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, Martin (1992) misunderstands the notion of cohesive reference, confusing it with nominal group deixis and reference in the sense of ideational denotation. Moreover, it is not a semantic description, but merely a relabelling of (misunderstandings of) Halliday & Hasan's (1976) grammatical system. Evidence:

1. here: English Text (Martin 1992)
2. here: Bateman's 1998 review of English Text, and
3. here: Working With Discourse (Martin & Rose 2007)

The Term 'Reference'

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 623n):

Note that the term ‘reference’ has been used in different ways. For example, in philosophical and formal semantic works on meaning it indicates ideational denotation, as when expressions are said to refer to phenomena. (In such contexts, reference (or extension) and sense (or intension) are often taken as complementary aspects of meaning, going back to Frege’s distinction between Sinn and Bedeutung.) Here we are using the term in the way it has been used in functional work (e.g. Halliday & Hasan, 1976) to indicate the textual cohesive strategy discussed in this section.

Resources For Marking Textual Status: Structural vs Cohesive

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 623):

By textual statuses, we mean values assigned to elements of discourse that guide speakers and listeners in processing these elements. We have, in fact, already met two kinds of textual status – thematicity and newsworthiness. Theme and New are processed quite differently when interactants manage the flow of text; while Theme is the point of departure for integrating the information being presented in the clause, New is the main point to retain from the information presented. But whereas Theme and New are parts of textual structures – Theme ^ Rheme in the clause and Given + New in the information unit, respectively, the textual statuses that come under the heading of cohesion, REFERENCE and ELLIPSIS, are not. That is, while an element is marked cohesively as identifiable by means of a grammatical item such as the personal pronoun they, or as continuous by means of a grammatical item such as the nominal substitute one, the textual statuses of identifiability and continuity are not structural functions of the clause or of any other grammatical unit. They can occur freely within Theme or Rheme, and within Given or New (although there are certain unmarked associations).

The Absence Of Explicit Conjunction

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 621, 622):

One question that arises in the interpretation of a text is what to do about a conjunction that is implicit. It often happens, especially with temporal and causal sequences, that the semantic relationship is clearly felt to be present but is unexpressed; … 

It is perhaps as well, therefore, to be cautious in assigning implicit conjunction in the interpretation of a text. It is likely that there will always be other forms of cohesion present, and that these are the main source of our intuition that there is a pattern of conjunctive relationships as well. (For example, when a lexical relation of hyponymy obtains between lexical items in two successive Themes, a relation of elaboration such as exemplification can often be inferred, as would typically be the case in taxonomic reports.) 

Moreover the absence of explicit conjunction is one of the principal variables in English discourse, both as between registers and as between texts in the same register; this variation is obscured if we assume conjunction where it is not expressed. It is important therefore to note those instances where conjunction is being recognised that is implicit; and to characterise the text also without it, to see how much we still feel is being left unaccounted for.

*Enhancing* Conjunction: Types Of Matter Exemplified

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 620):

Here cohesion is established by reference to the ‘matter’ that has gone before. As noted earlier, many expressions of matter are spatial metaphors, involving words like point, ground, field; and these become conjunctive when coupled with reference items. The relation is either (i) positive or (ii) negative. Examples:

(i) positive:

||| Without chlorine in the antarctic stratosphere, || there would be no ozone hole. ||| (Here “hole” refers to a substantial reduction below the naturally occurring concentration of ozone over Antarctica.) |||

(ii) negative: in other respects, elsewhere

||| The serial dilutions of the serum are made in AB serum || and the standard cells are suspended in 30 per cent bovine albumin. ||| In all other respects the method is identical with technique No. 17. |||

Blogger Comment:

* Strictly speaking, 'matter' is a category of projection, not expansion: enhancement.

Enhancing Conjunction: The Three Types Of Condition Exemplified

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 620):

Conditionals subdivide into (i) positive, (ii) negative and (iii) concessive. Examples:

(i) positive:

[S02:] ||| That’s the DEET account. ||| Well there must be more money coming from that. ||| Do they tend to pay – || how do they – ||| – [S04:] ||| Per issue. ||| – [S02:] ||| Per issue. ||| Well in that case do they pay after the issues come out? |||

(ii) negative:

||| “I mustn’t say anything about it. ||| Otherwise, I’ll get shot by the lady [[ who just shut the door]] ,” || Holm said, || referring to a publicist [[ who had just left the room]] . |||

(iii) concessive:

||| The outstanding performance of U.S. and other NATO military units has enabled SFOR to fulfil the military tasks [[spelled out in the Dayton Accords]] . ||| Nevertheless, success [[ in achieving the civil, political, and economic tasks [[ identified at Dayton]] ]] has been slower in coming. |||

Enhancing Conjunction: Types Of Cause Exemplified

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 619):

In many types of discourse the relation of cause figures very prominently as a cohesive agent. Some cause expressions are general, others relate more specifically to result, reason or purpose. Examples:

(i) general:

||| We understand it still || that there is no easy road to freedom. ||| We know it well || that none of us [[ acting alone]] can achieve success. ||| We must therefore act together as a united people, for national reconciliation, for nation building, for the birth of a new world. |||

(ii) specific

[a] result:

||| Now prices have sunk for secondary schools || and experienced secondary inspectors are shifting into primary and special schools with minimal training. ||| As a result, primary schools and teachers are being judged ‘failing’ by inspectors [[[ who have never taught younger children, || but only watched a couple of lessons on video during their training]]] ! |||

