Modulation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 618):

If the clause is a ‘goods–&–services’ clause (a proposal, which has no real congruent form in the grammar, but by default we can characterise it as imperative), it means either (i) ‘is wanted to’, related to a command, or (ii) ‘wants to’, related to an offer; in other words, some degree of obligation [‘deontic’ modality] or inclination. … Note that modulation refers to the semantic category of proposals; but all modalities are realised as indicative (that is, as if they were propositions).

Modalisation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 618):

If the clause is an ‘information’ clause (a proposition, congruently realised as indicative), this means either (i) ‘either yes or no’, that is, ‘maybe’; or (ii) ‘both yes and no’, that is, ‘sometimes’; in other words, some degree of probability [‘epistemic’ modality] or usuality.

Modality [Defined]

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 618):

Modality refers to the area of meaning that lies between yes and no — the intermediate ground between positive and negative polarity.

Metaphorical Realisation Of Probability

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 615-6):

What happens is that, in order to state explicitly that the probability is subjective, or alternatively, at the other end, to claim explicitly that the probability is objective, the speaker construes the proposition as a projection and encodes the subjectivity (I think), or the objectivity (it is likely), in a projecting clause.  (There are other forms intermediate between the explicit and implicit: subjective in my opinion, objective in all probability, where the modality is expressed as a prepositional phrase, which is a kind of halfway house between clausal and non-clausal status.)

Mental Clause As Metaphorical Realisation Of Probability

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 614):

What’s happened here is that there has been a realignment in the realisational relationship between semantics and grammar. … a modalised proposition is realised as if it was a sequence, by a clause nexus of projection.  The effect is that the modality and the modalised proposition are separated, each being realised by a clause in its own right…

Mental Clause As Metaphorical Realisation Of Probability

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 614):

…the probability is realised by a mental clause as if it were a figure of sensing.  Being metaphorical, the clause serves not only as the projecting part of a clause nexus of projection, but also as a mood Adjunct, just as probably does.  The reason for regarding this as a metaphorical variant is that the proposition is not, in fact, ‘I think”; the proposition is ‘it is so’.  This is shown clearly by the tag… .  It is the fact that a mental clause is a modal clause and serves as mood Adjunct that explains the tag… the Mood tag picks up the Mood element of the modalised proposition… .

Why Clausal Assessment Can Be Transformed Into Nominal Assessment

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 613):

The range of assessments assigned to propositions within the domain of the clause and the range of assessments assigned to things within the domain of the nominal group are not, of course, the same. They overlap; but there are kinds of assessment specific to the realm of propositions just as there are other kinds specific to the realm of things. The common foundation is that they are both projections of the speaker’s assessment. This explains why clausal assessment can in fact be transformed into nominal assessment…

Projection As Modal Assessment: Subjective Vs Objective Orientation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 607):

The difference between ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’ orientation in the ideational manifestation follows from the general difference between a projecting ‘mental’ or ‘verbal’ clause with a Senser or Sayer and a ‘relational’ clause without such a ‘projector’.  When the assessment is explicitly ‘subjective’, the Senser or Sayer has to be the speaker I.  If it is a person other than the speaker, the clause will still be a projecting one; but it will not be agnate with interpersonal assessment.

Projection As Modal Assessment: Explicit Vs Implicit Orientation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 606):

The ideational manifestations make explicit the orientation of the assessment: the logical manifestation is explicitly subjective whereas the experiential manifestation is explicitly objective. In contrast, the interpersonal manifestation leaves the orientation implicit…

Projection As Modal Assessment: Hypotactic Projection And Pre-Projected Facts

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 605-6):

… projection includes both hypotactic projection of ideas or reports and pre-projected facts serving in a ‘mental’ or ‘relational’ clause. A hypotactic projection is always ‘subjective’; the speaker is represented explicitly the Senser or Sayer. A pre-projected fact in a ‘mental’ clause is like hypotactic projection in representing the assessment as ‘subjective’ — the speaker is explicitly represented as the Senser. In contrast, a pre-projected fact in a ‘relational’ clause represents the assessment as ‘objective’.

Interpersonal Manifestations Of Projection: Modal Assessment

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 604-5):

Projection can also be manifested interpersonally in the form of a modal Adjunct. … Unlike the logical and experiential manifestations, the interpersonal manifestation does not represent the Sayer or Senser; rather it enacts the speaker’s opinion — an enactment of his or her degree of commitment to the proposition: the proposition is assessed as being projected by someone other than the speaker. This type of assessment is known as ‘evidentiality’: the modal Adjunct is used to indicate the evidential status of the proposition. … evidentiality is related to ‘verbal’ clauses and ‘mental’ clauses of perception.

Projection: Logical And Experiential Manifestations

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 604):

When the need arises in discourse to attribute information to some source, this can be done logically by means of a nexus of projection; but it can also be done experientially by means of a circumstance of Angle. … the projecting feature has thus been incorporated into the clause as one element of a transitivity configuration.

