Logogenetic Chains

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 607):

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

Blogger Comments:

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

Lexical Cohesion

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 606-7):

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

Blogger Comments:

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

a

Ellipsis & Substitution

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 606):

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

Blogger Comments:

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

   

Referential Chains

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 606):

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

Blogger Comments:

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

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

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

Reference

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 605-6):

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

Conjunctive Relations

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 605):

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

Cohesion

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 603):

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

The Systemic History Of An Unfolding Text

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 601):

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

Logogenesis, Logogenetic Patterns Of Instantiation, And Instantial Systems

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 601):

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

Text As The Process Of Instantiation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 593-4):

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

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

Blogger Comment:

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

A Scale Of Strategies For Construing The Causal Relation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 591):

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

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

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

Verbal Group Nexus As Intermediate Between Clause Nexus And Verbal Group

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 588):

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

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

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 588, 589):

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

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

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 586-7):

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

Types Of Projection In The Verbal Group Complex

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 585, 587):

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

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

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

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

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

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

All these would thus be interpreted as projecting clause nexuses.

Projecting Verbal Group/Clause Nexuses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 585, 586):

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

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

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 585):

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

Hypotactic Desiderative Projection Nexus: Clause Or Verbal Group?

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 585):

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

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

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

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

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

Desiderative Projections: Offer vs Command

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 584):

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

Time Reference Of Verbal Group Complexes: Expansion vs Projection

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 584):

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

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

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

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

Causative Modulation: Analyses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 583):

Analyses are shown in Figure 8-12.

Three Degrees Of Passive Causative Modulation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 582-3):

Furthermore, causatives have passives; so we can have

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

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

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

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

Three Degrees Of Causative Modulation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 582, 582n):

Only one or two modulations have causative equivalents; e.g.

John remembered to do it
(caus.) Mary reminded John to do it

with the sense of ‘John did it according to attention’ and ‘Mary caused John to do it according to attention’. However, there is 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 terms⁶
(low:)       this let (allowed, permitted) them (to) accept our terms

The concept of agency is inherently a circumstantial one. We have already seen in Chapter 5 that the Agent, which from one point of view is a participant in the clause (John did it), is from another point of view a kind of Manner (it was done by John). It is thus not surprising that the causative Agent enters into this kind of hypotactic structure, with the agency expressed as a process through verbs like force and allow.

 

⁶ Also imperfective: got them working, had him begging for mercy.

Causative Conation: Potentiality

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 582):

Here there are causative forms as follows:

(1) potential: the patient can see clearly
(caus.)           this enables the patient to see clearly 

(2) achieval:  John learnt to fly
(caus.)           Mary taught John to fly

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

Causative Conation: Reussive

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 581):

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) | α made | (him) | ×β try | +γ to eat | (it)

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

reussive: John managed to open the lock
(caus.) Mary helped John to open the lock

Causative Time-Phase: Durative & Inceptive

 Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 581):

Here the same verbs keep, start/stop, also function causatively:

(1) durative:   the ball kept rolling

(caus.)            John kept the ball rolling 

(2) inceptive:  the ball started/stopped rolling

(caus.)             John started/stopped the ball rolling

Causative Reality-Phase?

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 580-1):

It would be possible to recognise causative forms of reality-phase, as follows:

(1) apparent: John seems to be responsible
(caus.)           Mary considers John to be responsible 

(2) realised:  John turns out to be responsible
(caus.)          that proves John to be responsible

But consider and prove are better treated as, respectively, mental and verbal processes, with the proposition/process being projected; note the closely agnate finite clauses with that, and cf. it seems/turns out that John is responsible.

Blogger Comments:

Lest this be misunderstood, at clause rank, the causative examples are relational processes with (1) mental assignment and (2) verbal assignment.

Analytic Causative By Expansion Type

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 580):

Causatives with make, get/have and let are of the enhancing type. But there are causative forms in all three types of expansion: see Table 8-6. 