[b] reason:

||| But you wouldn’t marry me? || – No. ||| I’m not your type. ||| I’d make you miserable. ||| I mean that. ||| I’d very probably be unfaithful || and that’d kill you. ||| Then I’d be unfaithful too, || to teach you a lesson. ||| It wouldn’t work. ||| You’d do it || to spite me. ||| I would never do it for that reason. |||

[c] purpose:

Laertes: ||| I will do’t! ||| And for that purpose I’ll anoint my sword. ||| 

||| In 2011 the SUN Road Map will be translated into action || with a view to helping countries [[ affected by under-nutrition]] to achieve long-term reduction in under-nutrition || and realise the first Millennium Development Goal, || and to start demonstrating this impact within three years. ||| For that purpose the SUN Road Map envisages an open system of support to the implementation of SUN efforts by countries. |||

Enhancing Conjunction: The Two Types Of Manner Exemplified

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 618-9):

Manner conjunctives create cohesion (i) by comparison, (ii) by reference to means. Comparison may be (a) positive (‘is like’), or (b) negative (‘is unlike’).

(i) comparison:

||| One area [[ that holds considerable promise for RC involvement]] is Information Operations. ||| By exploiting the technical skills [[ that many reservists use on a daily basis in their civilian jobs]] , || the military can take advantage of industry’s latest techniques [[ for protecting information systems]]. ||| Similarly, [[ defending our homeland from terrorism || and responding to chemical attack]] are natural roles for our Guard and Reserve forces. ||| [positive]

(ii) means:

||| Chert originates in several ways. ||| Some may precipitate directly from sea water in areas [[ where volcanism releases abundant silica]] . ||| Most comes from the accumulation of silica shells of organisms. ||| These silica remains come from diatoms, radiolaria, and sponge spicules, || and are composed of opal. ||| Opal is easily recrystallised to form chert. ||| Thus much chert is recrystallised, || making the origin difficult to discern. |||

Expressions of means are however not often conjunctive; those that are are usually also comparative, e.g. in the same manner, otherwise.

Simple Internal Temporal Conjunction Exemplified

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 618):

simple internal

||| Organisationally, there are equally strong imperatives and challenges. ||| Again, a first requirement is [[to do no harm to organisational frameworks [[that, through years of evolution, are finally at the stage [[where they are supporting programs [[that are actually helping us to get on with the business of increasing understanding]] ]] ]] ]] . ||| Second, having ensured [[that we do as little harm as possible]], || we must make sure [[that the interdisciplinary linkages [[mentioned earlier]] do not fall between organisational stools]] . ||| Third, we must take steps to ensure [[that the organisations [[we do have in place]] do not impede research [[that is crossing over their historical boundaries of self-definition]] ]] . ||| Finally, the ultimate challenge is [[to identify which, if any, new organisational frameworks would make a positive contribution to our ability [[to get on with the substantive work of [[understanding global change]] ]] ]]. ||| [following; conclusive]

Temporal Conjunction: Internal vs External

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 618):

Many temporal conjunctives have an ‘internal’ as well as an ‘external’ interpretation (cf. Halliday & Hasan, 1976: Ch. 5; Martin, 1992: Ch. 4; cf. also Mann & Matthiessen, 1991); that is, the time they refer to is the temporal unfolding of the discourse itself, not the temporal sequence of the processes referred to. In terms of the functional components of semantics, it is interpersonal not experiential time. Parallel to the ‘simple’ categories above we can recognise the simple internal ones. These play an important role in argumentative passages in discourse. …

These shade into temporal metaphors of an expanding kind such as meanwhile, at the same time (meanwhile let us not forget that ... , at the same time it must be admitted that ... )

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, Martin (1992) misunderstands Halliday & Hasan's internal vs external distinction; evidence here.

Temporal Conjunction Exemplified: Simple vs Complex

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 617-8):

(i) simple

||| “I am Real!” || said the little Rabbit. ||| “The Boy said || so!” ||| Just then there was the sound of footsteps, || and the two strange rabbits disappeared. ||| [simultaneous] 

||| The Atlantic took a second story, || and I got an agent. ||| Then I started my first novel || and sent off about four chapters || and waited by the post office || for praise to roll in, calls from Hollywood, everything. ||| Finally my agent sent me a letter [[ that said || “Dear Peter, James Fenimore Cooper wrote this a hundred and fifty years ago, || only he wrote it better. ||| Yours, Bernice.”]] ||| [following; conclusive] 

Interviewer: ||| When did you first feel a sense of vocation about being a writer? ||| – Smiley: ||| Probably when I was a senior in college. ||| I had done well in creative writing classes before that, so I signed up for the senior creative writing class and I started writing a novel. ||| [preceding]

(ii) complex

||| Kukul fought bravely, || at times at the very front. ||| But wherever he was, || not a single weapon fell on him. ||| Chirumá observed this. ||| “The gods must watch out for Kukul,” he thought to himself. ||| All at once, Kukul saw an arrow flying straight toward Chirumá, || and Kukul positioned himself like a shield in front of his uncle. ||| [immediate] 

||| In another story [[that we recently published]], Robert Olen Butler’s “Titanic Victim Speaks through Waterbed,” a midlevel colonial official [[who is on the Titanic]] falls in love with a woman || as the ship is about to sink. ||| He has led a dry life until then, || and the whole story is told through the eerie perspective of this guy after death, || as he continues to float around in water, at various times in the ocean, in a cup of tea, a pisspot, and finally a waterbed. ||| [terminal] 

||| Place the aubergine slices in a colander, || sprinkle with salt || and leave || to drain for 10 minutes. ||| Rinse and dry thoroughly. ||| Meanwhile, mix the flour with the cayenne pepper in a bowl. ||| [durative]