Metafunctional Manifestations Of Projection Vs Expansion

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 603):

Like expansion, projection is manifested both logically and experientially within the ideational metafunction; but outside the ideational domain, it is manifested interpersonally rather than textually, thus contrasting with the textual manifestation of expansion. That is, while there are conjunctions marking rhetorical relations of elaboration, extension and enhancement, there are no conjunctions marking relations of quoting or reporting; and while there are interpersonal resources for realising projection, there are no interpersonal Adjuncts or other interpersonal manifestations of expansion.

Agnate Variants Manifesting Expansion: Interpersonal Differences

Cohesively & Tactically Related Free Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 603):

When the domain of manifestation is a cohesive sequence of clauses, or a paratactic nexus of (free) clauses, the two figures related by expansion are enacted interpersonally as propositions or proposals.  This means that each can be negotiated in its own right — accepted or denied, complied with or refused, and so on… .  The same is true of the dominant (a) clause of a hypotactic nexus, since if it is a free clause, it realises a negotiable proposition or proposal.

Dependent Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 603):

… while the dependent (b) clause supports a proposition or proposal, it does not constitute one itself; and if it is non-finite, it is even further removed from the realm of negotiation.

Simple Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 603):

… when the causal [eg] relation is construed within the Process, it has become propositionalised or proposalised… .  Here it is no longer the cause or the effect that is held up for negotiation but rather the causal relation.  When they are construed as nominal groups, the cause and the effect are not negotiable at all.

Agnate Variants Manifesting Expansion: Textual Differences

Thematic Status Of Expansion: Cohesively & Tactically Related Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 601):

While a conjunction group with a structural conjunction such as so or because as Head is obligatorily thematic, there is a choice for conjunction groups with a cohesive conjunction such as consequently as Head.

Thematic Status Of Expansion: Hypotactic Nexus

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 602):

In a hypotactic nexus, there is a further textual contrast that is not open to cohesive sequences and paratactic nexuses: the dependent b clause […] may be either thematic or rhematic within the clause nexus.

Thematic Status Of Expansion: Simple Clause

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 602):

When the domain of manifestation of expansion is a simple clause, the potential textual status of the manifestation […] depends on how it is manifested — (1) as minor Process within a prepositional phrase serving as a circumstance […], (2) as Process, or (3) as Thing within a nominal group serving as a participant in a circumstantial relational clause.

Thematic Status Of Expansion: Minor Process Within A Prepositional Phrase Serving As A Circumstance

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 602):

When it is manifested within a circumstance of Cause [eg], the cause may be given the status of either Theme or Rheme…

Thematic Status Of Expansion: Process

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 602):

When the causal [eg] relation is manifested as Process (either in a hypotactic verbal group complex in a clause of any process type, or as the nuclear process in a circumstantial relational clause), its textual status will most likely be rhematic.  More specifically, it is likely to be (part of) the transition between Theme and New.

Thematic Status Of Expansion: Thing Within A Nominal Group Serving As A Participant In A Circumstantial Relational Clause

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 602):

When the cause [eg] is manifested as Thing in a nominal group serving as a participant, it will have the thematic status assigned to that nominal group as a whole — either thematic or rhematic.  But in addition, it will be within the domain of operation of another textual system — the system of reference.  This means that it is given textual status as a discourse referent — either recoverable (identifiable) or non-recoverable (non-identifiable), and that it can be tracked in the development of the discourse.

Agnate Variants Manifesting Expansion: Ideational Differences: Manifestations Of Expansion Down The Rank Scale

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 601):

… this move involves a shift in metafunction … [and] the meaning of expansion changes with the change of metafunctional manifestation.  For example, the manifestation of cause changes from rhetorical relation (textual: consequently) via logico-semantic relation (logical: so, because) to process or minor process or even participant (experiential: cause, through; cause).  This means that the category meaning of ‘cause’ changes …

Agnate Variants Manifesting Expansion: Ideational Differences: Scale Of Integration Of Quanta Of Change

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 597):

At one pole, the experience of the flow of events is construed as two distinct quanta of change… . At the other pole, the experience of the flow of events is construed as a component part of quantum of change… . Intermediate between these two poles are various manifestations that represent a move from two distinct quanta of change via two interdependent ones to a single one. The scale is thus one of degree of integration of two quanta of change. This scale of integration is based on the rank scale.

Agnate Variants Manifesting Expansion: Ideational Differences

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 597):

From an ideational point of view, the difference in meaning relates most directly to the question of what is construed as a quantum of change in the flow of events.

Agnation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 597):

… agnation always embodies both similarity and difference. The similarity is the basis for interpreting the patterns as alike, bringing them together in a paradigm, while the difference is the basis for treating them as variant types rather than as tokens of the same type.

Transgrammatical Semantic Domain: Grammatical Environments Manifesting Expansion

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 597):

… the environments of manifestation can be differentiated in terms of

(i) metafunction — textual (conjunction), logical (interdependency; modification) and experiential (circumstantiation; process type: relational), and

(ii) rank — clause and group/phrase [and below]. …

Collectively they thus construe expansion as a semantic system.  This means that for any given type of expansion we want to express, we have at our disposal a range of resources.

