Thursday, 28 February 2013

Non-Finite Dependent Clauses Without Verbs


Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 425):
There is one type of non-finite dependent clause which is often not recognised because it has no verb in it; for example, with no-one in charge, with everyone so short of money.  These are in fact ‘attributive relational’ clauses, with zero alternation of the non-finite verb being (less commonly they may be identifying, eg with that the only solution).  The verb be will always be present in the agnate finite clause (eg since no-one is in charge); and in the non-finite it is always possible to insert being, with very little difference in meaning.

Wednesday, 27 February 2013

Clause Finiteness & Dependency

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 423, 424):
A finite clause is in principle independent; it becomes dependent only if introduced by a binding (hypotactic) conjunction. If it is joined in a clause complex, its natural status is paratactic. In this case its logical-semantic relationship to its neighbour is typically shown by a linking (paratactic) conjunction. …
A non-finite clause, on the other hand, is by its nature dependent, simply by virtue of being non-finite. It typically occurs, therefore, without any other explicit marker of its dependent status. Hence when a non-finite clause occurs without a conjunction, there is no doubt about its hypotactic relation in a clause complex; but there may be no indication of its logical-semantic function.

Tuesday, 26 February 2013

Multivalent Markers Of Expansion

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 422):
Certain markers of expansion are multivalent: they can mark either elaboration and extension or extension and enhancement. … The best strategy [for analysis] is to explore close agnates and to see if these are elaborating, extending or enhancing expansions.

Monday, 25 February 2013

Adverbial Conjunctions


Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 419):
Adverbial conjunctions are as/so long as, as/so far as, (as) much as, for example as long as you’re here …, as far as I know …, much as I’d like to … (compare non-finite as well as, which is extending not enhancing.  In origin these express limitation, a particular point up to which a certain circumstance is valid.

Sunday, 24 February 2013

Nominal Conjunctions


Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 419):
Nominal conjunctions include in case, in the event that, to the extent that, and the + various nouns of time and manner, eg the day, the moment, the way.  These last have evolved from prepositional phrases with the enhancing clause embedded in them, eg on the day when we arrived; but they now function to introduce hypotactic clauses just like other conjunctions, eg their daughter was born the day we arrived, the way they’re working now the job’ll be finished in a week.  Note that they no longer have the nominal group potential for modification; thus while we can say on the beautiful day when we arrived, it would be odd (or impossible) to say their daughter was born the beautiful day we arrived.

Saturday, 23 February 2013

Verbal Conjunctions: From Projection To Expansion


Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 419):
Verbal conjunctions are derived from the imperative or from the present/active or past passive participle + (optionally) that: provided (that), seeing (that/how), suppose/supposing (that), granted (that), say (that).  In origin these are projections; their function as expanding conjunction reflects the semantic overlap between expansion and projection in the realm of ‘irrealis’: ‘let us think/say that’ = ‘if …’, as in say they can’t mend it, shall I just throw it away?.

Friday, 22 February 2013

Three Kinds Of Complex Conjunction

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 419):
As well as simple conjunctions such as because, when, if, and conjunction groups groups like as if, even if, soon after, so that, there are three kinds of complex conjunction, one derived from verbs, one from nouns and the third from adverbs.

Thursday, 21 February 2013

Hypotactic Cause-Condition: Concession

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 419):
With concession, there is a special hypotactic construction that may be used when the beta-clause is an attributive relational one: the Attribute is given the status of marked Theme and the Rheme begins with as or though — an item which would be the structural Theme in the unmarked case (as in tempting as it may be).

Wednesday, 20 February 2013

Internal (Vs External) Enhancing Relations

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 419):
… the enhancing relation may be internal rather than external; that is, the beta-clause may relate to the enactment of the proposition or proposal realised by the alpha-clause rather than to the figure that it represents.  For example, if it is not too personal an inquiry, what limits do you set… means ‘if it is not…, I ask you…’; that is, the condition is on the act of questioning, not on the content of the question.

Tuesday, 19 February 2013

Hypotactic Vs Paratactic Chains Of Enhancement: Contributions To Discourse

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 416):
… in a hypotactic chain, each new link in the chain moves further away from the place in the discourse where the dominant clause is located. In contrast, paratactic chains of enhancement move the discourse forward, as happens in narratives and procedures.