Enhancing Conjunction: Temporal

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 617, 618):

Temporal conjunction covers a very great variety of different relations; we can distinguish between (i) simple and (ii) complex ones. They are important in registers where sequence in time is a major organising principle – narratives, biographies, procedures. … Those that are called ‘complex’ are the simple ones with some other semantic feature or features present at the same time.

Enhancing Conjunction: Spatial

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 617):

Place reference may be used conjunctively within a text, with here and there, spatial adverbs such as behind and nearby, and expressions containing a place noun or adverb plus reference item, e.g. in the same place, anywhere else. Here spatial relations are being used as text-creating cohesive devices. 

Note however that most apparently spatial cohesion is in terms of metaphorical space; for example there in there you’re wrong; cf. expressions like on those grounds, on that point. These are actually expressions of Matter. 

Many conjunctive expressions of the expanding kind are also in origin spatial metaphors; e.g. in the first place, on the other hand (hand involves a double metaphor: ‘part of the body’ – ‘side’ [on my right hand] – ‘side of an argument’).

The Four Categories Of Enhancing Conjunction

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 617):

The various types of enhancement that create cohesion are (a) spatio-temporal, (b) manner, (c) causal-conditional and (d) matter.

Extending Conjunction: The Three Types Of Variation Exemplified

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 617):

(i) replacive:

||| Assad, a career air force officer [[ who took power in a bloodless coup in 1970]] , has been grooming Bashar for future leadership, || but the British-educated ophthalmologist has held no major political office. ||| Instead, Bashar has been going abroad as his father’s special envoy. |||

(ii) subtractive:

||| Naturally though, it has to be within walking distance of Mayfair, || but, apart from that, an attic with only a shower and a gas ring will suffice. |||

(iii) alternative:

||| If there’s still time, || you may wish to round off the day with a visit to Fort Denison [[ conducted by the Maritime Services Board]] . ||| Tours leave from Circular Quay at 10.15am, 12.15am and 2.00pm Tuesday to Sunday, || although you will certainly need to book in advance || by ringing Captain Cook Cruises on 2515007. ||| Alternatively, if you’ve had enough of colonial relics, || a Captain Cook Cruise can be booked on the same number. |||

Extending Conjunction: The Three Types Of Addition Exemplified

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 616-7):

(i) positive:

||| The ozone amount was also the lowest on record at all latitudes south of 60°S latitude in 1987. |||
Furthermore, the occurrence of strong depletion was a year-long phenomenon south of 60°S || and was not confined to the spring season as in preceding years, || although the greatest depletion occurred during the Southern Hemisphere spring. |||

(ii) negative:

||| When Kukul awoke, || he saw [[ that the feature was gone]]. ||| He searched everywhere, || but he could not find it. ||| Nor could he remember the words of the priest on the day [[ he was born]] . ||

(iii) adversative:

||| After the Bay of Pigs fiasco, he said ruefully, || “It would have been better || if we had left it to James Bond.”
||| On the other hand, his reputed attempts [[ to get Castro to extinguish himself with either an exploding cigar or a poison pen]] may have owed all too much to Bond. |||

The Two Categories Of Extending Conjunction

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 616):

Extension involves either addition or variation. Addition is either positive and, negative nor or adversative but; but since the adversative relation plays a particularly important part in discourse it is best taken as a separate heading on its own. Variation includes replacive instead, subtractive except and alternative or types.

Elaborating Conjunction: Clarification

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 616):

Here the elaborated element is not simply restated but reinstated, summarised, made more precise or in some other way clarified for purposes of the discourse. There are seven subtypes (corrective, distractive, dismissive, particularising, resumptive, summative, verifactive), realised by different sets of conjunctions; they are set out in Table 9-6, and illustrated below:

Calculations by Anderson show that ozone depletion at the 410- and 420-K isentropic surfaces between August 23 and September 22 can be almost entirely explained by the amount of ClO present if one assumes that the ClO-ClO mechanism is effective. At the 360-K surface, the calculated ozone loss is somewhat less than the observed loss. At least we can say that above about the 400-K level, there does seem to be enough ClO to explain the observed ozone loss. [corrective] 

Customer: What’s pepperoni? – Operator: Pepperoni? It’s a round, it’s a pork product. – Customer: Is it? Oh okay. No I don’t want that. Anyway, um – can I have one of them? I’ll pay the two dollar extra: the – what do you call it? the seafood.[dismissive] 

Interviewer: You grew up in St. Louis, Missouri, went to Vassar as an undergraduate, and then came back to Iowa for your graduate work. – Smiley: Actually, there was a year in there where after I finished Vassar I went to Europe with my then husband and we hitchhiked around, wondering what to do. [verifactive]

Elaborating Conjunction: Apposition

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 615):

In this type of elaboration some element is re-presented, or restated, either (i) by exposition, the ‘i.e.’ relation, or (ii) by example, the ‘e.g.’ relation.