Transgrammatical Semantic Domain: Expansion Manifested In Experiential Mode

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 594):

On the one hand, expansion is manifested in the augmentation of the clause by circumstances: these circumstantial augmentations cover all three types of expansion, with enhancement being the most highly developed one. On the other hand, expansion is manifested in the relation of a ‘relational’ clause: ‘intensive’ clauses embody elaboration, ‘possessive’ clauses extension, and ‘circumstantial’ clauses enhancement. In the domain of the nominal group, there are also various manifestations of the three types of expansion. Thus the Qualifier may elaborate, extend or enhance the Thing…

Transgrammatical Semantic Domain: Expansion Manifested In Logical Mode

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 594):

… the three subtypes of expansion (elaboration, extension and enhancement) combine with tactic relations to link one clause to another in the formation of clause complexes … [and] … group and phrase complexes. In clause complexes and in group and phrase complexes, expansion is manifested within the logical mode of the ideational metafunction.

Compact Vs Dispersed Grammatical Realisation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 593):

The grammatical realisation of figuration is ‘compact’, being confined to the transitivity system of the clause.  In contrast, the grammatical realisation of expansion is ‘dispersed’, ranging over more than one grammatical unit. (… compactly realised systems such as configuration [sic] may become dispersed in their realisation through the process of grammatical metaphor.)

Transgrammatical Semantic Domain: Expansion

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 593):

For example, the expanding relation of ‘addition’ may be realised

(1) cohesively by a conjunction such as also or

(2) structurally by

(a) an additive paratactic clause complex marked by the structural conjunction and,

(b) a circumstance of accompaniment marked by the preposition with or

(c) an additive paratactic group complex marked by and … . 

These realisational variants are distinct in the grammar, since they constitute different grammatical environments; but they are semantically agnate in that they all have the feature of ‘addition’. … One semantic system, the system of expansion, has thus evolved to bring together patterns of wording within grammatically distinct units, thereby extending its overall meaning potential.

Transgrammatical Semantic Domains: Expansion And Projection

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 593):

… there are semantic domains that are construed in more than one place in the grammar, by more than one system local to one particular grammatical unit. These semantic domains range over two or more grammatical domains, spanning two or more grammatical units. There are two fundamental semantic domains of this kind — expansion and projection.

Metaphorical Realisation: Grammatical Metaphor

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 592-3):

… there are realignments in the realisational relationship between semantic units and grammatical ones. … a sequence is realised by a clause complex; the combination of a figure, a proposition (proposal), and a message is realised by a clause; … a participant is realised by a nominal group, a process by a verbal group and a circumstance by and adverbial group or a prepositional phrase. But once these couplings between the two strata of the content plane have been established, “cross–couplings” become theoretically possible. For example, while sequences are realised by clause complexes and figures by clauses, it is theoretically possible that, under certain conditions, sequences would be realised by clauses — that is, as if they were figures. This is the possibility of metaphorical realisation … . But the two forms of realisation are not, of course, synonymous, so the effect is one of expanding the meaning potential of the language.

Transgrammatical Semantic Domains: Modality

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 592):

… there are semantic domains that range over more than a single grammatical unit.  Thus the semantic domain of modality is construed in more than one place in the grammar; for example, it is construed by clauses such as I suppose and it is possible, by verbal groups with finite modal operators such as may and by adverbial groups and modal adverbs such as perhaps.  These modal patterns within different grammatical units are not interchangeable/synonyms; they have distinct values within the overall semantic system of modality. … This means that the semantic system of modality is more extensive than the modal features of any one given grammatical unit would suggest; it is realised not by a single grammatical unit but by a range of units: semantic unit a ø grammatical units m, n and o.

Information Flow, Exchange & Episodic Patterns

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 591):

These intermediate patterns are the ones that are very likely to vary from one register to another: there will be variation both in the nature of the patterns and in the degree to which there is a compositional scale between the text and the message/proposition (proposal)/figure.

Sequence Combinations: Episodic Patterns

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 590):

Figures combine to form sequences; and these in turn may combine to form episodic patterns, as in narratives and other chronologically organised texts or chronological passages within other kinds of text.

Proposition/Proposal Combinations: Exchange Patterns

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 589-90):

Propositions/proposals combine to form patterns of exchange involving two or more interactants … .

Message Combinations: Information Flow Patterns

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 588):

Messages combine to form periodic movements of information… . Such phases of messages help construct the flow of information as the text unfolds and we can refer to them simply as information flow patterns.

More Extensive Semantic Patterns

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 588):

Messages, propositions or proposals, and figures can combine with units of the same metafunctional type to form more extensive semantic patterns in the creation of text. These patterns are distinct for each metafunction.

The Lower Region Of Semantic Compositional Scales

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 588):

This is the region where semantic units are realised by lexicogrammatical ones. … The clause is a multifunctional construct in the grammar, one that realises three different semantic units, one for each metafunction: textual — message, interpersonal — proposition or proposal, and experiential — figure. … The three semantic units deriving from the three metafunctions are all mapped onto the clause, which thus unifies the three metafunctional strands of meaning.

Semantic Compositional Scale?

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 588):

In the grammar, there is a single, generalised compositional scale — the grammatical rank scale … . But in the semantics, it is far from clear whether there is a single compositional scale that is generalised across all registerial varieties of a language.