Analytic Causative: Discontinuous Verbal Group Complex Serving As Process

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 579-80):

In the transitive analysis we introduced the notion of an Initiator, a participant who brings about the action performed by the Actor. This function appears in the explicit causative structure with the verb make. We can then, of course, extend the agency further: Mary made John roll the ball, as in Figure 8-10:

Note that in the ergative analysis the function of Agent recurs, allowing for indefinite expansion along the lines of Fred made Mary make John ...

But there is still only one process, that of rolling; so we can still represent it as two verbal groups in hypotactic relationship. In this instance, however, they are discontinuous, as shown in Figure 8-11).

Analytic Causative: An Alternative Realisation Of ‘Effective’ Agency

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 578-9):

We shall now turn to hypotactic verbal group complexes of expansion that also include a feature of causation. Such complexes are involved in the realisation of the transitivity system of AGENCY. We saw in Chapter 5 that there is a causative element in the structure of the English clauseFor example, John rolled the ball can be interpreted either as ‘John (Actor) did something to the ball (Goal)’ or as ‘John (Agent) caused the ball (Medium) to do something’.

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 thus 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. In the ergative analysis this looks the same as John rolled the ball; but in the transitive it does not, and this enables us to interpret the difference between them: in John rolled the ball, he acted directly on it, whereas in John made the ball roll he may have done so by leverage, psychokinesis or some other indirect force (Figure 8-9).

As always, it is the combination of the two analyses, the transitive and the ergative, that gives the essential insight.

Blogger Comments:

The transitive interpretation of the participants in John rolled the ball as Actor and Goal contradicts the discussion (pp351-2) where the participants of such clauses (the police exploded the bomb, the sergeant marched the prisoners) are interpreted as Initiator and Actor.

Behavioural Conatives

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 578):

The hypotactic verbal group complexes we have looked at so far are, in principle, confined to features of the Process itself – features of phase, conation and modulation. But we have noted that conative hypotactic verbal group complexes with verbs of behaviour in the primary verbal group tend to add the role of Behaver to the experiential interpretation of the Subject, as is brought out by the contrast in voice.

Passive Enhancing Hypotactic Verbal Group Complex: Modulation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 577-8):

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; e.g.

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

If the student is of the right calibre to pursue a course, which the Ministry enacts is a worthwhile full-time course, he shall receive the same justice from Britain whatever authority he happens to have been born under. 

How I happened to be marooned at Balicou doesn’t interest you in the faintest degree. 

One other aspect of oral work – the memorisation and speaking of prose and verse – tends to be considered by many teachers as quite extraneous to the normal class work. 

If conduct in prison were a deciding consideration selection would tend to be left to a time near the date of release.

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, e.g. by chance the house had been built facing the wrong way. There would be no change of role in the passive (see Figure 8-8).

Conation Or Simple Negative?

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 576n):

Note the incongruence of the form people failed to accept her, meaning ‘people did not accept her despite her efforts’. Here failed to is functioning as a simple negative, such that there is a proportion

she was not accepted : people did not accept her ::
she failed to be accepted : people failed to accept her

Compare examples such as I sent them a letter but it failed to arrive, the banks failed to support them. These should perhaps be interpreted as a form of enhancement, meaning ‘do negatively’!

Conative Adjunct

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 576-7):

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

The Filipino tried hard to put in a storming finish, but his attacks were nearly all neatly countered by the clever champion.

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’.

Passive Extending Hypotactic Verbal Group Complex: Conation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 576, 577):

Here the relation of passive to active is different, because a 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. Thus an elaborating active/passive pair such as people started to accept her/she started to be accepted is not paralleled by the corresponding extending pair

(people) | tried | + β to accept | (her)
(she) | tried | + β to be accepted |

(see analysis in Figure 8-7). Examples:

He tried to be pleased at the idea. 

Francesca and Grazie were habitual committee chairmen and they usually managed to be elected cochairmen, equal bosses, of whatever PTA or civic project was being launched.

Passive Elaborating Hypotactic Verbal Group Complex: Phase

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 575-6):

Here the transitivity functions remain the same whether the clause is passive or active; there is an exact proportion ants are biting me: I’m getting bitten by ants :: ants keep biting me: I keep getting bitten by ants:

(ants) | keep | = β biting | (me)
(I) | keep | = β getting bitten | (by ants)

Compare:

no one seems to have mended the lights yet
the lights don’t seem to have been mended yet
when will they start printing the book?
when will the book start being printed?