(i) expository:
I guess the main editorial rule that we work by is to treat all manuscripts equally. I mean, it doesn’t make any difference who the author is. 

(ii) exemplifying:
Our humour is founded on very close observation, very, very close observation of reality. You find some humorous proverbs, for instance, and the humour is that whoever made these proverbs was not going around the world with his eyes closed. For example, the dog says that those who have buttocks do not know how to sit.

The Two Categories Of Elaborating Conjunction

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 615):

There are two categories of elaborating relation, (a) apposition and (b) clarification. The overall range is the same as that of paratactic elaboration; but the category of apposition used here groups exposition and exemplification together.

Internal Elaborating Conjunctive Adjuncts And Mood Or Comment Adjuncts

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 614-5, 616n):

Certain items that serve as ‘elaborating’ conjunctions that are ‘internal’ only in orientation may also serve as modal adverbs (e.g. actually, in fact, indeed, as a matter of fact), functioning either as mood Adjuncts of intensity or as comment Adjuncts of factuality. In fact, these are related historically through processes of grammaticalisation: starting from an experiential source, items such as these tend to develop into textual conjunctions, and by a further step into interpersonal modal adverbs…

Some of the items that are used as conjunctions with verifactive senses also have assessment senses and serve as mood or comment Adjuncts: actually, in fact, indeed – (i) verifactive (‘in reality’), (iia) intensity: counterexpectancy (‘even’), and (iib) factual (speech functional comment: ‘really’); as a matter of fact – (i) verifactive (‘in reality’), and (ii) factual (speech functional comment: ‘really’). The link between the verifactive and assessment senses is the orientation towards the interpersonal: in their assessment senses, these items are, of course, purely interpersonal; and in their verifactive senses, they are internal in orientation (cf. Halliday & Hasan, 1976: 240ff.): the clarification relates to the speech function rather than to the experiential content of the proposition or proposal being exchanged – ‘I’ll tell you by way of clarification of what I said before’. Thus in the following example, in fact serves as a cohesive conjunctive Adjunct and actually as a mood Adjunct: But that basic training helped me in the part. In fact, when Tom Quayle (Tom Jennings) actually did knock me down in the fight scene, I saw red and had to take a few deep breaths and hold myself back. Traugott (1997) shows how both indeed and (during a later period in the history of English) in fact developed (in our terms) from items serving as circumstantial Adjuncts, to items serving as interpersonal Adjuncts and also to items serving as conjunctive Adjuncts. They follow one of the grammaticalisation paths she has identified.

Extending The Conjunction System In Delicacy

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 612, 614):

This interpretation of conjunction as a system embodying two variables brings out the underlying principle. However, the two systemic variables are not entirely independent of one another. The ‘elaborating’ type tends to be ‘internal’ rather than ‘external’, and while ‘extending’ and ‘enhancing’ relations can be either ‘internal’ or ‘external’, particular conjunctions may be either one or the other. Thus when we extend it in delicacy, we would need to take account of the all the possible combinations of type and orientation: (i) a number of conjunctions can be used to mark either external or internal relations, but a number of other conjunctions can be used only to mark either (ii) external or (iii) internal relations. For example:

(i) external/internal: and, or, but, however, then, next, so, therefore
(ii) external: just then, previously, soon, meanwhile, next time
(iii) internal: in fact, actually, incidentally, in short, briefly, finally, in conclusion, furthermore, moreover, in this respect, otherwise

The System Of Conjunction As Two Simultaneous Systems

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 612, 615):

For the grammatical system of CONJUNCTION, we can explore the possibility of adding a system of ORIENTATION in parallel with the system of expansion TYPE shown in the system network in Figure 9-2: see Figure 9-3.

The Distinction Between External And Internal Conjunctive Relations

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 611, 612):

As we have seen, elaborating, extending and enhancing conjunctions mark relations between semantic domains, i.e. between text segments. These text segments are simultaneously ideational and interpersonal; they construe experience as meaning, e.g. an episode in a narrative or a recount, and they enact roles and relations, e.g. an exchange in a conversation or consultation, or an argument in an exposition. Relations link text segments either in their ideational guise or in their interpersonal guise: they relate either chunks of experience or chunks of interaction. …

Relations between representations of segments of experience are called external relations, and conjunctions marking such relations are called external conjunctions. … Relations linking text segments in their interpersonal guise are called internal relations – internal to the text as a speech event, and conjunctions marking such relations are called internal conjunctions. …

The distinction between external and internal relations was introduced by Halliday & Hasan (1976: Chapter 5) and developed by Martin (e.g. 1992: Chapter 4) in his account of conjunction as a semantic system.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, Martin (1992) misunderstands Halliday & Hasan's conjunction (evidence here), and the distinction between internal and external relations (evidence here), and rebrands their grammatical system as his discourse semantic system. Relabelling misunderstandings of original work is not developing a theory.

The Conjunctions That Mark Cohesive Conjunctive Relations

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 611, 613-4):

… we list conjunctions used for each of the most delicate features in Table 9-6, but we will not differentiate the members of these sets further in delicacy.

The System Of Conjunction

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 611, 612):

… the logico-semantic relations that are manifested in the system of conjunction fall into the same three types of expansion we met in our exploration of clause complexing – that is, conjunctions mark relations where one span of text elaborates, extends or enhances another, earlier span of text. The system is set out in Figure 9-2.

