"The Generalisations That Halliday Gives Up"

Fawcett (2010: 333):

M&M make many valuable points in their "Response to Huddleston". The main weakness in the case that they present in the sections of their "Response" summarised above is this: they do not show how the generalisations that Halliday gives up in order to foreground the similarities between the 'hypotactic' and 'paratactic' analyses are to be handled in the grammar. If M&M are to 'defend' the position taken in IFG successfully, they need to address this question. But perhaps there should be less 'attacking' and 'defending', and more accepting of genuine 'problem examples', together with more exploring of comprehensive solutions to such problems, in the framework of a multi-component model?

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Halliday does not "give up" any generalisations in "foregrounding the similarities" of hypotaxis and parataxis. On the contrary, the distinction between hypotaxis and parataxis provides a generalisation, the system of TAXIS (interdependency), which Fawcett's Cardiff Grammar lacks. Importantly, the distinction between interdependency and embedding provides a more detailed specification of the different types of grammatical environments in which the generalised meanings of expansion and projection are manifested.

[2] To be clear, it is Fawcett who chooses to construe M&M's 'Response To Huddleston" in terms of 'attacking' and 'defending', the former being his own preferred modus operandi.

[3] To be clear, as previously demonstrated, the 'problem examples' that have been presented by Huddleston and Fawcett are not genuine 'problem examples' when examined with a sufficient grasp of SFL Theory.

Fawcett's Contention That The Notion Of A Rank Scale Depends On Hypotaxis

  Fawcett (2010: 333):

In other words, the analyses of dependent clauses that Huddleston advocates in his review of IFG are indeed possible ones within SFL. But the fact that SF linguists agree that we should explore the value of both 'hypotaxis' and alternative concepts within the theory does not absolve us from the obligation to try to decide whether 'hypotaxis' is needed in all or some or none of the cases for which Halliday proposes its use. The key point for the present debate is that, if we replace 'hypotaxis' by embedding in the examples discussed here (as Huddleston and I advocate), the case for retaining the concept of the 'rank scale' is greatly weakened. Thus it is not the case, as M&M suggest (p. 28), that "Huddleston's objections are descriptive, not theoretical".

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the theoretical value of hypotaxis is its explanatory potential. For example, with regard to projection, the distinction between hypotaxis and parataxis models the distinction between reports and quotes, and the distinction between hypotaxis and embedding models the distinction between reports and pre-projected facts.

[2] This bare assertion, unsupported by argument, is misleading, because it is untrue. Whether clauses are analysed as ranking (dependent) or rankshifted (embedded) can have no bearing whatsoever on the theoretical status of the rank scale. If hypotaxis were excised from the theory, and all dependent clauses were interpreted as embedded, such clauses can still be interpreted as rank units, shifted to the rank of another unit on a rank scale.

[3] To be clear, the sense in which this is true is that SFL Theory provides both hypotaxis and embedding as potential descriptions of language, and the linguist chooses which of these to deploy in the description.

Criticising Martin For The Wrong Reasons

 Fawcett (2010: 332-3, 333n):

As M&M very fairly point out, "Fawcett (1980), [...] working within a theoretical framework closely related to Halliday's, treats all of Halliday's hypotactic clauses through embedding, the very position which Huddleston espouses." After also indicating that Martin (1988) suggests an analysis of such examples in which the experiential analysis at clause rank is in these terms, they go on: "The theory can thus be seen to accommodate a range of approaches to the question of subordination" (M&M 1991:29). ¹⁹ 

¹⁹ However, I am surprised to find Martin advocating this idea, because it involves an insuperable problem. This is that the second part of his proposal is that there should be a "simultaneous analysis" (showing the 'logical' structure) at the 'rank' of the "clause complex". This is, as we have seen, a different 'unit' on the 'rank scale' from the clause, so that if Martin's idea were to be adopted there would even more serious problems for the concept of conflating these two structures than those already specified in Section 7.4 of Chapter 7. It may be that Martin would now wish to reconsider this proposal.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, from Fawcett's description, Martin's problematic analysis of he said he'd go would be something like:

[2] This is misleading, because it is untrue, as previously demonstrated. As the term 'clause complex' suggests, the rank at which this unit complex is located is 'clause'.