Upper Bounds Of Meaning And Wording

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 588, 588n):

The upper bound of the semantic stratum is the text: this is the most extensive unit of meaning. The upper bound of the lexicogrammatical system is the clause: this is the most extensive unit of wording. … By saying that they are the upper bounds, we are not ruling out complexes — text complexes and clause complexes … . But complexes are not higher–ranking units but rather expansions of units of a given rank.

The Relation Of Text To Clause: Realisation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 587):

A text does not ‘consist of’ clauses (clause complexes) — there is no part–whole or ‘constituency’ relationship between a text and a clause (complex) and there is no single rank scale with text and clause as ranks. Rather, a text is realised by clauses (clause complexes), the two being located on different strata — semantics (the stratum of meaning) and lexicogrammar (the stratum of wording), respectively.

Text: A Unit Of Meaning (Only) At The Instance Pole Of The Cline Of Instantiation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 587):

A text is thus a unit of meaning — more accurately, a unit in the flow of meaning that is always taking place at the instance pole of the cline of instantiation.

Logogenetic Patterns Of Meaning

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 587):

The patterns that are developed in this way are, however, patterns of meaning, not patterns of wording; they are patterns at the level of semantics rather than the level of lexicogrammar. This is so because text is, as we have emphasised, a semantic phenomenon in the first instance; it is meaning unfolding in some particular context of situation. For example, the grammatical system of conjunction gives speakers and writers the resources to mark transitions in the development of a text — that is, to mark rhetorical relations used to expand the text step by step; and the rhetorical relations that are marked in this way are semantic relations organising the text as a flow of meaning.

Cohesion: Marking Textual Transitions And Manipulating Textual Statuses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 586-7):

Cohesion includes

1. the system of conjunction for marking textual transitions in the unfolding text and 
2. the systems of reference, ellipsis and substitution, and lexical cohesion for manipulating textual statuses of elements in the flow of information.

Logogenetic Patterns: Instantial & Registerial Systems

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 586):

The logogenetic patterns that emerge as a text unfolds form a transient system that is specific to that text; but from repeated patterns over many such transient systems may in turn emerge a generalised system characteristic of a certain type of text or register.

Logogenetic Patterns

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 586):

… in the course of unfolding of text, lexicogrammatical selections create logogenetic patterns at all ranks. This patterning in the text that has nothing to do with composition or size: instead of composition (the relationship between a whole and its parts), the patterning is based on instantiation (the relationship between an instance and a generalised instance type). The patterning represents a slight move up this cline from a single instance to a pattern of instances, as in a news report where one projecting verbal clause after another is selected until this emerges as a favourite clause type.

Lexicogrammatical Resources Beyond The Upper Limit Of Compositional Organisation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 586):

… although the grammar does not extend its compositional organisation beyond the rank of clause, the resources of lexicogrammar make two fundamental contributions beyond this upper limit of grammatical units:

(i) the creation of logogenetic patterns and

(ii) the marking of cohesion.

Schematic Organisation And Rhetorical Relations

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 583-4):

This schematic organisation is contextual: it is projected onto the text from the context … in which it operates. At the same time, the text is organised semantically as a complex of rhetorical relations, and it is these relations that are realised by the combination of conjunction and clause complexing.

Textual Transitions: Complementarity Of Conjunction And Taxis

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 583):

These two resources complement one another in the grammatical realisation of transitions in text. The general principle of complementarity is this: clause complexing does relatively more work locally, while conjunction does relatively more work non-locally and even globally. Clause complexing ‘choreographs’ the local development of text by means of univariate structure, indicating both taxis and type of logico-semantic relation. Conjunction can work together with clause complexing, reinforcing local relations, but it tends to take over from clause complexing as the relations become less local and more global. Looked at from the point of view of lexicogrammar, this means that local organisation tends to be ‘tighter’, whereas the more global organisation tends to be ‘looser’. At the same time, looked at from the point of view of context, the more global organisation is subject to more contextual guidance in the form of generic structure.

Textual Statuses: Lexical Cohesion

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 582, 583):

Unlike reference and ellipsis, the resource of lexical cohesion is, in general, neutral with regard to textual statuses; … A given lexical item can be assigned any of the textual statuses; it is not predisposed to any particular status.  Similarly, a given lexical relation is also neutral with respect to textual statuses.  However, a particular lexical chain in a text is very likely to show some systematic pattern in relation to textual status. … Texts also vary in how lexical chains relate to textual status, but this variation usually reflects systematic strategies associated with the registers that the texts belong to. … Lexical chains may thus be foregrounded either as Theme or as New.