Markers Of Logico-Semantic Relations

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 611):

The logico-semantic relation is marked by a conjunction — either by a non-structural one that is used only in this way, i.e. only cohesively, such as for example, furthermore, consequently; or by a structural one whose prototypical function is to mark the continuing clause in a paratactic clause nexus. The former serve as conjunctive Adjuncts and are very commonly thematic; the latter are simply analysed as structure markers and are obligatorily thematic as structural Theme.

Cohesive Conjunctions

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 610):

Cohesive conjunctions may be used within clause complexes, as in

||| Someone comes along with a great idea for an expedition || – for example, I did a book called Sand Rivers, just before the Indian books, || and it was a safari into a very remote part of Africa. |||

But their real cohesive contribution is made when they are used to indicate logico-semantic relations that extend beyond the (grammatical) domain of a single clause complex. They may mark relations that obtain between two clause complexes, as in:

||| Taiwan’s newly elected leader expressed interest Friday in considering a confederation with rival China – a relationship a visiting Chinese policy expert said Beijing would surely reject. ||| Meanwhile, a list of top Cabinet members in Taiwan’s new government was announced, featuring prominent numbers of women, technocrats and academics who will be key in the push to improve relations with China and clean up corruption. |||

The relation may, in fact, even link to part of an earlier clause complex, as in:

||| Given the demanding pace of military operations, || service members should be allowed to focus on their mission free from worry about the welfare of their families. ||| Accordingly, funding for quality DOD schools, child development activities, and other family assistance programs is important, particularly today || when the stresses of operational deployments are higher than ever before. |||

But the relation may also link domains that are more extensive than single clause complexes;

Other Terms For Cohesive Conjunctions

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 609n):

Cohesive conjunctions have also been called ‘discourse markers’, but many other terms have been used as well (e.g. ‘discourse particle’, ‘connective’; and in computational linguistics/natural language processing: ‘clue word’, ‘cue phrase’) and the term ‘discourse marker’ has also been used to include items other than cohesive conjunctions, e.g. textual continuatives but also interpersonal items (see, e.g., Schiffrin, 1987, 2001; Fraser, 2006, and other contributions to Fischer, 2006). Fraser (2006) uses the term ‘discourse marker’ in the sense of ‘conjunction’, treating it as a type of ‘pragmatic marker’; Schiffrin (1987) uses the term ‘discourse marker’ in a broader sense. Aijmer & Simon-Vandenbergen (2009) present different senses of the term ‘pragmatic marker’, and make the point that in systemic functional linguistics such markers are either interpersonal or textual.

Clause Complexing Vs Cohesive Conjunction

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 609):

A key difference between clause complexing and cohesive conjunction is that while the clause complexing specifies

(i) the nature of the logico-semantic relation,
(ii) the degree of interdependency, and
(iii) the clausal domains being related through the formation of univariate structure, 

cohesive conjunction only specifies (i) – the nature of the logical-semantic relation.

The Cohesive System Of Conjunction: A Complementary Resource To Clause Complexing

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 609):

While the grammar does not provide any grammatical structure beyond the clause complexes, it still provides ‘clues’ to indicate logico-semantic relations operating on any scale within text. This is the cohesive system of CONJUNCTION, which has evolved as a complementary resource to clause complexing: it provides the resources for marking logico-semantic relationships that obtain between text spans of varying extent, ranging from clauses within clause complexes to long spans of a paragraph or more.

Logico-Semantic Relations In The Semantic Organisation Of Text

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 609):

The clause complex thus provides the resources for realising logico-semantic relations grammatically as tactic patterns. This is the most extensive domain of grammatical structure. However, in the semantic organisation of text, logico-semantic relations extend beyond the semantic sequences that are realised by clause complexes; they extend to rhetorical paragraphs and even to whole texts. The semantic organisation of text in terms of logico-semantic relations is brought out by different forms of analysis, including the conjunctive reticular analysis developed by Martin (e.g. 1992: Chapter 4) drawing on the work by the Hartford stratificationalists and the rhetorical-relational analysis based on the framework of Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) developed by Mann, Matthiessen & Thompson (e.g. 1992).

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, Martin's (1992) conjunction, now relabelled connexion, is a confusion of two grammatical systems — Halliday & Hasan's (1976) original cohesive system of conjunction (textual metafunction) and Hallidays (1985) structural system of clause complexing (logical metafunction) — rebranded as discourse semantics, wherein the expansion categories are misunderstood and misapplied and the category of projection is entirely absent. Evidence here.

The Two Complementarities Of Cohesive Resources

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 607-8):

…the different types of cohesion make distinct contributions to the creation and interpretation of text, contributions that complement one another. This complementarity can be described in terms of two distinctions, (i) one having to do with the extent of the elements that are linked cohesively and (ii) the other with the location of cohesive resources within lexicogrammar. 

(i) We can make a distinction between CONJUNCTION and the three other resources of cohesion. As we have seen, conjunction is concerned with rhetorical transitions — transitions between whole ‘messages’, or even message complexes. Conjunction indicates the relations through which such textual transitions are created. In contrast, the other cohesive resources are concerned with textual statuses — statuses having to do with how ‘components’ of messages are processed as information … 

(ii) At the same time, we can also recognise that the systems of cohesion operate within either the grammatical zone or the lexical zone of the lexicogrammatical continuum. CONJUNCTION, REFERENCE and ELLIPSIS are all grammatical systems, and are thus all manifestations of what we might call grammatical cohesion. The point of origin of each of these systems falls within one or more particular grammatical unit; and terms within these systems are realised either by grammatical items that have some particular place within the structure of that unit or (in the case of ellipsis) by the absence of elements of grammatical structure. … In contrast, LEXICAL COHESION operates within the lexical zone of the lexicogrammatical continuum; and it follows the general principle that lexical items are not defined in terms of particular grammatical environments.

