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

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 437):

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

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

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

Why 'Nominal Group' Rather Than 'Noun Phrase'

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 437n):

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

The Location Of 'Sentence' In SFL Theory

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 436):

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

 

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

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 435):

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

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

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

Grammatical Realisations Of Sequences As Scale Of Integration

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 434-5):

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

Grammatical Realisations Of Sequences

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 434):

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

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

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 434):

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

Augmentation: Circumstances Vs Clause Complexing

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 434):

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

Projection And Expansion Manifested In Clause And Clause Complex

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 432-3):

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

 

The Semantic Effect Of Clause Complexing

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 430-2):

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

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

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 427n):

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

Word Classes And Their Typical Group Functions

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 426-7):

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

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

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 426):

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

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

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

Blogger Comments:

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

Prepositional Phrases With 'Of'

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 425):

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

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

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

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

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

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 425):

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

Prepositional Phrase: Experiential Structure

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 425):

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

 

Prepositional Phrases Vs Non-Finite Clauses [Diagnostics]

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 425):

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

Why Many Prepositional Complements Have The Potential To Become Subject

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 424):

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

Prepositional Phrase: Interpersonal Structure

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 424):

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

Prepositional Phrase: Functions

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 424):

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

Complex Prepositions Vs Prepositional Phrases [Diagnostics]

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 423):

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

Preposition Group Vs Prepositional Phrase

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 423):

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

Preposition Group

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 423):

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

Conjunction Group

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 423):

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

The Domain Of Comparative Postmodifiers

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 422-3):

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

 

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

Comparative Postmodifier: Embedded Clause Or Phrase?

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 422):

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

Adverbial Group Postmodification: Comparison

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 422):

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

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

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

The Negative Adverb 'Not' And Premodifier Types In Combination

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 421):

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

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

Not altogether surprisingly, my wife had fainted.

Items Serving As Adverbial Group Premodifiers

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 420-1):

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

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

Premodification In The Adverbial Group

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 419-20):

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

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

Adverbial Group: Classes Of Adverb Serving As Head

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 419):

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

 

Adverbial Group: Clause Function

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 419):

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

(1) circumstantial Adjunct

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

(2a) interpersonal Adjunct, mood

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

(2b) interpersonal Adjunct, comment

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

Allerton's ‘Stretched Verb Constructions’ vs Phrasal Verbs

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 417-9):

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

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

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

Diagnostic For Phrasal Verbs

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 417):

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

Phrasal Verb In Transitivity And Mood Structure

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 417-8):

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

Why Pronominal Goals Usually Occur Within Phrasal Verbs

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 417):

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

Why Phrasal Verbs Have Flourished In Modern English

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 416):

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

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

they cancelled the meeting      they called off the meeting

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

they cancelled the meeting

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

they called the meeting off

Thematic Argument For Interpreting A Phrasal Verb As A Single Process

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 415-6):

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

Phrasal Verbs Of Motion

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 414):

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

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

Blogger Comments:

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

Less Prototypical Phrasal Verbs

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 414n):

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

Phrasal Verbs Classified For Phase

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 414, 415):

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

Phrasal/Non-Phrasal Verb Agnation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 414):

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

Phrasal Verbs Realise A Single Process

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 413-4, 416):

Experientially, a phrasal verb is a single Process, rather than Process plus circumstantial element. This can be seen from their assignment to process types. For example, the verb see represents a mental process, and so has simple present as its unmarked present tense, as in do you see that sign? (not are you seeing that sign?). But see off is material, and so has present in present: are you seeing your brother off? (not do you see you brother off?, which can only be habitual). The transitivity analysis is therefore as in Figure 6-20.

Phrasal Verb: Expansion Of The Event?

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 411n):

A major point of difference between the verbal group and the nominal group is that the Event (unlike the Thing) is not the point of departure for the recursive modifying relationship. Hence it does not figure as an element in the notation. It could be argued that a phrasal verb represents an expansion of the Event … But we have not explored this line of approach here.

Phrasal Verbs: Types

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 413): 

Phrasal verbs are lexical verbs which consist of more than just the verb word itself. They are of two kinds, plus a third which is a combination of the other two:

(i) verb + adverb, e.g. look out ‘unearth, retrieve’

(ii) verb + preposition, e.g. look for ‘seek’

(iii) verb + adverb + preposition, e.g. look out for ‘watch for the presence of’

The Distinction Between ‘Contrastive In Tense’ And ‘Contrastive In Polarity’

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 411):

The distinction between ‘contrastive in tense’ and ‘contrastive in polarity’ is realised only if at least one secondary tense is chosen; it is however regarded as systemic in all instances, with ambiguity arising where there is no secondary tense.