Monday, 18 February 2013

Hypotactic Enhancement: ‘Adverbial Clauses’

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 416): 
The combination of enhancement with hypotaxis gives what are known in traditional formal grammar as ‘adverbial clauses’. As with parataxis, these are clauses of time, place, manner, cause, and condition. Typically, hypotactically enhancing chains are limited to two clauses, with one clause (or sub-complex) qualifying another clause (or sub-complex);

Sunday, 17 February 2013

Paratactic Enhancement


Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 413):
The combination of enhancement with parataxis yields what is also a kind of co-ordination but with a circumstantial feature incorporated into it; the most frequently occurring subtypes are those of time and cause.  The circumstantial feature is typically expressed
(a) by the conjunctions then, so, for, but, yet,still;
(b) by a conjunction group with and: and then, and thus, and so, and yet; or
(c) by and in combination with a conjunctive (ie a conjunctive expression that is not structural but cohesive) such as at that time, soon afterwards, till then, in that case, in that way
Note also that some conjunctives, such as meanwhile, otherwise, therefore, however, nevertheless, are extending their use in modern spoken English so as to become paratactic structural conjunctions; in this function they are unaccented (spoken without salience).

Saturday, 16 February 2013

Clause Enhancement

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 410):
In enhancement one clause (or subcomplex) enhances the meaning of another by qualifying it in one of a number of possible ways: by reference to time, place, manner, cause or condition.

Friday, 15 February 2013

Hypotactic Extension: Subtypes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 408):
The combination of extension with hypotaxis also embraces (a) addition, (b) variation and (c) alternation, but with the extending clause dependent. The dependent clause may be finite or non-finite. Compared with paratactic extension, the hypotactic type appears to be fairly rare; it is, in fact, the least common of the combinations of types of expansion and types of taxis.

Thursday, 14 February 2013

Paratactic Extension: Alternation


Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 407, 408):
Here one clause is presented as an alternative to another. … The associated cohesive conjunctions include conversely, alternatively, on the other hand.

Wednesday, 13 February 2013

Paratactic Extension: Variation


Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 407):
Here, one clause is presented as being in total or partial replacement of another. Variation falls into two subtypes — ‘replacive’ (‘instead’) and ‘subtractive’ (‘except’). … Cohesive expressions used with total replacement include instead, on the contrary.

Tuesday, 12 February 2013

Paratactic Expansion: ‘And’

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 406):
Paratactically related clauses that are introduced by and are often additive extensions; but other possibilities exist. When the sense is ‘and then’, ‘and so’ and the hypotactic version is an enhancing dependent clause, we can interpret the paratactic nexus as one of enhancement instead of one of extension. When the clause starts with and that or and this, with the that/this referring back to (some part of) the previous clause, the sense may be one of elaboration, particularly if the continuing clause is a ‘relational’ one.

Monday, 11 February 2013

Paratactic Extension: Addition

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 405-6):
Here one process is simply adjoined to another; there is no implication of any causal or temporal relationship between them. Additon falls into three subtypes — (a) ‘additive: positive’ (‘and’), (b) ‘additive: negative’ (‘nor’) and (c) ‘adversative’ (‘but’ — ‘and conversely’). Paratactic additions are often accompanied by cohesive expressions such as too, in addition, also, moreover, on the other hand.

Sunday, 10 February 2013

Paratactic Extension: Subtypes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 405-6):
The combination of extension with parataxis yields what is known as co-ordination between clauses.  It is typically expressed by and, nor, or, but.  We can recognise three major subtypes of paratactic extension, (i) addition, (ii) variation and (iii) alternation.

Saturday, 9 February 2013

Clause Extension

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 405):
In extension, one clause extends the meaning of another by adding something new to it. What is added may be just an addition, or else a replacement, or an alternative. There is a closer parallel with extension between parataxis and hypotaxis than we find with elaboration; we can operate with a single system of categories for both kinds of taxis, although there are certain gaps in the paradigm.

Friday, 8 February 2013

‘Asides’

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 405):
Such asides may be analysed as clauses or clause complexes that are enclosed within a clause complex but which are not part of the structure of that clause complex, having only a non-structural, cohesive link to the clause complex they are enclosed within. However, if there is felt to be a strong pressure to read or speak the enclosed clause or clause complex with tone concord, this suggests a relationship of elaboration, since tone concord is often the only marker of elaboration.