The Textual Resources Of The Lexicogrammar Of English

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 579):

(A) structural:

1. thematic structure: Theme and Rheme
2. information structure and focus: Given and New

(B) cohesive:

1. conjunction
2. reference
3. ellipsis (ie ellipsis and substitution)
4. lexical cohesion

Looked at 'from below', these textual resources fall into two categories — those that engender grammatical structure (theme and information) and those that do not (conjunction, reference, ellipsis, lexical cohesion).  Looked at 'from above', these textual resources are concerned either with textual transitions between messages or with textual statuses of components (elements) of these messages.

	structural	cohesive
textual transitions [‘organic’]	(clause complex => logical)	conjunction
textual statuses [‘componential’]	theme; information	reference; ellipsis

Enhancing Lexical Cohesive Relations: Collocation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 576-7, 578):

At the same time there are other instances of lexical cohesion which do not depend on any general semantic relationship of the types just discussed, but rather on a particular association between the items in question — a tendency to co-occur. This ‘co-occurrence tendency’ is known as collocation. … In general, the semantic basis of many instances of collocation is the relation of enhancement …

… collocation is one of the factors on which we build our expectations of what is to come next. … collocations are often fairly specifically associated with one or other particular register, or functional variety of the language. This is true, of course, of individual lexical items, many of which we regard as ‘technical’ because they appear exclusively, or almost exclusively, in one kind of text. But it is also noteworthy that perfectly ordinary lexical items often appear in different collocations according to the text variety.

Extending Lexical Cohesive Relations: Meronymy

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 575, 576):

The general sense of hyponymy ia ‘be a kind of’ … There is a similar relation in the extending domain. This is meronymy — ‘be a part of’ … There is no very clear line between meronymy and hyponymy, especially with abstract terms; and a given set of items may be co-hyponyms of one term, but co-meronyms of another … But since either relationship is a source of lexical cohesion it is not necessary to insist on deciding between them.

Elaborating Lexical Cohesive Relations: Hyponymy

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 574):

Repetition and synonymy are both elaborating relations based on identity; one lexical item restates another. There is a second kind of elaborating relationship — attribution. This is based on classification (specific to general): the first lexical item represents a class of thing and the second either (i) a superclass or subclass or (ii) another class at the same level of classification.

Elaborating Lexical Cohesive Relations: Synonymy With Identity Of Reference & Antonymy

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 573, 574):

Here the range of potentially cohesive items includes synonyms of the same or higher level generality: synonyms in the narrower sense, and superordinates. …

A special case of synonymy is its opposite, antonymy. Lexical items that are opposite in meaning, namely antonyms, also function with cohesive effect in a text.

Elaborating Lexical Cohesive Relations: Repetition

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 571, 572):

The most direct form of lexical cohesion is the repetition of a lexical item; … in order for a lexical item to be recognised as repeated it need not be in the same morphological shape. … Inflexional variants always belong together as one item; derivational variants usually do, when they are based on a living derivational process, although these are less predictable.

Primary Types Of Lexical Relations

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 571):

They derive from either the paradigmatic or syntagmatic organisation of lexis.

• The paradigmatic relations are inherent in the organisation of lexis as a resource … . They can be interpreted in terms of elaboration and extension …

• The syntagmatic relations hold between lexical items in a syntagm that tend to occur together, or collocate with one another. …

Since syntagmatic organisation and paradigmatic organisation represent two different dimensions of patterning, any pair of lexical items can involve both.

Ellipsis Vs Substitution: Polarity And Modality

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 570):

… and there is a slight tendency for ellipsis to be associated with change of polarity and substitution with change of modality. This tendency is more clearly marked with the clause, where ellipsis adds certainty (yes or no, or a missing identity), whereas substitution adds uncertainty (if, maybe, or someone said so); this is why, in a clause where everything is ellipsed except the modality, it is quite usual to a substitute (possibly so, perhaps so) unless the modality is one of certainty — here we say certainly (elliptical) rather than certainly so.

Ellipsis Vs Reference

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 570):

But the most important distinction … is that in ellipsis the typical meaning is not one of co-reference. There is always some significant difference between the second instance and the first (between presuming item and presumed). … Thus reference signals ‘the same member’ (unless marked as different by the use of comparison); ellipsis signals ‘another member of the same class’ (unless marked as identical by same etc).

Ellipsis Vs Reference

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 569):

… ellipsis is a relationship at the lexicogrammatical level: the meaning is ‘go back and retrieve the missing words’. Hence the missing words must be grammatically appropriate; and they can be inserted in place. This is not the case with reference, where, since the relationship is a semantic one, there is no grammatical constraint (the class of the reference item need not match that of what it presumes), and one cannot normally insert the presumed element. Reference, for the same reason, can reach back a long way in the text and extend over a long passage, whereas ellipsis is largely limited to the immediately preceding clause.

Elliptical And Substitute Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 567):

The elliptical or substitute clause requires the listener to ‘supply the missing words’; and since they are to be supplied from what has gone before, the effect is cohesive. It is always possible to ‘reconstitute’ the ellipsed item so that it becomes fully explicit. Since ellipsis is a lexicogrammatical resource, what is taken over is the exact wording, subject only to the reversal of speaker–listener deixis (I for you and so on), and change of mood where appropriate.

Ellipsis And Substitution In The Clause: Two Types Related To Mood

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 563):

Specifically, it is related to the question–answer process in dialogue; and this determines that there are two kinds: (a) yes/no ellipsis, and (b) WH- ellipsis. Each of these allows for substitution, though not in all contexts.

Grammatical Domains Of Ellipsis And Substitution

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 563):

There are three main contexts for ellipsis and substitution in English. These are

1. the clause, 
2. the verbal group and 
3. the nominal group.