[3] This is misleading, because it is untrue. As previously explained in the examination of Fawcett's Section 7.4, in SFL Theory, it is only elements of structure that can be conflated, not entire structures. The notion of structure conflation is nonsensical because a structure is the relation between elements. 

Throughout Section 7.4, Fawcett confused the false notion of 'structure conflation' with the notion of the integration of the three metafunction structures through their realisation in a syntagm of clause constituents: groups and phrases.

[4] To be clear, even if Martin were the type to reconsider his own proposals, and capable of doing so, at 71 years, he does not have enough years left him to reconsider all the proposals he needs to reconsider. See, for example, the clarifying critiques of Martin (1992) and Martin & Rose (2007).

Projection As A Hypotactic Relationship, Locution As Phenomenon

Fawcett (2010: 332):

M&M then go on to consider, much more briefly, examples such as the clause he'd go in He said he'd go. For Halliday (and so M&M) this is a case of the 'hypotactic' relationship of 'projection', with he'd go being a 'beta' clause to the supposed 'alpha' clause he said. As we saw at the start of this section, for both Huddleston and me this example has an embedded clause that fills a Complement of the higher clause He said he 'd go. (Strictly speaking, for me it fills the Participant Role of Phenomenon, this being conflated with the Complement.)

Blogger Comments:

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

[2] This is misleading, because it is not true. To be clear, in SFL Theory, projection is not a hypotactic relationship. Projection is a logico-semantic relation, whereas hypotaxis is a type of interdependency.

[3] Strictly speaking, in SFL Theory, if he'd go were an embedded clause, it would serve as Verbiage (the Range of a verbal Process), not as Phenomenon (the Range of a mental Process). However, in SFL Theory, this is a dependent clause, and so a verbal projection, and so a reported locution.

Fawcett's Higher 'Rhetorical Structure Relations' Component

Fawcett (2010: 331-2, 332n):

However, M&M can still point out that the question remains of where, in the overall model, we should express the similarity between (1a) and (3a). My answer is that the place to handle the choice that is realised by these examples is in a higher component of the generation process than the lexicogrammar. This is the component which plans the rhetorical structure relations of the discourse, and so how best to present the relations between any two events. (For the key proposals for this component see Mann and Thompson 1987, and for a useful introductory discussion see Martin 1992.) Indeed, the choice that is realised in (1a), (2a) or (3a) must also be extended to include a realisation such as (4), so that for this reason too it is appropriate to handle it outside the lexicogrammar.¹⁸

(4) He left the room. Then they voted.

¹⁸ In fact, it is also at this stage in generation that the planner needs to consider choosing other conceptually equivalent choices realised in forms which M&M do not mention but which express the same basic temporal relationship of successivity between events, such as They voted after he left the room and After he left the room they voted.

Blogger Comments:

Reminder:

(1a) He left the room before they voted.

(2a) He left the room before the vote.

(3a) He left the room, then they voted.

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the distinction between (1a) and (3a) is the distinction between hypotaxis and parataxis at the rank of clause, and it modelled in the grammar by the system of clause complexing. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 438):

[2] To be clear, Fawcett does not locate this higher component anywhere in the architecture of his model (Figures 4 and 12):

[3] To be clear, Martin (1992: 251-64) misunderstands Rhetorical Structure Theory.  See, for example, the clarifying critiques here, here, and here.

[4] To be clear, in SFL Theory, these are all different grammatical manifestations of the enhancement category 'time: different':

• in (1a), it is realised logically through clause complexing: hypotaxis;
• in (2a) it is realised experientially through clause transitivity: circumstantiation;
• in (3a), it is realised logically through clause complexing: parataxis; and
• in (4), it is realised textually through cohesive conjunction.

[5] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the logico-semantic relation between the clauses in both of these hypotactic complexes is analysed as 'time: different: later', with the first complex ordered dominant^dependent (α^β), and the second ordered dependent^dominant (β^α). Note again that Fawcett frames this in terms of a model of text generation by computers, rather than a model of language spoken or written by humans.