See Figure 8-6 for the analysis in mood and transitivity.

Verbal Group Complexes: Taxis And Voice

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 575):

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.

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.)

The different types of hypotactic complex have different potentialities as regards the passive. If the secondary verbal group is passive, the meaning of the categories of phase is unaffected; but there is an effect on the interpretation of conative forms.

Enhancing Hypotactic Verbal Group Complex: Modulation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 574):

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. If we say Alice ventured to ask something, this means she did ask it; but she did so tentatively. (The doubtful one here is hesitate, which perhaps belongs with the ‘projection’ type as a mental process.) Probably all of these would turn out to be metaphorical … . One of the examples above is analysed in Figure 8-5.

 

Blogger Comments:

Again, the table cells misrepresent the analysis of Finite and Predicator. The Predicator is tend to open and the Finite is 'do' ('present').

Enhancing Hypotactic Verbal Group Complex: Modulation: Examples

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 573-4):

Examples:

||| Yeah, I think || a good many writers tend to open their books || and groan. ||| 

||| Well that would be my contention || but let me hasten to add || that since the first Speaker was also the first Member for Wakefield || I’m not that anxious to emulate the first Speaker. ||| 

||| They don’t really own them, you see, || they just happened to be lying around in the same place as these things. ||| 

||| You will cherish them on your bookshelves for a long time – || unless, of course, someone borrows them || and somehow ‘forgets’ to return them. ||| 

||| Perhaps we could start by talking about that. ||| 

||| I came to love it || from drinking it in the war years, || but the fact must be faced, || it is an acquired taste. |||

Enhancing Hypotactic Verbal Group Complex: Modulation: Categories

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 573, 574):

Here the basic notion is that of ‘be (circumstantial) + do’, e.g. help to do ‘do being-with (someone)’. As with all instances of enhancement, there are a number of different kinds; the principal ones are set out in Table 8-5.

Extending Hypotactic Verbal Group Complex: Conation: Tense & Modality

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 573):

Once again these forms are related to tense and modality, the hypotactic verbal group complex being intermediate between the simple verbal group, as in has done, has to do, and the clause complex, as in, say, by trying hard Alice reached the key. One of the examples given above is analysed below in Figure 8-4:

Extending Hypotactic Verbal Group Complex: Conation: Perfective vs Imperfective

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 573):

Of the remainder of this type, most take the perfective form of the secondary verbal group, as in try to do. The imperfective occurs only (i) with the negative terms avoid, and (with in) fail: avoid doing, fail in doing; and (ii) with succeed (again with in). The difference between manage to do and succeed in doing is slight; the former implies attempt leading to success, the latter success following attempt. For try + imperfective (‘do as a means to an end’), e.g. try counting sheep, see the next subsection [on causal enhancement].

From Conation To Readiness

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 573):

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’. This is now also a modal form, again of the modulation type — in this case not obligation but readiness (inclination/ability).

Extending Hypotactic Verbal Group Complex: Conation: Potential vs Actual

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 573):

Again, there are two dimensions: there is 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. The form with have has evolved like the forms with be above. Originally two verbal groups, it is now either (i) + done, a secondary tense form ‘past in’, e.g. has done ‘past in present’, will have done ‘past in future’, was going to have done ‘past in future in past’ and so on; or (ii) + to do, a modal form (of the ‘modulation’ type), e.g. has to do ‘must do’. In other words, ‘possessing’ a process, if combined with past/passive, means past (success); if combined with ‘unreal’, it means (future) obligation.

Extending Hypotactic Verbal Group Complexes: Conation Categories

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 572):

This too has provided the resources for another tense form and another modality (see Table 8-4).