Ellipsis: Textual Status Of Continuous Information

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 563):

Ellipsis marks the textual status of continuous information within a certain grammatical structure. At the same time, the non-ellipsed elements of that structure are given the status of being contrastive in the environment of continuous information. Ellipsis thus assigns differential prominence to the elements of a structure: if they are non-prominent (continuous), they are ellipsed; if they are prominent (contrastive), they are present. The absence of elements through ellipsis is an iconic realisation of lack of prominence.

Ellipsis Vs Reference

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 561-2):

Another form of anaphoric cohesion in the text is achieved by ellipsis, where we presuppose something by means of what is left out. Like all cohesive agencies, ellipsis contributes to the semantic structure of the discourse. But unlike reference, which is itself a semantic relation, ellipsis sets up a relationship that is not semantic but lexicogrammatical — a relationship in wording rather than directly in the meaning.

Comparative Reference Items

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 560):

Comparative reference items function in nominal and adverbial groups; and the comparison is made with reference either to general features of identity, similarity and difference or to particular features of quality and quantity.

Comparative Reference

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 560):

In comparative reference, the reference item still signals ‘you know which’; not because the same entity is being referred to over again but rather because there is a frame of reference — something by reference to which what I am now talking about is the same or different, like or unlike, equal or unequal, more or less.

Unmarked Demonstrative Reference

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 558):

Like the personals and other demonstratives, the has a specifying function; it signals ‘you know which one(s) I mean’ … but … the merely anounces that the identity is specific; it does not specify it. The information is available elsewhere. It may be in the preceding text (anaphoric); in the following text (cataphoric); or in the air, so to speak … self-specifying; there is only one — or at least only one that makes sense in the context (homophoric).

Personal Reference: Anaphoric Strategies

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 554):

… 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.

Personal Reference Items & Theme

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 554):

… 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.

Personal Reference Items

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 554):

They are either ‘determinative’ or ‘possessive’. If ‘determinative’, they are personal pronouns servingas Thing/Head in the nominal group. If ‘possessive’. they are determiners serving as Deictic in the nominal group and are conflated with either Head or Premodifier.

Co-Reference: Personal Vs Demonstrative

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 554):

… there are two types of co-reference: personal reference and demonstrative reference. They differ with respect to the category the referent — either person or proximity.

Co-Reference Vs Comparative Reference

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 553):

All such expressions have in common the fact that they presuppose referents; but they differ with repect to whether what is presupposed is the same referent (co-reference) or another referent of the same class (comparative reference).

Endophoric Reference: Cataphora

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 552):

Alternatively, endophoric reference may point ‘forwards’ to the future of the unfolding text, that is, to a referent that is yet to be introduced. … This type of endophoric reference is called cataphora, or cataphoric reference.  Cataphora is quite rare compared with anaphora.  The only exception is structural cataphora, 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 the nominal group is to be taken as defining.

Endophoric Reference: Anaphora

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 552):

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 (2004: 552):

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 is 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 (2004: 552):

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 the 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.

Reference: Origins In Deixis

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 551):

… it seems 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’.

Anaphoric Reference

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 551):

This is typical of a great many types of discourse: the identity that is presumed can be recovered from the preceding text — or, in effect, from the instantial system of meanings that is built up by speaker and listener as the text unfolds.

Reference: Identifiability

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 550-1):

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. 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.

Reference: Terminological Clarification

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 550n):

Note that the term ‘reference’ has been used in different ways. For example, in philosophical works on meaning it indicates ideational denotation, as when expressions are said to refer to phenomena. Here we are using the term in the way it has been used in functional work (eg Halliday and Hasan 1976) to indicate the textual cohesive strategy …

Marking Textual Status: Structure Vs Cohesion

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 550):

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 and New (although there are certain unmarked associations).

Marking Textual Status

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 549-50):

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. … 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.

Implicit Conjunction

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 548, 549):

One question that arises in the interpretation of a text is what to do about conjunction that is left 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 clear that texture is achieved through conjunctive relations of this kind, and there is no reason not to take account of it. On the other hand, the attempt to include it in the analysis leads to a great deal of indeterminacy, both as regards whether a conjunctive relation is present or not and as regards which particular kind of relationship it is. …

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. … 

Moreover, the presence or 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.

Conjunctive Relations: Indeterminacy

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 548):

The conjunctive relation of ‘matter’ is very close to some of those of the elaborating kind, and the concessive (‘despite X, nevertheless Y’) overlaps with the adversative (‘X and, conversely, Y’). Such pairs are characterised by differences of emphasis, and some instances can be assigned to one member or the other; but others cannot, and may be interpreted either way. As always, we can try to bring out the most likely interpretation by checking close agnates to examples occurring in the text.

Enhancing Conjunction: Matter

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 547):

Here cohesion is established by reference to the ‘matter’ that has gone before. As noted earlier, many expression 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.

Enhancing Conjunction: Causal-Conditional

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 546, 547):

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

Enhancing Conjunction: Manner

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 546):

Manner conjunctives create cohesion (i) by comparison, (ii) by reference to means. Comparison may be (a) positive (‘is like’), or (b) negative (‘is unlike’). … Expressions of means are however not often conjunctive; those that are are usually also comparative, for example in the same manner, otherwise.

Enhancing Conjunction: Internal Temporal Relations

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 545):

Many temporal conjunctives have an ‘internal’ as well as an ‘external’ interpretation; 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.