Misrepresenting An Argument Against Parataxis As An Argument Against Hypotaxis

Fawcett (2010: 331):

In the second part of their case, M&M suggest a second analysis of Huddleston's example, i.e., as two co-ordinated clauses with ellipsis in the second, thus: He left before the debate or (he left) (at least) before the vote was taken. But again, I am afraid, I have to point out a problem. While their analysis appears at first to be another possible one, we need to take account of the fact that one can insert either to the left of before the debate, so that it becomes He left either before the debate or (at least) before the vote was taken. And this fact demonstrates clearly that the grammar must allow for the possibility of generating the prepositional group and the clause as jointly filling an Adjunct.

Thus M&M suggest that two possible analyses should be allowed (the first being Huddleston's and mine). They therefore do not address the question of which of the two is systemically preferable, and why. Moreover, Huddleston's criticism of IFG stands. In other words, he is right that Halliday's decision to treat all clauses embedded directly in clauses as 'hypotaxis' means that the Sydney Grammar cannot handle examples such as Huddleston's.

Finally, to demonstrate that Huddleston's example is not a 'special case', consider the following example with a simple 'additive' Linker: On average, people died earlier in those days, both from diseases such as diphtheria and because they worked such dreadfully long hours. Notice that here (as in Huddleston's example) the item both prevents the M&M analysis in terms of two co-ordinated clauses with ellipsis. The conclusion, then, must be that we should treat all such 'beta' clauses as embedded clauses. … Withe respect to the areas of the grammar described here, then, M&M fail to rebut Huddleston's critical comments. 

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this is an argument about parataxis, and as such, not relevant to the question of hypotaxis. Moreover, this being the case, it could be equally directed against Fawcett's model of co-ordination.

[2] This is misleading, because it is untrue. On the one hand, Huddleston's criticism does not stand, with regard to hypotaxis, because it is an argument about parataxis. On the other hand, SFL Theory (IFG, Halliday) does not treat all such "embedded" clauses as hypotaxis. By distinguishing between embedding (rankshift) and hypotaxis, SFL Theory provides such explanatory advantages as distinguishing between

• defining relative clauses (embedded) and non-defining relative clauses (dependent), and
• pre-projected facts (embedded) and reported projections (dependent).

The conclusion, then, is the distinction between rankshifted and dependent clauses has explanatory advantages over the lack of distinction.

How Huddleston Tackles The Problem

Fawcett (2010: 329, 329n):

Let us now look at how Huddleston tackles the problem (1988:145-6). He presents partially similar arguments for treating (1a) as being functionally like (2b). They are grammatical arguments, though they are not, of course, expressed in explicitly systemic terms. He cites 

(a) the 'thematisability' of the Time Position Adjunct in both (1a) and (2a); 

(b) the parallels as "focus of an interrogative" between Did he leave before they voted? and Did he leave before the vote? and 

(c) the fact that it is possible to co-ordinate a clause and a nominalised event, as in He left before the debate or (at least) before the vote was taken.¹⁷

¹⁷ It is not clear how Huddleston's second pair of examples is relevant. It surely cannot be the case that he believes that anything significant follows from the fact that a 'beta' clause may have a separate information unit (and so intonation unit). An example such as Did he leave, before they voted? is unusual but not unacceptable. But if Huddleston's example of the 'polarity seeker' type of "interrogative" was a slip and he actually intended to draw attention to the fact that When did he leave? is the "wh-interrogative" equivalent of both (1a) and (2a), then his point would clearly be relevant.

Blogger Comments:

Reminder:

(1a, i-iii) He left the room before / after / while they voted.

(2a, i-iii) He left the room before / after / during the vote.

(1b, i-iii) Before / after / while they voted, he left the room.

(2b, i-iii) Before / after / during the vote he left the room.

[1] To be clear, Huddleston's claim here is that the fact that a dependent clause can be thematised is evidence that it is embedded as a clause constituent. However, such thematisation is not universally available, but crucially dependent on the logico-semantic relation obtaining between the clauses. For example, thematisation of a dependent clause is not possible in the case of elaboration:

||| He doesn't always tell the truth || which undermines his credibility.|||

nor always possible in the case of enhancement:

||| These theories include the solar theory || whereby periodically the amount of nitrogen compounds is enhanced. |||

nor always possible in the case of projection:

||| Brutus thought || that Cæsar was ambitious |||

and, contrariwise, "thematisation" of a clause is possible for parataxis, in the case of projection:

||| "Well, I'm back" || he said. |||

[2] To be clear, as presented by Fawcett, Huddleston's point appears to be that the clause before they voted and the phrase before the vote both serve the same function in the clause because they both function as the "focus of an interrogative". 