Table 9-5 shows how (i) and (ii) intersect to define the overall space of cohesive systems in English.

Cohesive Ties

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 607):

The cohesive resources make it possible to link items of any size, whether below or above the clause; and to link items at any distance, whether structurally related or not. Many instances of cohesion involve two or three ties of different kinds occurring in combination with one another. For example:

‘You don’t know much,’ said the Duchess; ‘and that’s a fact.’
Alice did not at all like the tone of this remark, and thought it would be as well to introduce some other subject of conversation.

where the nominal group this remark consists of a reference item this and a lexical item remark, both related cohesively to what precedes. Similarly in some other subject of conversation, both other and subject relate cohesively to the preceding discussion, which was about whether or not cats could grin. Typically any clause complex in connected discourse will have from one up to about half a dozen cohesive ties with what has gone before it, as well as perhaps some purely internal ones like the that by which the Duchess refers back to the first part of her own remark.

Logogenetic Chains

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 607):

… the cohesive selections in a text form logogenetic patterns. In the case of conjunction, such patterns take the form of favoured selections of logico-semantic relations for developing the text rhetorically. In the case of the other types of cohesive resources, such patterns take the form of logogenetic chains – chains of reference, ellipsis and lexical cohesive links, and of interactions among such chains within and across different types of cohesion.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, this confuses paradigm (choice) with syntagm (chain):  logogenetic patterns are patterns of paradigmatic choices, whereas chains link items syntagmatically.

Lexical Cohesion

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 606-7):

While conjunction, reference and substitution & ellipsis are cohesive resources within the grammatical zone of lexicogrammar, lexical cohesion operates within the lexical zone and is achieved through the choice of lexical items. Most typically, such cohesive relations hold between single lexical items, either words or larger units, e.g. locomotive (word), steam engine (group), in steam (phrase), steam up, get up steam (‘phrases’ in the dictionary sense); but also involving wordings having more than one lexical item in them, such as maintaining an express locomotive at full steam. … Lexical ties are independent of structure and may span long passages of intervening discourse …

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, lexical cohesion involves relations between single lexical items, whether single-worded, as in locomotive, or multi-worded, as in steam engine. It does not involve relations of hyponymy, meronymy etc. with multi-lexical item wordings such as maintaining an express locomotive at full steam.  Cf. Halliday (1985: 314; 1994: 335):

a

Ellipsis & Substitution

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 606):

Reference creates cohesion by creating links between referents – elements at the level of meaning; but there is also a resource operating at the level of wording, either a clause or some smaller item. This takes two forms, substitution and ellipsis; but we shall refer to it simply as ellipsis, since substitution can be interpreted as a systemic variant. Ellipsis makes it possible to leave out parts of a structure when they can be presumed from what has gone before. Ellipsis indicates continuity, allowing speaker and addressee to focus on what is contrastive… . Unlike reference, ellipsis is usually confined to closely contiguous passages, and is particularly characteristic of question + answer or similar ‘adjacency pairs’ in dialogue.

Blogger Comments:

Here again Matthiessen misrepresents Halliday's model of reference by infusing it with Martin's (1992) misunderstandings of it as participant identification. Reference is a relation between reference item and referent, not between referents. Any relations between referents will be those of lexical cohesion; cf Halliday's (1985: 295-6; 1994: 316) original wording:

   

Referential Chains

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 606):

However, once introduced in this way [exophorically], they [such elements] are picked up through anaphoric reference again and again, forming referential chains in the unfolding conversation: this fish – it ...; the pan – the pan – the pan – it. It is these references within the text that create cohesion of the referential kind. These references are to non-interactants. In addition, there are references to interactants, for example, Jane: mine – I. Such interactant determiners and pronouns refer outside the text to roles defined by the speech events – speaker, speaker plus others, addressee; but they can still form chains within the text, of course.

Blogger Comments:

The term 'reference chain' is from Martin (1992;140) — itself derived from the original notion of an 'identity cohesive chain' (Hasan 1989/1985: 83-4).

Here Matthiessen repeats Martin's misunderstanding of reference relations as forming a chain of referents. Importantly, the reference relation holds between a reference item and its referent, not between referents. The cohesive relation between referents in the above example is lexical cohesion: the repetition of pan in the pan – the pan – the pan – it. That is, Matthiessen here repeats Martin's confusion of reference with lexical cohesion. 

Cf Halliday (1985: 296; 1994: 317):

Reference

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 605-6):

While conjunction (including continuity) links whole clauses or combinations of clauses, reference creates cohesion by creating links between elements. It is a relationship between things, or facts (phenomena, or metaphenomena); it may be established at varying distances, and although it usually serves to relate single elements that have a function within the clause (processes, participants, circumstances), it can give to any passage of text the status of a fact, and so turn it into a clause participant.