Enhancing Conjunction: Spatial Metaphors

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 544-5):

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; for example, 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’).

Enhancing Conjunction: Spatial

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 544):

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, for example in the same place, anywhere else. Here spatial relations are being used as text-creating devices.

Enhancing Conjunction

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 544):

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

Extending Conjunction

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 543):

Extension involves either addition or variation.  Addition is either positive and, negative nor or adversative but; … Variation includes replacive instead, subtractive except and alternative or types.

Elaborating Conjunction: Clarification

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 541):

Here the elaborated element is not simply re-stated but reinstated, summarised, made more precise or in some other way clarified for purposes of the discourse.

Elaborating Conjunction: Apposition

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 540):

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

The System Of Conjunction

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 540):

… 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.

Conjunction: Non-Structural Vs Structural

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 540):

The logico-semantic relation is marked by a conjunction — either by a non-structural one that is used only in this way, that is, 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.

From Clause Complexing To Conjunction

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 538-9):

… logico-semantic relations are confined to the internal organisation of each clause complex: the clause complex is the most extensive domain of relational organisation. The cohesive system of conjunction has evolved as a complementary resource for creating and interpreting text. 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.

The Location Of Cohesive Resources Within Lexicogrammar

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 538):

… 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. For example, the systemic environment of conjunction is that of the clause; and conjunctions serve as conjunctive Adjuncts in the structure of the clause. In contrast, lexical cohesion operates within the lexical zone; and it follows the general principle that lexical items are not defined in terms of particular grammatical environments.

The Extent Of Elements Linked Cohesively

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 537):

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 status — statuses having to do with how ‘components’ of messages are processed as information.

Lexical Cohesion

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 537):

Most typically, such cohesive relations hold between single lexical items, either words or larger units … ; but also involving wordings having more than one lexical item in them … . Lexical ties are independent of structure and may span long passages of intervening discourse …

Ellipsis

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 536-7):

Ellipsis (including substitution) is a relationship involving a particular form of wording, either a clause or some smaller item; it is usually confined to closely contiguous passages, and is particularly characteristic of question + answer or similar ‘adjacency pairs’ in dialogue.

Reference

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 536):

Reference 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 (2004: 536):

Conjunctive relations typically involve contiguous elements up to the size of paragraphs — and possibly beyond, or their equivalent in spoken language; conjunction (in this sense) is a way of setting up the logical relations that characterise clause complexes in the absence of the structural relationships by which such complexes are defined.

Logogenetic Patterns

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 535):

… the cohesive selections in a text form logogenetic patterns. In the case of conjunction, such patterns take the form of favoured selections of relations for moving the text forward. 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.

Lexical Cohesion

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 535):

While conjunction, reference and substitution and ellipsis are cohesive resources within the grammatical zone of lexicogrammar, lexical cohesion operates within the lexis and is achieved through the choice of lexical items.

Substitution & Ellipsis

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 535):

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.

Reference Vs Substitution & Ellipsis

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 535):

Reference creates cohesion by creating links between elements of meaning — referents; but there is also a resource operating at the level of wording. 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.

Conjunction Vs Reference

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 534):

While conjunction (including continuity) links whole clauses, reference creates cohesion by creating links between elements.

Cohesion: A Lexicogrammatical Resource Of The Textual Metafunction

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 532):

… 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 — that is, 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 substitution] and
(iv) lexical organisation.

Logogenesis: The Creation Of Meaning In The Course Of The Unfolding Of Text

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 530):

It is helpful to have a term for this general phenomenon — that is, 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’. Logogenesis pertains to the entire meaning potential — all the strata and all the metafunctions.

Text As The Process Of Instantiation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 524-5):

The system of 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 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.

Text As An Ongoing Process Of Meaning

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 524):

Text is something that happens in the form of talking or writing, listening or reading. When we analyse it, we analyse the product of this process; and the term ‘text’ is usually taken as referring to the product — especially the product in its written form, since this is most clearly perceptible as an object … . The organisation of text is semantic rather than formal, and much looser than that of grammatical units. The organisation of text has typically been represented in some form of structural notation. But it is important to to be able to think of text dynamically, as an ongoing process of meaning.

Clause Nexus > Verbal Group Nexus > Verbal Group

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 521):

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.

Hypotactic Projection: Clause Complex Or Verbal Group Complex?

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 517):

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, for example she doesn’t like/mind John leaving so early; and
3. ‘causatives’, for example 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 complexes …

Projection

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 516):

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 complexes, on the analogy of the types of expansion to which they are sometimes similar in meaning.

Desideration & Speech Function

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 515):

… a mental process of desideration projects an exchange of the goods–&–services type, that is, 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.)