Thursday, 7 February 2013

‘Fronted’ Non-Finite Non-Defining Relative Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 404):
With non-finite elaborating hypotactic nexuses, there is a special construction where the dependent precedes the dominant; for example:
||| A science and transport museum || the Powerhouse has over 11,000 objects on display … |||
These elaborating clauses are always ‘intensive attributive relational’ ones where the Process is implicit and the Attribute is typically the only explicit element of the clause. In fact, such nexuses look like nominal group complexes when they only involve two juxtaposed nominal groups — as with a science and transport museum plus the Powerhouse. But when we probe further, we find that the nearest agnates are non-finite and finite non-defining relative clauses: being a science museumwhich is a science museum …; and this explains among other things why clausal elements may be present: reportedly a science and transport museum … . The effect of the construction is to give thematic status within the elaborating clause nexus to the Attribute of the elaboration

Wednesday, 6 February 2013

Non-Finite Non-Defining Relative Clause: Subject

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 404):
In such cases, there may be an explicit Subject in the dependent clause … But in most cases of non-finite elaboration, the Subject is left implicit, to be presupposed from the primary clause; and it is often difficult to identify it exactly … it is precisely the function of the non-finite to make it unnecessary to decide: the absence of the subject decreases the arguability of the clause.

Tuesday, 5 February 2013

Hypotactic Elaboration: Non-Finite Non-Defining Relative Clause

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 403):
When the non-defining clause is an ‘intensive’ relational one, the Process may be left implicit … As is usual with non-finite clauses, the meaning is less specific; both in the domain of the dependent clause and its semantic relationship to its domain are left relatively inexplicit. There is no WH- form, as there is with finites (in this respect non-finite non-defining relative clauses differ from defining ones); nor is there usually any preposition acting conjunctively, as there typically is with non-finite clauses of extension and enhancement …

Monday, 4 February 2013

Non-Defining Relative Clause: Semantically ‘Extending’ Variants

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 402-3):
There is one group of non-defining relative clauses which strictly speaking would belong with extension rather than elaboration; for example:
||| She told it to the baker’s wife || who told it to the cook |||
Here the who stands for ‘and she’ and the clause is semantically an additive: the agnate paratactic variant would be … and she told it to the cook.  Compare also (where the sense is ‘and in that case’):

||| It might be hungry || in which case it would be very likely to eat her up |||
Note that such instances are not characterised by tone concord.  Also extending rather than elaborating are possessives with whose or its variants (of whom/which), which do ot further characterise the noun that constitutes their domain but add a new one related to it by possession; contrast elaborating come and meet Mary, whose birthday we’re celebrating (‘the girl whose…’) with extending the shop was taken over by an Indian, whose family came out to join him.  But for most purposes these and all other non-defining relatives can be treated as elaborating clauses.

Sunday, 3 February 2013

Non-Defining Vs Defining Relative Clause: Realisation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 402):
In written English, a non-defining relative clause is marked off by punctuation — usually commas, but sometimes by being introduced with a dash; whereas a defining relative clause is not separated by punctuation from its antecedent. This in turn reflects the the fact that in spoken English, whereas the defining relative clause enters into a single tone group with its antecedent, a non-defining relative clause forms a separate tone group. Furthermore, the primary and secondary clauses are linked by tone concord: that is to say, they are spoken on the same tone.

Saturday, 2 February 2013

Hypotactic Elaboration: Finite Non-Defining Relative Clause

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 400):
If the secondary clause is finite, it has the same form as a defining relative clause of the WH- type, which is embedded as a Qualifier in a nominal group. … As far as the meaning is concerned, these clauses do not define subsets, in the way that a defining relative clause does. … A non-defining relative clause, on the other hand, adds a further characterisation of something that is already taken to be fully specific.

Friday, 1 February 2013

Hypotactic Elaboration: Non-Defining Relative Clause

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 399-400):
The combination of elaboration with hypotaxis gives the category of non-defining relative clause (also called ‘non-restrictive’, ‘descriptive’). This functions as a kind of descriptive gloss to primary clause … hypotactic elaboration is a strategy for introducing into the discourse background information, a characterisation, an interpretation of some aspect of the dominant clause, some form of evaluation (as can also happen with paratactic clarification).