Extending Hypotactic Verbal Group Complexes: Conation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 572):

Here the basic notion is that of ‘have (possession) + do’; in other words, success. The semantic relation between the primary and the secondary verbal group is one of CONATION: trying, and succeeding. (The verb of the primary verbal group is usually one that can serve in a ‘behavioural’ clause.) … Examples:

||| Aware of his child’s ignorance of Indian life, the Indian parent tries to cram into the child’s little head all possible information during an ‘Excursion Fare’ trip to the mother country. |||

||| You try and do something responsible for your children || and you get forgotten. |||

||| I’m just going to try and attach my first semantics chapter for you || ’cause it’s not too big || and then you can start reading || when you have time. ||| 

||| If I tried to swan around, || I wouldn’t know how to behave. |||

||| I always tried to avoid tearing her web || and save her repair work, || but she was a quick and efficient spinner. |||

||| And, while our military strength remains unmatched, || state or non-state actors may attempt to circumvent our strengths || and exploit our weaknesses || using methods [[ that differ significantly from our own]] . |||

||| The wide range of potential contributions by the RC has proven to be a bright spot || as we strive to match available resources to a demanding mission load, || and demonstrates clearly the enduring value and relevance of the citizen-soldier. |||

||| We succeeded to take our last steps to freedom in conditions of relative peace. |||

||| He feels || that he rarely succeeded in reaching the fibre of the characters [[ that he desperately wanted to attain]]. |||

||| He learned to walk in a certain way |||

Verbal Group Complexes With Respect To Finite And Predicator

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 571):

The analysis of one of the examples above is given in Figure 8-3. (Note that just like finite simple verbal groups, the primary verbal group splits into Finite and Predicator: Finite ‘did’ + Predicator ‘seem’. The Predicator then extends to include the secondary verbal group: ‘seem’ + ‘to go’. This is brought out by versions of the clause where Finite and Predicator are discontinuous, as with did ... seem to go in did the sand dredger seem to go past the Marchioness?)

Blogger Comments:

Figure 8-3 misrepresents the text (because of software limitations in splitting table cells).  The Finite is 'did' and the Predicator is 'seem to go':

the sand dredger	seemed		to go	past the Marchioness
Subject	Finite	Pre	dicator	Adjunct

Time-Phase And Reality-Phase: Stages Of Becoming

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 571):

At the deepest level time-phase and reality-phase are the same thing: both are concerned with the stages of becoming. A process is something that emerges out of imagination into reality, like the rising of the sun. Before dawn, the sun shines only in the future, or only in the imagination — as future turns into present, imagination turns into reality. The two categories of phase are related to modality and tense; but whereas modality and tense are interpreted as subcategorisations of one process (they are grammatical variants within one verbal group), phase is interpreted as a hypotactic relation between two processes: a general one of becoming, that is then elaborated by the specific action, event, mental process or relation that is being phased in or out.

'Phase' Verb Serving As Process

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 570n):

When the verbs serving in the primary, elaborated verbal group occur in simple, non-elaborated verbal groups that serve as Process in their own right, they tend to combine with metaphorical nominal groups, as in Tove Janson’s experimentation with slightly different themes began in 1957.

Elaborating Hypotactic Verbal Group Complexes: Time–Phase

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 570-1):

The other part of the time-phase system that has remained as a category of phase is that of ‘duration/inception’: ‘durative’ going on, contrasting with ‘inceptive/conclusive’, starting and stopping. For example: 

||| I keep telling them || I give them the money || so long as they’ll leave. ||| 

||| The line needs to keep being shut down || to have mechanical work done on there. |||

||| If they stop performing their task, || they’re likely to be deprived of the opportunities [[ to dedicate themselves to intellectual work]] . |||

Of these, the ‘go on’ term takes the imperfective; starting and stopping take either, with little difference in meaning – except that stop requires imperfective; stop + perfective is now interpreted as a hypotactic clause complex of purpose, as in

||| α she stopped || ×β to think ||| ‘she stopped, in order to think’

There is also an inceptive-durative ‘start to go on’, as in they’ve taken to coming in at the back door instead of the front.