Enhancing Hypotactic Verbal Group Complexes: Modulation Causative Passive

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 513):

Furthermore, causative 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

Enhancing Hypotactic Verbal Group Complexes: Modulation Causative

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 513):

Only one or two modulations have causative equivalents; for example:

John remembered to do it

causative: Mary reminded John to do it

However, there are a special set that exist only as causatives, where the meaning is simply that of agency: make, cause, force, require, let, allow, permit, etc. These admit of three degrees of modulation:

high: this made (forced, required) them (to) accept our terms
median: this had (got, obliged) them (to) accept our terms
low: this let (allowed, permitted) them (to) accept our terms

Extending Hypotactic Verbal Group Complexes: Potentiality Causative

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 512):

Here there are causative forms as follows:

(1) potential: the patient can see clearly

causative: this enables the patient to see clearly

(2) achieval: John learnt to fly

causative: Mary taught John to fly

Again, these causatives have passives: the patient is enabled to see clearly, John was taught to fly by Mary.

Extending Hypotactic Verbal Group Complexes: Conation Causative

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 512):

There is no causative form of the conative — that is, no word meaning ‘make…try’; this can of course be expressed analytically, for example:

(she) made (him) try to eat (it)

The causative of the reussive has help, and perhaps enable:

reussive: John managed to open the lock

causative: Mary helped John to open the lock

Elaborating Hypotactic Verbal Group Complexes: Time-Phase Causative

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 511-2):

(1) durative: the ball kept rolling

causative: John kept the ball rolling

(2) inceptive: the ball started/stopped rolling

causative: John started/stopped the ball rolling …

Note that these then have passives: the ball was kept/started/stopped (from) rolling (by John).

Hypotactic Verbal Group Complexes: Causative

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 511):

Causatives with make, get/have and let are of the enhancing type. But there are causative forms in all three types of expansion.

‘Enhancing’ Hypotactic Verbal Group Complexes: Causative

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 509):

Such complexes are involved in the realisation of the transitivity system of agency. … We can always express this agency analytically, by saying John made the ball roll, where made … roll is a hypotactic verbal group complex.  Here, the causative verbal group complex is an alternative realisation of the feature of ‘effective’ agency: an additional participant is introduced into the clause through the expansion of the verbal group realising the Process.

‘Enhancing’ Verbal Group Complexes: Voice

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 508):

Many of the ‘enhancing’ verbal group complexes are simply inappropriate in the passive; they characterise an approach or attitude to the process, and this is likely to apply to an Actor but not to a Goal — it does not make much sense to say she hastened to be reassured, or your word ventures to be doubted.  Others, such as happen and tend, are impersonal and so are indifferent to the selection of voice; for example:

• The house happened to have been built facing the wrong way. …

Since they are all metaphorical, in the sense that the verbal group is representing a circumstance and not some aspect of a process, the functional analysis provides only a partial interpretation; to get the full picture we would need to take account of the congruent form, eg by chance the house had been built facing the wrong way.  There would be no change of rôle in the passive.

‘Extending’ Verbal Group Complexes: Conation & Voice

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 506-7):

Here the relation of active to passive is different, because the conative verb although not constituting a separate happening, does in fact represent a behavioural process, and it retains its behavioural sense when the clause is passive. …

The extending complex is a two-part process, in which the Subject fills a dual participant rôle: Behaver (in the conative component) plus Actor, or some other rôle, in the happening itself.

For the same reason, Adjuncts in the clause may relate semantically to the conative component like hard, quickly in she tried hard to write well, she quickly learnt to tell them apart …

There is no need in the analysis to tie these structurally to the primary verbal group; but it is useful to specify their function, by labelling them as ‘conative Adjunct’.

Verbal Group Complexes: Taxis & Voice

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 505):

If it is a paratactic complex, this process consists of two happenings — two actions, events or whatever. If the verbal group complex is hypotactic, on the other hand, there is only one happening. Thus in a paratactic complex each verbal group has a definite voice, although the voice must be the same in each case; but in a hypotactic complex only the group that expresses the happening, the secondary group, actually embodies a feature of voice. The primary group is active in form, but there is no choice involved. (The exception to this is when the clause is causative.)

Verbal Group Complex Vs Clause Complex

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 505, 505n):

A clause containing a verbal group complex is still a single clause, and represents a single process. It has only one transitivity and voice structure. …

Where there is a shift in transitivity, as in you’ll either kill someone or get killed yourself, the structure is that of a clause nexus, not a verbal group nexus.

Enhancing A Process: Modulation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 503-4):

Here the basic notion is that of ‘be (circumstantial) + do’, for example help to do ‘do being-with (someone)’. … Here the primary verbal group is again not a separate process; but this time it is a circumstantial element in the process expressed by the secondary verbal group.

Conation Vs Modality

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 503):

The other form that has turned into a finite element within the verbal group is the potential form can, in the sense of ‘have the ability to’; it is cognate with know, so ‘know how to do’. This now also a modal form, again of the modulation type — in this case not obligation but readiness (inclination or ability).

Conation Vs Tense And Modality

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 501, 502):

This too has provided the resources for another tense form and another modality. … Originally two verbal groups, it is now either

(i) + done, a secondary tense form ‘past in’ … or

(ii) + to do, a modal form (of the ‘modulation’ type) … .

In other words, ‘possessing’ a process, if combined with past/passive, means past (success); if combined with ‘unreal’, it means (future) obligation.

Conation: Dimensions

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 502):

… there are two dimensions … the potential and the actual. The potential means having, or alternatively not having, the ability to succeed. The actual means trying, or not trying; and succeeding, or not succeeding.