However, though the term 'focus' is used in SFL Theory, this is not consistent with the SFL usage, since the information focus need not fall within the dependent clause or the prepositional phrase. So here Huddleston has merely used the interrogative agnate to repeat the same point he made for the declarative clause.

[3] To be clear, Huddleston's point here is irrelevant, because it is about parataxis, not about the question of hypotaxis vs embedding in (1a), (2a), (1b) and (2b).

[4] To be clear, the WH- interrogative When did he leave? is not criterial in deciding the question of hypotaxis vs embedding. Both (1a) and (2a) answer the question, the former with a dependent clause, the latter with a prepositional phrase. How the function of each is analysed depends on the theory being used.

Fawcett's Argument On Hypotaxis vs Embedding [6]

 Fawcett (2010: 328-9):

If we put this evidence together with that of my alternative analyses of the examples of Halliday's ten major categories for 'paratactic' and 'hypotactic' relations between clauses (as set out in Section 11.9 of Chapter 11), we have two separate pieces of evidence that the grammar should not in fact foreground the contrast between 'parataxis' vs. 'hypotaxis' as a system that is to be entered simultaneously with one for 'expansion' vs. 'projection', etc. 

The alternative is that each type of 'co-ordination' and each type of 'dependence' should be modelled in terms of the systemic choices that are available to it, so avoiding the ever present temptation to the grammarian, i.e., that of modifying the description to conform to the theory.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, as previously demonstrated, neither of these constitute evidence about the system of TAXIS (parataxis vs hypotaxis). The argument Fawcett has just made relies on misrepresenting expressions of systemic features as systemic features (see the preceding five posts), and his alternative analyses in Section 11.9 are merely presented rather than supported by argument; see:

• How The Cardiff Grammar Handles Hypotactic And Paratactic Projection
• How The Cardiff Grammar Handles Hypotactic Extension And Enhancement
• How The Cardiff Grammar Handles Hypotactic "Elaboration"
• How The Cardiff Grammar Handles Paratactic Expansion
• Summary Of How The Cardiff Grammar Handles Hypotaxis And Parataxis

[2] To be clear, this is precisely how the two types of interdependency — parataxis ("co-ordination") and hypotaxis ("dependence") — are modelled in SFL Theory, in conjunction with the systems of LOGICO-SEMANTIC TYPE and RECURSION. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 438):

[3] To be clear, it is not the description that is at risk of being modified so as to conform to theory, but the data that is described in terms of a theory. More importantly, Fawcett's insinuation here is that Halliday has succumbed to the temptation of intellectual dishonesty.

Fawcett's Argument On Hypotaxis vs Embedding [5]

 Fawcett (2010: 327, 328):

(1a, i-iii) He left the room before / after / while they voted.

(1b, i-iii) Before / after / while they voted, he left the room.

Thus the lexicogrammatical evidence begins to mount up that, on the one hand, (1a, i) belongs systemically with (1a, ii-iii), and that, on the other, it belongs with (1b, i). 

Moreover, these two pairs of systemic relationships can both be handled in a natural way in the lexicogrammar. (We know this because we have implemented this approach in the generative grammar in COMMUNAL.) 

On the other hand, the lexicogrammatical evidence is that a different range of choices is available for modelling co-ordination between clauses ('parataxis') from the range for modelling 'dependent' relations (whether these are viewed as 'hypotaxis' or embedding). 

The case for foregrounding the parallels between 'parataxis' and 'hypotaxis' in the system networks therefore looks rather less convincing than it may have at the start of this study of the data.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, on the one hand, Fawcett has provided no evidence that (1a,i) "belongs systemically with" (1a,ii-iii), and on the other hand, this is not in dispute, since these are agnates differing only in the relative time construed by the dependent clause (earlier vs later vs same).

[2] To be clear, on the one hand, Fawcett has provided no evidence that (1a,i) "belongs systemically with" (1b,i), and on the other hand, it is true that, in SFL Theory, it does — though not in the way that Fawcett means. In (1a, i) 'earlier' time is realised through the ideational clause rank system of CLAUSE COMPLEXING, whereas in (1b, i), 'earlier' time is realised through the related ideational clause rank system of CIRCUMSTANTIATION.