Elaborating Hypotactic Verbal Group Complexes: Time–Phase (Lost Opposition)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 570):

The time-phase system has split into two. The original opposition is doing/is to do (meaning, in modern terms, ‘keeps doing’ and ‘will do’) has disappeared, since both have turned into grammatical categories of the verbal group. The former has evolved into tense, defined along the dimension of future/present/past. Thus the be ... ing form, as in he is doing, which was originally two verbal groups like modern keeps doing, is now the secondary present tense form within the one group, meaning ‘present in ...’; e.g. is doing ‘present in present’, was doing ‘present in past’, will have been doing ‘present in past in future’, was going to be doing ‘present in future in past’, etc. The latter, the be to ... form, as in he is to do, similarly turned into a secondary future; but here there has been a further change: is to has now turned into a modal form, and its function as secondary tense has been taken over by is going to.

Elaborating Hypotactic Verbal Group Complexes: Reality–Phase

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 569-70):

The reality-phase, or realisation, system is based on the contrast between ‘apparent’ (seems to be) and ‘realised’ (turns out to be); both are perfective, the first being unreal, the second unreal emerging into real.

Witnesses said || the sand dredger seemed to go past the Marchioness || but suddenly smashed into the side || and went right over it. 

This offensive appears to be a sign of their strength, || but their position is highly contradictory. 

Both in terms of quantity and quality, FY 1998 proved to be a very challenging recruiting year. 

The 22 bibliophiles turned out to trail clouds of glory. 

There is a variant of the ‘realised’ which is imperfective, e.g. she turns out knowing all about it; this is looking at it from the ‘real’ end, as reality emerging from appearance. We can also relate the passive voice to this general meaning, with its original sense of ‘is (in a state of) having been realised’.

Elaborating Hypotactic Verbal Group Complexes: Phase

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 569-70):

Here the verb in the primary group is a very general one of the ‘intensive: ascriptive’ class, and it is elaborated by the verb in the secondary verbal group. The semantic relation between the two is one of PHASE (see Table 8-3). The basic notion is ‘be (intensive) + do’, using ‘do’ to stand for any process. The two dimensions of phase are time-phase and reality-phase.

The Meaning Of Perfective Vs Imperfective Aspect

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 568-9):

The difference in meaning between perfective and imperfective was referred to above. The general principle is that the perfective is ‘unreal’ and the imperfective is ‘real’; they may be opposed in any one of a number of contrasts, as future to present, appearance to reality, starting off to going on, goal to means, intention to action, or proposal to proposition; and sometimes the difference between them is minimal. The pairs of examples in Table 8-2 will give some feeling for the distinction.

The Secondary Verbal Group: Perfective Vs Imperfective Aspect

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 568):

The secondary group may be perfective, with or without to, e.g. (to) do; or imperfective, e.g. doing, in aspect. The other non-finite form, the ‘past/passive participle’, e.g. done, usually stands for the perfective, as in I want it (to be) done, consider it (to have been) done; but in itself it is neutral, and in other contexts it neutralises the distinction, e.g. I saw it (be/being) done.

Non-Final Verbal Groups And Transitivity

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 568n):

Non-final verbal groups may realise features that relate to the transitivity of the clause (and this is always the case with causative constructions). For example, while phase does not constrain the interpretation of the Subject as a particular type of participant, connation does; it implies that the Subject is like a Behaver in addition to whatever other participant roles it serves. Contrast [phase:] she seemed to like him with [conation:] she tried to like him. This is why phased existential clauses present no problem, but conative ones are odd: there seemed to be a person on top of the hill vs. there tried to be a person on top of the hill. As we have seen in Chapter 5, there in existential clauses serves as Subject, but it does not play a participant role; so when a participant role interpretation is ‘imposed’ by a conative verbal group complex, there is a clash in the grammar.

The Last Secondary Group Realises The Process Type Of The Clause

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 568):

It is the secondary group, or last secondary group if there is more than one, that realises the process type of the clause, e.g. [material:] she seemed to mend it, [behavioural:] she seemed to laugh, [mental:] she seemed to like him, [verbal:] she seemed to tell us, [relational:] she seemed to be nice.

Primary Vs Secondary Verbal Group: Finiteness

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 568):

The primary group (α) may be finite or non-finite; it is the primary group that carries the mood of the clause, e.g. she tried to do it, what was she trying to do, was she trying to do it, try to do it, having tried to do it etc. The secondary group (β γ δ ...) is always non-finite, this being the realisation of its dependent status.

