Fawcett's Argument For Treating Hypotactic Projections As Embedded

Fawcett (2010: 289, 290):

Firstly, this sentence contains just one case of embedding, in the strict sense of the term. This is the embedded clause that they'd lost all the money, which functions as the Phenomenon of the Process of 'guessing'. This is conflated with the Complement, so filling an element of the higher clause. In IFG the clause that they'd lost all the money would be described as serving the general logical function of 'modifying' the supposed 'head' clause of That very experienced reporter had guessed. Thus this second string of words would be said to be 'dependent' on the former without being embedded in it — even though the clause That very experienced reporter had guessed is clearly incomplete when it stands, alone i.e., without the Phenomenon that it "expects". It is not clear how Halliday would answer the criticism that the clause which this string of words initiates is incomplete, and that it can only be completed by modelling the dependent clause as a part of the overall clause of That very experienced reporter had guessed that they'd lost all the money.

In the Cardiff Grammar's view of the TRANSITIVITY of the main clause, the Process of the main clause is 'guessing' and the Phenomenon (which is conflated with the Complement) is that they'd lost all the money. Notice that the Phenomenon could also be the nature of the problem. In a functional grammar the way in which the Phenomenon happens to be filled on a given occasion should surely not lead to a different analysis of the structure of the clause, since the Process is, in both cases, 'guessing'.) For the full descriptive framework and a fuller explanation of why this approach to such examples has been adopted, see Fawcett (1997) on 'complementation' and Fawcett (in press).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this is the analysis using Cardiff Grammar only.

[2] This is potentially misleading. In SFL Theory, the clause that they'd lost all the money serves as a reported projection, hypotactically related to the projecting clause That very experienced reporter had guessed. Whether it is a locution or an idea depends on whether the verbal group had guessed serves as a verbal or mental Process.

[3] This is not misleading, because it is true.

[4] This is misleading, because it is untrue. The clause That very experienced reporter had guessed is not incomplete, as demonstrated by the fact that it is a complete response to the question Who had guessed?

[5] See [4].

[6] This is not misleading, because it is true — provided that the verbal group had guessed serves as a mental, not verbal, Process. In a verbal clause, the Range participant is Verbiage, not Phenomenon.

[7] To be clear, this is an instance of the logical fallacy known as begging the question (petitio principii), since Fawcett assumes the point he is trying to prove: that the second clause serves as Phenomenon in a clause, rather than as a reported projection in a clause complex.

[8] To be clear, Fawcett (in press) is still unpublished, 21 years after the first edition of this publication.