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

[4] We know this because we understand how "these two pairs of systemic relationships" are modelled by SFL Theory.

[5] This is misleading, because it is untrue. As previously demonstrated, the "range of systemic choices" for temporal enhancement is the same for parataxis and hypotaxis. The difference lies only in how agnate choices are realised.

[6] This is misleading, because it is not true, as demonstrated by this and four preceding posts.

Fawcett's Argument On Hypotaxis vs Embedding [4]

   Fawcett (2010: 327, 328):

(1a, i-iii) He left the room before / after / while they voted.

(2a, i-iii) He left the room before / after / during the vote.

(1b, i-iii) Before / after / while they voted, he left the room.

(2b, i-iii) Before / after / during the vote he left the room.

One the other hand, the grammar should — and can — capture the fact that we can thematise both before they voted and before the vote, as in (1b, i) and (2b, i) — a possibility which suggests that the same element (which we may term a Time Position Adjunct) is involved in both (1a, i-iii) and (2a, i-iii). And equivalent variants can be generated, of course, for (1b, ii-iii) as in (2b, ii-iii), if the option to thematise the Time Position Adjunct is exercised.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, SFL Theory does "capture the fact" that both can be thematised.

Cf. Halliday (1994: 57):

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the suggestion is that 'time' is realised through clause complexing in (1a) and (1b) and through a Location circumstance in (2a) and (2b).

See Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 671) for the range of grammatical environments in which 'time' can be realised.

Fawcett's Argument On Hypotaxis vs Embedding [3]

   Fawcett (2010: 327-8):

(3b, i-n) He left the room, but earlier (on) / first/ before that / before his departure / etc. they (had) voted. 

(3c, i-n) He left the room and in that period / during that time / during his absence / etc. they voted. 

(3a, v-n) He left the room, and later (on) / afterwards / after that / after his departure / etc. they voted.

It is always possible, of course, to express a roughly equivalent meaning by a combination of the Linker and and an Adjunct such as afterwards or during that time, etc., these Adjuncts being shown by underlining in (3b,i-n) and (3c, i-n). 

But this is a very different matter, in terms of the systemic choices that are available, as these examples show — because the introduction of the Adjunct opens up a very much larger range of possibilities than is available within the Linker. (Indeed, the use of "n" in the numbering of the examples symbolises the open-endedness of the available options.) 

Moreover, a similar range of options to those shown in (3b, i-n) and (3c, i-n) is also available to express the concept of 'subsequent time', as (3a, i-n) demonstrates. Thus the system of choices within 'paratactic' relations is significantly different from that when the relationship is one of 'dependence' (whether this is interpreted as 'hypotaxis' or as embedding). 

The lists of examples given in each of Tables (7(6) and 7(7) on pages 216 and 217 of IFG in fact illustrate precisely this difference. (These tables cover not just temporal relations but the full range of types of embedded clause that express a Circumstance, and in so doing they provide further evidence for the position taken here.) Halliday must therefore be aware that the parallels are limited.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, from the perspective of SFL Theory, it is only the conjunctive Adjuncts in Fawcett's data that mark temporal relations between the clauses in these paratactic complexes. These are:

• earlier (on)
• first
• before that
• later (on)
• afterwards
• after that

The circumstantial Adjuncts in Fawcett's data, on the other hand, do not mark temporal relations between the clauses in these paratactic complexes. Instead, they realise time as a circumstance of the Process of the clause in which they figure. These are:

• before his departure
• in that period
• during that time
• during his absence
• after his departure

[2] This is misleading because, in the case of conjunctive Adjuncts, this is not a "very different matter in terms of the systemic choices that are available", because, in terms of relating two clauses in a paratactic complex, the "introduction of the [conjunctive] Adjunct" does not "open up a very much larger range of possibilities than is available within the Linker [structure marker]". In such cases, the systemic choices are restricted to 'parataxis' and 'expansion: enhancing: temporal', varying for 'same' or 'different: earlier' or 'different: later'. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 438):

Here Fawcett has simply confused expressions of systemic choices ("the lists of examples") with the systemic choices that they express.