Hypotactic Verbal Group Complexes Are Always Progressive

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 568):

The hypotactic sequence is always progressive – α ^ β (as in tried to do), α ^ β ^ γ (as in began to try to do), α ^ β ^ γ ^ δ (as in wanted to begin to try to do) .... While the groups making up the complex are typically contiguous, as in the examples above, the complex may be discontinuous:

||| DPP lawmaker Chen Ting-nan will be the justice minister, || responsible [[ for helping Chen keep his promise [[ to clean up graft]] ]] . |||

||| Again, a first requirement is [[ to do no harm to organisational frameworks [[ that, through years of evolution, are finally at the stage [[ where they are supporting programs [[ that are actually helping us to get on with the business [[ of increasing understanding]] ]] ]] ]] ]] . |||

The Traditional Analysis Of Hypotactic Verbal Group Complexes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 567n):

The traditional analysis was to treat the primary group as Predicator in its own right and the secondary group together with elements following it in the clause as an embedded non-finite clause serving as Complement, and this type of analysis was taken over in modern formal approaches, at least initially. 

Comparing the two types of analysis in a meaningful way is not possible within the space available here. However, we can note that while the traditional analysis is forced on us if our only model of structural organisation is that of constituency, the analysis we present here becomes possible once we recognise tactic interdependency structures. It allows us to show the analogy, and agnation, between sequences of verbs, and sequences of clauses, with areas of indeterminacy between the two. It enables us to throw light on so-called ‘serial verb constructions’ in a range of languages, interpreting the findings that have emerged, particularly in the past 15 years or so. 

Further, it enables us to show how categories of the simple verbal group have evolved from verbal group complexes (cf. references below to tense, modality and voice). And it also makes it possible to avoid one of the major drawbacks of the traditional analysis: the secondary verbal group plus the elements following it do not in fact behave as Complements. For example, if they were Complements, the wh- interrogative should be what is she trying?; but it is not: it is what is she trying to do?. 

Verbal group complexes have also been discussed under the heading of ‘catenatives’, reflecting the fact that the verbs in such a series are concatenated.

Hypotactic Verbal Group Complexes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 567-8):

Like a paratactic verbal group complex and a simple verbal group, a hypotactic verbal group complex, e.g. tried to do, serves only one set of functions in the clause (and only in the clause, since it cannot be embedded on its own): it is the Process in the experiential transitivity structure, and the Finite (...) Predicator in the interpersonal modal structure. For example:

||| We tried to open windows || to escape. ||| 

||| In 1960 he began to travel. ||| 

The centre is helping field the 150,000 inquiries [[ flooding in nationally each day]] . 

... these doctrines, || which are highly serviceable to power and authority, || but seem to have no other merits. 

||| I always tried to avoid tearing her web || and save her repair work, || but she was a quick and efficient spinner. ||| 

||| I’ve been reading a lot of Lawrence; || I’ve been trying to read most of the works of Lawrence. |||

'Narrowing' In Prepositional Phrases (Embedding) And Nominal Groups (Hypotaxis)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 567):

Perversely, however, English tends to go the other way [see previous post], and this employs embedding not hypotaxis (hence many of the prepositions could be replaced by of):

(it’s) [ at [ the back right-hand corner [ in/of [ the top drawer [ in/of [ the small cupboard [ against [ the far wall [ in/of [ the main bedroom [ to the left of [ the landing [ upstairs]]]]]]]]]]]]]

The address on the outside of an envelope forms a similar sequence.

This ‘narrowing’ relationship is in fact the same as that found in the nominal group, where the ‘logical’ structure of the Premodifier is a hypotactic sequence of words. This also goes ‘in reverse’, hence the ordering ... γβα; but it is hypotactic, not embedded:

ζ those ε two δ splendid γ old β electric α trains

Enhancing Hypotactic Prepositional Phrase And Adverbial Group Complexes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 566-7):

With prepositional phrases and adverbial groups of place and time there is also a hypotactic relation of enhancement, with the special semantic feature of ‘narrowing’, as in tomorrow before lunch. Examples, starting with a constructed sequence:

(it’s) | α upstairs | ×β to the left of the landing | ×γ in the main bedroom | ×δ against the far wall | ×ε in the small cupboard | ×ζ in the top drawer | ×η at the back right hand corner | 

Starting from Narmada, || take the main turn-off south towards Praya.