No System Of Mood In The Verbal Group

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 411):

There is no system of mood in the verbal group.  If a clause is ‘free: indicative’ or ‘bound: finite’, the verbal group is ‘finite’.  If a clause is either ‘free: imperative’ or ‘bound: non-finite’ the verbal group is ‘non-finite’.  The verbal group of an imperative clause is ‘perfective’ in aspect and ‘no secondary’ or ‘present’ in (secondary) tense; negative variants have the special realisation don’t. (In various languages, clausal contrasts in MOOD correlate with verbal contrasts in MODE.) 

The Key To The Organisation Of The Verbal Group

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 411):

The logical system of SECONDARY TENSE provides the key to the organisation of the verbal group: this is the system that defines the logical structure discussed above. The system of VOICE also contributes an auxiliary to this structure (be ... -en), which functions like a final secondary tense right before the Event.

Verbal Group Systems By Metafunction

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 411):

The systems of the verbal group derive from different metafunctions:

(i) Textual: voice, contrast and ellipsis; 

(ii) Interpersonal: polarity, finiteness and modality; 

(iii) Experiential: aspect and event type; 

(iv) Logical: secondary tense.

Event Type

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 410-1):

As we have seen, the verbal group is highly grammaticalised: all elements of its structure except for the Event are realised by grammatical items, the Event being the only one that is realised by a lexical item. It follows that the system network of the verbal group is a network of systems representing contrasts that are purely grammatical in nature.  The only system that extends in delicacy towards distinctions that are realised lexically is the system of event type — the verbal group analogue of the thing type system in the nominal group.  This system is concerned with distinctions among verbs relating to their temporal properties (thus complementing the clausal system of process type, which is concerned with distinctions among processes relating to configurations of process plus participants).

The Verbal Group System Network

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 410):

 

Serial Tense Subcategorises Events Grammatically

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 407):

What has happened is that relative time — before, at or after a defined time reference — has come to be interpreted, in the semantics of English, as a kind of logical relation; a way of subcategorising events similar to the subcategorising of things, except that the latter is multidimensional (and hence lexicalised), whereas the former is based on a single semantic dimension and can therefore be expressed entirely by grammatical means.

Serial Tense Vs 'Aspect' Nomenclature

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 406):

What is remarkable about serial tense is its regularity: the way in which each choice of tense, whether past, present or future, defines a location in time which is then used as the point of departure for a further choice among the same three tenses. This regularity is obscured, and distorted, by the categories of the structuralist analysis, and especially the ‘aspect’ nomenclature of perfect and progressive (or continuous).

Tense System Differences: Deixis

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 405):

The difference between this [System III] and System II is that in System III the effect is simply to eliminate the entire choice of primary tense. System I minus the α tense gives System III. The non-finite or modalised verbal group has no deictic tense element: non-finites because they have no deictic at all (that is what non-finite implies: not anchored in the here-and-now); modalised because, while they have a deictic element (being finite), their deixis takes the form of modality and not tense. Strictly speaking, the first secondary tense of the non-finite should be labelled α, since that becomes the Head element; but it seems simpler and clearer to retain the association of α with finiteness and show non-finites as beginning with β.

Non-Finite Tense Systems (System III)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 405):

System III is the tense system available in non-finite and in modalised forms of the verbal group. Here a further neutralisation takes place, that is, both that in system II (affecting the past) and a parallel one affecting the future. … What happens here is that (i) past, past in present and past in past are all represented by past; (ii) future, future in present and future in future are all represented by future. There are twelve such triads; the total number of tenses in System III is therefore 36 – (2 x 12) = 12.

Sequent Tense Systems (System II)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 404-5):

System II is that which is available after a past projection [i.e. projecting clause] such as they said. … What happens here is that in the environment of a ‘past’ feature, the past element in three of the System II tenses is neutralised; past, past in present and past in past [are] all represented as past in past. Since there are six such triads, System II has 2 x 6 =12 fewer tenses than System I.

Finite, Sequent & Non-Finite Tense Systems

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 404):

There are in fact three distinct systems of tense in English:

• System I: finite 36 tenses
• System II: sequent 24 tenses
• System III: non-finite/modalised 12 tenses

Logical Structure Of The Verbal Group: Restrictions On Tense

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 401):

Since the tense system is recursive, there should be no longest possible tense.  However, in practice there are certain restrictions which limit the total set of those that occur.  These restrictions, or ‘stop rules’, are as follows:

• (i) Apart from α, future occurs only once.
• (ii) Apart from α, present occurs only once, and always at the deepest level.
• (iii) Apart from α, the same tense does not occur twice consecutively. … 

That is:

• following (i), we do not hear she is going to have been about to do it; 
• following (ii), we do not hear he has been having done it; 
• following (iii), we do not hear they will have had done it.

These restrictions limit the total number of finite tenses to 36.