Misrepresenting Halliday On Hypotactic Structures

Fawcett (2010: 319):

I should add, however, that Halliday would probably not agree that every additional element in a 'hypotactic' unit complex (after the first two) adds a new layer of structure — even though diagrams such as those referred to above clearly imply that they do. In Halliday (1965/81:34) he says that "a hypotactic structure is better thought of as a chain of dependencies". Indeed, 'box diagrams' such as those in the lower halves of Figures 7-2 and 7-3 on p. 217 of IFG show the elements "α β γ" as a set of adjacent symbols — so implying that they are all elements of the same unit. This in turn raises the question of whether it is possible to have a recursive 'modifier-head' relationship between three elements α, β and γ, because the β element has to function as both a head (to γ) and a modifier (to α), which is arguably illogical. Halliday certainly intends this interpretation (1965/81:36), but I find his reasons for its desirability unpersuasive, and I would analyse all of his examples in terms of embedding.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is not true that the diagrams — in Halliday (1994: 216-9) — imply that a complex with more than two units necessarily entails what Fawcett calls 'an additional layer of structure'. Clause complexes may be simply linear — e.g. α β γ — but they may involve the nesting of sub-complexes with the complex. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 442):

Many clause complexes are linear sequences … But we also often find internal bracketing, or nesting. This is where what is being linked by a logico-semantic relation is not a single clause but rather a ‘subcomplex’ – a clause nexus in its own right.

We can show nesting in either of two ways. (i) The nesting can be represented explicitly as internal bracketing – e.g. 1 ^ 2(α ^ β); (ii) or it can be represented as a simple string – e.g. 1 ^ 2α ^ 2β.

[2] To be clear, Figures 7-2 and 7-3 both represent instances of nesting:

[3] To be clear, there is no "implication" here. The α β γ symbols in Figures 7-2 and 7-3 symbolise the hypotactic structure of a subcomplex within each clause complex. Each symbol categorises a clause (unit) in the clause (unit) complex. This demonstrates again that Fawcett does not understand hypotactic structures or their diagrammatic representations.

[4] To be clear, the structure α β γ is a "recursive modifier-head relationship". In a linear α β γ clause complex, the dominant α is Head and the dependent units are Modifier. Halliday (1994: 216):

[5] This is misleading, because it is untrue that Halliday intends Fawcett's misinterpretation. In a linear structure, there is no Head-Modifier relation within the Modifier. This only occurs when the Modifier itself is a nested subcomplex, as illustrated in Figures 7-2 and 7-3. It is clear from this that Fawcett does understand the notion of nesting in complexes.

[6] Clearly, Fawcett is unpersuaded by Halliday's argument because he does not understand his model of hypotactic structures, as demonstrated above. This incomprehension explains why Fawcett would analyse all of Halliday's examples in terms of embedding.