From Beleka the road continues north, || rejoining the main east-west axis near Kopang, about 30km east of Mataram. 

You know || what’s happening tomorrow at five o’clock, don’t you?

Extending Hypotactic Prepositional Phrase And Adverbial Group Complexes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 566):

The hypotactic extension of adverbial groups/prepositional phrases is essentially the same as that for nominal groups, with as well as, instead of, rather than, etc.:

In government as well as in commerce, obviously, power was being defined as wealth, the accumulation of economic resources [[[ by which to live more comfortably || and to command more authority]]] . 

It was far better for a weapon used for retaliatory purposes to be under the sea rather than on land. 

A very important development is the building of research stations on the farms instead of in neighbouring towns. 

By the time the Great Central was built || the trains could manage the gradients much more easily || and the Great Central line usually went across the valleys ... instead of round them like the earlier railways || so the distances were shorter || and you got better views.

Prepositional Phrase Complex Vs Prepositional Phrase With Nominal Group Complex

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 566):

Note the difference between these, which have two prepositional phrases in hypotactic relation, and phrases with between, which consist of one prepositional phrase with two paratactic nominal groups as Complement:

(he stood) between [ the door + | 2 and the window ]

It may be helpful to diagram these, as shown in Figure 8-2.

Elaborating Hypotactic Prepositional Phrase And Adverbial Group Complexes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 565):

This is the relationship that is found in sequences such as:

She remained in Lincoln from 1911 until 1919 when she moved owing to the illness of her father, one time Archdeacon of Leicester, and later Canon of Peterborough, and settled in Kettering. 

I took a freighter from New York, all the way up the Amazon into Peru ... 

This twists around a shady, lush river gorge [[ thick with bamboo]] to Bagudesa, || then continues through extensive rice-fields to Kumbung. 

In 1990, London prefixes had changed from 01 to 071 or 081. 

In the present period, the issues arise across the board, <<as they commonly do>>: from personal relations in the family and elsewhere, to the international political/economic order

Here the hypotactic complex construes a path through time or space, including abstract space.

Hypotactic Adverbial Group And Prepositional Phrase Complexes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 565):

As with parataxis, adverbial groups and prepositional phrases can be linked hypotactically: the tactic relationship is based on identity in function rather than difference in internal structure. Hypotaxis is used to construe spatial and temporal paths and to construe gradual narrowing of the specification of a location. It combines with (i) elaborating, (ii) extending and (iii) enhancing relations.

Extending Hypotactic Nominal Group Complexes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 565):

In exactly the same way as with elaboration, a nominal group may be extended hypotactically by a prepositional phrase, the preposition having the same sense as when used to introduce a non-finite extending clause – (1) addition (positive): as well as, in addition to; (2) variation, replacement: instead of, rather than, unlike; (3) variation, subtraction: except for. Examples:

Its four levels include a sculpture garden, contemporary collections of Australian and European prints and drawings, 20th century British and European art, an impressionist exhibition as well as a new coffee shop and theatre space.

We have pursued a number of initiatives in recent years || to enhance the capabilities of both our forces forward-deployed on the peninsula and our reinforcing elements, as well as the forces of our South Korean Allies.

Our intent is [[ to develop the most advanced, reliable, and effective equipment || and to field it || when and where it’s needed, || using the Chairman’s Combating Terrorism Readiness Initiative Fund in addition to resources [[ allocated by the formal budget process]] ]] .

Venice was developed in 1904 || and was intended to be a western American cultural center like its Italian namesake, with canals instead of streets, and opera houses rather than amusement piers.

The nitrogen compounds (except for nitrous oxide) dropped from 8 to 10 parts per billion by volume (ppbv) to only 1.5 to 2 ppbv. 

