How The Cardiff Grammar Handles Hypotactic Extension And Enhancement

Fawcett (2010: 271):

Within the 'expansion' type of 'hypotaxis', Halliday distinguishes 'elaboration', 'extension' and 'enhancement'. The last two are treated here as follows:

John [S] ran [M] away [Mex], whereas Fred stayed behind [A].

John [S] ran [M] away [Mex], because he was scared [A].

In other words, the two clauses embedded in an Adjunct express two of the many types of 'logical' relationship for which Adjuncts are used: the first is an Adversative Adjunct (cp. in contrast, on the other hand), while the second is a Cause Adjunct (cp. therefore, for this reason). And both are thematisable.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the Cardiff Grammar treats dependent clauses as embedded if they are extending or enhancing — though as co-ordinated if elaborating (see next post). The distinction between interdependency (taxis) and embedding is very important in SFL Theory. Halliday (1994: 242):

[2] To be clear, this confuses form (clauses) with function (Adjunct). On Fawcett's model, the two clauses are each embedded in a clause, and fill (realise) an Adjunct.

[3] To be clear, the claims here are that:

• the clause whereas Fred stayed behind serves the same function as in contrast and on the other hand
• the clause because he was scared serves the same function as therefore and for this reason.

These claims can be invalidated by substituting the (conjunctive) Adjuncts for the clauses:

• John ran away in contrast/on the other hand
• John ran away therefore/for this reason.

Clearly, the logical relation is expressed by the conjunctions in these clauses, whereas and because, not by the clauses themselves.