Fawcett's Argument On Hypotaxis vs Embedding [2]

  Fawcett (2010: 327):

(1a, i-iii) He left the room before / after / while they voted.

(3a, i-v) He left the room, then / (,) and then / (,) and they voted.

(3b, i-n) He left the room, but earlier (on) / first/ before that / before his departure / etc. they (had) voted. 

(3c, i-n) He left the room and in that period / during that time / during his absence / etc. they voted. 

(3a, v-n) He left the room, and later (on) / afterwards / after that / after his departure / etc. they voted.

Thus, if we wish to express the meaning of 'subsequent time' in a 'paratactic' structure (i.e., by co-ordination) we can use the grammatical items then or and then as the Linker, such that these correspond in meaning to the Binder after, as used in (1a, i), but if we wish to express the meaning of 'antecedent time', there is no co-ordinating Linker that corresponds to the Binder before. And neither is there a Linker that expresses 'simultaneous time' and that therefore corresponds to the Binder while.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, here Fawcett is arguing against hypotaxis/parataxis agnation on the basis of form —  subclasses of conjunction: linker and binder — rather than function. That is, contrā SFL Theory, Fawcett is arguing 'from below', rather than 'from above'. 

In a functional theory of language, the question of agnation turns on similarity and difference of meaning, not on similarity and difference in how those meaning distinctions are expressed (e.g. structure marker or conjunctive Adjunct). In the paratactic complexes, below, a structure marker (but, and, and) realises the interdependency relation of parataxis, and a conjunctive Adjunct (before that, after that, meanwhile) realises the enhancement relation of relative time. 

But see later posts for further clarifications.

Fawcett's Argument On Hypotaxis vs Embedding [1]

 Fawcett (2010: 327):

(1a, i-iii) He left the room before / after / while they voted.

(3a, i-v) He left the room, then / (,) and then / (,) and they voted.

Firstly, I suggest that all linguists would agree that (la, i) — which was earlier labelled simply (la) — has a close systemic relationship with (la, ii-iii). Notice, though, that one result of recognising this rather obvious fact is to show us that the parallel between (la) and (3a) is less close than one might otherwise assume. 

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, this is the beginning of Fawcett's argument which seeks to show that dependent clauses are better analysed as embedded clauses than as ranking clauses in hypotactic clause complexes. To this end, he aims to show that dependent clauses are more closely related to prepositional phrases serving as clause Adjuncts than they are to ranking clauses in paratactic clause complexes. His method will be to compare expressions of time across the different grammatical domains. 

However, Fawcett misleads by beginning with a false correspondence. While (1a) features expressions of 'earlier' vs 'later' vs 'same' time, (3a) features only expressions of 'later' time.

That is, Fawcett begins his argument that dependent clauses do not parallel their paratactic counterparts by choosing examples that are not parallel, instead of those that are, such as:

But see later posts for further clarifications.

Inconsistencies In The Data Used For Fawcett's Argument

Fawcett (2010: 327):

Here is a set of examples, all of which are potential text-sentences (though these too have been adapted from the original example in order to create 'minimal pairs'). I suggest that they provide a useful basic set of data for exploring this area of the grammar.

(1a, i-iii) He left the room before / after / while they voted.

(2a, i-iii) He left the room before / after / during the vote.

(1b, i-iii) Before / after / while they voted, he left the room.

(2b, i-iii) Before / after / during the vote he left the room.

(3a, i-v) He left the room, then / (,) and then / (,) and they voted.

(3b, i-n) He left the room, but earlier (on) / first/ before that / before his departure / etc. they (had) voted. 

(3c, i-n) He left the room and in that period / during that time / during his absence / etc. they voted. 

(3a, v-n) He left the room, and later (on) / afterwards / after that / after his departure / etc. they voted.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Fawcett is arguing the question of hypotaxis vs embedding on the basis of how temporal distinctions are realised in the grammar. However, his argument is unnecessarily complicated by inconsistencies in the organisation of the data in terms of temporal features:

[2] To be clear, (3biv) is inconsistent with the other members of this set, since it construes a concessive relation rather than a temporal relation.

This is because before his departure functions as a circumstantial Adjunct, whereas the others — earlier (on), first, before that — function as conjunctive Adjuncts that realise the temporal relation.