Conjunctive Relations

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 605):

Conjunctive relations marked by explicit cohesive conjunctions may hold between clauses in a clause complex, between text segments realised by clause complexes, or between longer text segments such as rhetorical paragraphs.

Cohesion

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 603):

… there is a set of lexicogrammatical systems that have evolved specifically as a resource for making it possible to transcend the boundaries of the clause – i.e. the domain of the highest-ranking grammatical unit. These lexicogrammatical systems originate in the textual metafunction and are collectively known as the system of COHESION. … There are four ways by which cohesion is created in English: by (i) conjunction, (ii) reference, (iii) ellipsis, and (iv) lexical organisation.

The Systemic History Of An Unfolding Text

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 601):

Logogenesis pertains to the entire meaning potential of a language – all the strata and all the metafunctions. For example, alliteration in a poem is an example of logogenesis at work at the stratum of phonology. … In this book, we are largely limiting ourselves to the lexicogrammatical subsystem, and within this subsystem we have had to focus on the grammatical part of the lexicogrammatical continuum. But since our focus is on grammar rather than on semantics, the concept of logogenesis is all the more important: it allows us to explore how local grammatical selections accumulate to create logogenetic patterns that become part of the systemic history of an unfolding text. As we have noted, we can identify phases of selections within such logogenetic patterns; and we can then match them up with contextual and semantic structures of a more global nature (or, alternatively, let these emerge as interpretations of the lexicogrammatical logogenetic patterns).

Logogenesis, Logogenetic Patterns Of Instantiation, And Instantial Systems

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 601):

It is helpful to have a term for this general phenomenon – i.e. the creation of meaning in the course of the unfolding of text. We shall call it logogenesis, with ‘logos’ in its original sense of ‘discourse’. Since logogenesis is the creation of meaning in the course of the unfolding of a text, it is concerned with patterns that appear gradually in the course of this unfolding; and the gradual appearance of patterns is, of course, not limited to single texts but is rather a property of texts in general instantiating the system of language. Such patterns have been called emergent patterns and when we focus on grammar we are concerned with patterns of emergent grammar (as formulated by Hopper, e.g. 1987, 1998). We shall refer to the version of the system created in the course of the unfolding of a text as an instantial system since it represents a distillation of patterns at the instance pole of the cline of instantiation.

Text As The Process Of Instantiation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 593-4):

How can we model text as an ongoing process of meaning? To do this, we return to the concept of the cline of instantiation… . The system of a language is instantiated as text, the two representing the poles at either end of the cline of instantiation. System and text are not different phenomena; they are simply complementary phases of one and the same phenomenon. When seen up close, this phenomenon appears to us as text; but when we adopt a more distant observer perspective, we can build up a picture of it as system. System and text form a cline rather than a dichotomy, because between these two poles there is a semiotic region of intermediate patterns (conceived of as instance types – as text types, or as subsystems – as registers).

Text is thus the process of instantiation; and we can characterise it by reference to the system as the selection of systemic options unfolding through time.

Blogger Comment:

Note that SFL Theory models 'register' as a subsystem of language, not a system of context, and 'genre', in the sense of 'text type', as an instance type of language, not a system of context.

A Scale Of Strategies For Construing The Causal Relation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 591):

We can thus identify a scale of strategies for construing the causal relation:

(i) clause nexus, paratactic – middle clause: the fuse was overloaded, so it blew
(ii) clause nexus, hypotactic – middle clause: because the fuse was overloaded, it blew
(iii) verbal group nexus – effective clause: overloading caused the fuse to blow
(iv) verbal group – effective clause: overloading blew the fuse

…The point of these examples is to show how the grammar gives us considerable flexibility in construing the flow of events by providing a range of strategies. These strategies are all ideational, but they range from purely logical [(i) and (ii) above] via logical and experiential [(iii)] to purely experiential [(iv)].

Verbal Group Nexus As Intermediate Between Clause Nexus And Verbal Group

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 588):

A verbal group nexus is intermediate between a clause nexus and a verbal group: a verbal group construes a single event, and a clause nexus construes two distinct processes; but a verbal group nexus construes a single process consisting of two events. These different options are available to speakers and writers when they construe their experience of the flow of events. They choose whether they construe a given experience as a process consisting of a single event, as a process consisting of a chain of two (or more) events, or as a chain of two (or more) processes.

The Systems Of The (Non-Causative) Hypotactic Verbal Group Complex

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 588, 589):

The various options open to non-causative hypotactic verbal group complexes are represented as a system network in Figure 8-15.

The Anomaly Of Adjectival Forms Serving As The Event Of The Projecting Verbal Group

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 586-7):

Table 8-7 includes some verbal group nexuses with adjectival forms serving as the Event of the projecting verbal group: (i) desideration: be willing/keen/eager/anxious to do; (ii) fear: be afraid/scared to do. The forms afraid and scared are verbal in origin, but they function as adjectives now, as can be seen by the form taken by intensification (very rather than much): be very afraid/scared to do. Since these forms are adjectival, they are obviously anomalous as verbal groups. But they fit in systemically: they are agnate with verbal forms, and all the forms of the desiderative set are agnate expressions of modulation. We could try to push the analysis even further to include patterns with nominal forms such as (i) desideration: have a mind to do, and (ii) intention: make up one’s mind to do. But here we are really going beyond what can be accommodated within the verbal group since these constructions involve grammatical metaphor of the ideational kind.