Proteins, unlike carbohydrates and fats, cannot be stored for future use.

Hypotactically Elaborating Phrase vs Hypotactically Extending Clause

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 565):

Note that with a little of me thrown in in the following example

Those two guys, << with a little of me thrown in, >> came together as Lewis Moon.

is a clause, not a phrase; there are two elements of transitivity (a little of me + thrown in):

Elaborating Hypotactic Nominal Group Complex

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 564):

We saw in Chapter 6 that a nominal group can have as Postmodifier not only an embedded clause (‘defining relative’ clause) but also an embedded prepositional phrase, as in the man = [ in the moon ]. There is the same contrast between embedding and hypotaxis with a phrase as there is with a clause. Parallel to

(a) || (this is) my new house, = || β which Jack built ||
(b) || (this is) the house = [[ that Jack built ]] ||

we have

(c) (have you seen) | my new hat, = | β with the feather in
(d) (have you seen) | my hat = [ with the feather in] |

The secondary element in (c) is a descriptive phrase, ‘note that it has a feather in it’, not a defining one as in (d). Examples:

It began with worship at St. John’s Episcopal Church, across Lafayette Park from the White House 

Before the Opera House was completed || the Town Hall’s Centennial Hall, with seating for 2,000, was Sydney’s main concert venue.

Hypotactic Nominal Group Complexes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 564):

In a hypotactic nominal group complex, the dominant element can, in principle, serve the same function as the whole complex, but dependent elements cannot. Thus instead of have you seen (α) my new hat, (β) with the feather in, we can also say have you seen my new hat, but not have you seen with the feather in. While the dominant element has to be a nominal group, dependent elements can be adverbial groups or prepositional phrases. In nominal group complexing, hypotactic relations are either (i) elaborating, or (ii) extending; but we do not find enhancing ones.

Hypotactic Group Complexes And Logico-Semantic Type

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 564):

When groups and phrases are linked hypotactically, they are given unequal status, one serving as the dominant element (α) and the remainder as dependent ones (β γ δ ...). Hypotactic verbal group complexes involve either expansion or projection, but hypotactic nominal group complexes and hypotactic adverbial group/prepositional phrase complexes are based only on expansion.

Paratactic And Hypotactic Word Complexes Within Groups

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 563-4):

We are not in general going below the rank of the group. But note that paratactic relationships are also found within group structures, as relationships between words, as in three or four (days), bigger and better (bananas), (he) either will or won’t (object), (a) firm but gentle (voice). Figure 8-1 gives an example of a nominal group incorporating both a paratactic and a hypotactic word complex; the structure is:

Deictic / γ ^ Epithet / β 1 ^ β 2 δ ^ β 2 γ ^ β 2 β ^ β 2 α ^ Thing / α

Enhancing Paratactic Group Complexes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 563):

Here the semantic relationship involves a circumstantial relationship; this was not recognised as a distinct type in traditional accounts. As noted above, enhancing relationships are essentially between figures as a whole, and only rarely can they be interpreted as holding between particular elements of a figure. Examples are typically instances of time or cause:

[verbal group:]
(He) tried, but failed, (to extract the poison). ‘although he tried, he failed’ – concession 

[nominal group:]
All those on board, and hence all the crew, (must have known that something was amiss). 

Film hadn’t been important until the Italians with realism and Rossellini and De Sica, then the French nouvelle vague. 

Optimistu’s true nature dawned slowly. It became slightly nasty, then really rather awful, then unremittingly horrendous and then lethal only by degrees.

[adverbial group/prepositional phrase:]
(She took it) calmly enough, although not without some persuasion. 

I imagined my framed survey of Xitu hanging above the fire for a few years, then being moved to the spare room, then into the bathroom, then finally being confined to the attic. 

From this crossroads town follow the main road south through increasingly arid landscapes towards Rembitan, a pretty little village claiming a 17th-century mosque, then Sade, where tall, thatched lumbung (rice-barns) climb the slopes.

Again, there are some cliché-like instances, e.g. (he’s been here) thirty-five years if a day.