Evidence For Hypotaxis vs Embedding

Fawcett (2010: 326-7):

I suggested earlier that a SF linguist should approach a problem of this sort by asking: "What evidence is there that we should give priority in the system networks to one of these relationships over the other?" Specifically, one should first collect together a body of examples that are closely related systemically to each of (la), (2a) and (3a). Then one should examine them to see how far they provide evidence 

(1) that the relationship in (la) is one of 'hypotaxis' rather than embedding, and 

(2) that the grammar does indeed make similar options available when relating clauses 'paratactically' to the options that are available when the relationship is 'dependent' (whether interpreted as 'hypotaxis' or embedding). 

Next, one should make a judgement as to which systemic relations should be given priority in the system networks (i.e., those that model meaning potential within the lexicogrammar), and finally one should make proposals as to how any relationship that has not been modelled in the grammar should be handled in the overall model.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, (1a) is He left the room before they voted. In SFL Theory, the second clause is analysed as a ranking clause that is dependent on the first clause. In Fawcett's Cardiff Grammar, it is analysed as embedded as Adjunct in a single clause. That is, unrecognised by Fawcett, in his model, the clause is analysed as rankshifted so as to function in a ranking clause.

Importantly, it is not the data that determines whether the clause is dependent or embedded, but the theory, since the clause can be analysed either way, depending on the theory. That being the case, it is a question — if both are consistent with theory — of which theoretical construal has the more explanatory potential.