Types Of Projection In The Verbal Group Complex

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 585, 587):

To go into all the types of projection that cluster around this area would be beyond our present scope. Table 8-7 lists some of the more common types. 

All of them could be analysed as clause complexes; but there is a case for treating some of them as complexes of the verbal group – perhaps just those that are proposals, are perfective in aspect, and have the same Subject in both halves. This would exclude

(1) propositions, like pretend and claim (she claims to be infallible = she claims that she is infallible); 

(2) imperfectives, e.g. she doesn’t like/mind John leaving so early; and 

(3) ‘causatives’, e.g. I didn’t mean/expect you to notice, and all ‘indirect commands’ such as who asked you to comment?. 

It would also exclude those where the projecting process is itself causative, like tempt (‘make want’), decide in she tempted John to stay, what decided them to change their plans?. 

All these would thus be interpreted as projecting clause nexuses.

Projecting Verbal Group/Clause Nexuses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 585, 586):

Despite the borderline cases, projection is, as we have pointed out, a different kind of relationship from expansion. It is always, in fact, a relationship between processes – between a mental or verbal process on the one hand, and another process (of any kind) that is mentalised or verbalised (projected) by it. Nevertheless it is not inappropriate on grammatical grounds to treat some projections as verbal group nexuses, on the analogy of the types of expansion to which they are somewhat similar in meaning. Figure 8-14 gives some analyses for purposes of comparison. Examples under (a) and (b) are analysed (i) as verbal group nexus, (ii) as clause nexus. Those under (c), with that clause, are analysed only as clause nexus, since here the alternative does not arise.

'Wanting' And 'Causing': Where Projection Meets Expansion

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 585):

It is in this area that expansion and projection come to meet and overlap. Causing something to be done means that it is done, with ‘external agency’ as a circumstantial feature. Wanting something to be done means that it is envisaged, or projected, but may or may not happen: its status is that of a metaphenomenon, not a phenomenon. But the line between the two is fuzzy. In general, if the relationship can be expressed by a finite that clause, as in she wished that he would come, then in principle it is a projection; but in this respect too there is a ‘grey’ area: she wanted that he should come is possible, but uncommon, whereas she allowed that he should come is uncommon, but possible.

Hypotactic Desiderative Projection Nexus: Clause Or Verbal Group?

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 585):

However, there are some respects in which they [i.e. desiderative clause nexuses] resemble nexuses of the verbal group. 

(1) The projected element, a (typically perfective) non-finite, has – like the expansion types – given birth to what are now tenses of the verb, namely the two future forms will and be going to. 

(2) The WH- probe is what does she want to do?, rather than simply what does she want?; compare what is she trying to do? not what is she trying?. 

(3) The command forms – those with change of Subject – resemble some of the causative expansions; compare the following pairs, including the passives:

she wants him to do it          she causes him/gets him to do it
he is wanted to do it             he is caused/got to do it
she wants it (to be) done      she causes it to be done/gets it done

Desiderative Projections: Offer vs Command

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 584):

… a mental process of desideration projects an exchange of the goods-&-services type, i.e. a proposal. If the Subject of the projection is the same as that of the mental process clause, the proposal is an offer, as in she wants to do it; if the two are different, then the proposal is a command, as in she wants you to do it. In the first type, the Subject is not repeated, but is carried over from the desiderative clause. (It can then be made explicit by a reflexive, as in she wants to do it herself.) All such projections could be treated as clause nexuses, as in Figure 8-13.

Time Reference Of Verbal Group Complexes: Expansion vs Projection

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 584):

… a hypotactic verbal group complex of the ‘expansion’ type represented a single happening. Thus, there is only one time reference; if the reference is to tomorrow, then the tense of the primary group will be future:

(i) phase: he’ll start to do it tomorrow (not: he starts)
(ii) conation: he’ll try to do it tomorrow (not: he tries)
(iii) modulation: he’ll help to do it tomorrow (not: he helps)

An expression such as want to do looks at first sight very similar to these; but whereas we can say he’ll want to do it tomorrow, it is also quite normal to say he wants to do it tomorrow. The wanting and the doing have distinct time references. We can even say yesterday I wanted to do it tomorrow – but not yesterday I started to do it tomorrow.

The relation between want and to do is one of projection. A projection of do it, as in wants to do it, is a meaning, and thus does not imply ‘does it’ – whereas an expansion, such as tries to do it or starts to do it, does imply ‘does it’, even though the doing may be partial or unsuccessful.

Causative Modulation: Analyses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 583):

Analyses are shown in Figure 8-12.

Three Degrees Of Passive Causative Modulation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 582-3):

Furthermore, causatives have passives; so we can have

(high)       they were made/forced/required to accept
(median:) they were got/obliged to accept
(low:)       they were allowed/permitted to accept

and this enables us to interpret modulation as it occurs within the verbal group:

(high)       they are required to accept          they must accept
(median:) they are obliged to accept           they should accept
(low:)       they are allowed to accept          they may accept

Verbal modulation with must, etc., is now a kind of modality; it is semantically related to those passive causative modulations which have the circumstantial senses of ‘do under compulsion/from obligation/with permission’. What links this semantically to modality in the other sense, that of probability, is that both represent a judgement on the part of the speaker: just as in that may be John the may expresses the speaker’s judgement of likelihood (‘I consider it possible’), so in John may go the may expresses the speaker’s judgement of obligation (‘I give permission’).