So, in the case of the clause with the circumstantial Adjunct, the expansion relation is expressed only through but, which in this instance, signifies a concessive causal relation; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 478).

[3] To be clear, all the members of (3c) include circumstantial Adjuncts — in that period, during that time, during his absence — and the expansion relation is expressed only through and, which in these instances, signifies positive additive extension; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 471).

[4] To be clear, (3aviii) is inconsistent with the other members of this set, since it construes positive additive extension rather than temporal enhancement.

Again, this is because after his departure functions as a circumstantial Adjunct, whereas the others — later (on), afterwards, after that — function as conjunctive Adjuncts that realise the temporal relation.

So, in the case of the clause with the circumstantial Adjunct, the expansion relation is expressed only through and, which in this instance, signifies positive additive extension; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 471).

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.

Fudging The Data

 Fawcett (2010: 326):

(I have slightly altered the wording of Huddleston's examples to create 'minimal pairs' that make the relevant contrasts fully explicit.)

(1a) He left the room before they voted. 

(2a) He left the room before the vote. 

(3a) He left the room, then they voted.

Huddleston's grammatical analysis of (la) — which is broadly similar to mine — is to treat it as a single clause in which the embedded clause before they voted functions as an Adjunct that identifies the 'time position' of the event of 'leaving' by relating it to an event that is already known to the addressee (the 'voting' event), in the same way that before the vote does in (2a). Indeed, Halliday and M&M would agree with Huddleston and me that, when the event of 'voting' is nominalised as in (2a), it serves this function and is therefore an Adjunct. So why, we might ask, do they not also treat before they voted in (la) as an Adjunct? Essentially, their approach is to interpret (la) as a relating of two events (rather than as a 'main' event that is located in time by relating it to another event) — and to claim that this 'relating' can be achieved either 'paratactically', as in (3a), or 'hypotactically' as in the second interpretation of (la).

Blogger Comments:

In SFL Theory, the three instances are analysed as follows:

[1] This is misleading, on two counts. On the one hand, Fawcett's slight alteration of the data does not create 'minimal pairs', and on the other hand, it does not make the relevant contrasts fully explicit. Instead, the contrast it makes explicit is one of time: 'earlier' ((1a) and (1b)) vs 'later' (1c), which is the irrelevant to the distinction between hypotaxis and embedding.

[2] To be clear, this is bare assertion unsupported by reasoned argument.

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

Agreeing With Huddleston's Conclusion

Fawcett (2010: 324):

There is much in Huddleston's review, therefore, with which I disagree. However, it will be clear that I share his conclusion that most of the uses to which 'hypotaxis' has been put by Halliday are better handled by a simple embedding relationship (but one by co-ordination; see Section 11.9 of Chapter 11). And I also share his view (though for a set of reasons that only partly overlap with his) that "the constraints this [i.e., the requirement of 'accountability at all ranks'] imposes on the grammar have numerous unsatisfactory consequences" (Huddleston 1988:141). Indeed, I would also agree with his statement (though again for reasons that only partly overlap with his) that

the unsatisfactory nature of the constituent structures given in [IFG] derives in very large measure from their foundation in rank theory. (Huddleston 1988:155)

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, agreeing with someone's conclusion is not reasoned argument. Fawcett has still not provided Huddleston's actual argument, and it is clear from previous posts that Fawcett does not understand hypotaxis, especially with regard to how unit complexes relate to the rank scale.

The rhetorical purpose of providing Huddleston's conclusion before providing his argument is to prime the reader to prejudge the argument through prior alignment with the conclusion.

Misrepresenting Halliday (1965) On Hypotaxis

Fawcett (2010: 321):

Finally, we should note that the position taken by Halliday himself on this issue is exploratory rather than dogmatic. He writes that "hypotaxis is in some ways intermediate between parataxis and [...] rankshift; in fact all hypotaxis could be regarded as rankshift" (1965/81:40). And over twenty years later (IFG p. 216) he introduces this aspect of his model with hedging expressions such as "the tendency is [...]", "we shall assume [...]", "we shall interpret [...]".

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Halliday takes a scientific approach by proposing hypotheses and then providing arguments to demonstrate why and how such hypotheses are valuable.

[2] This is deliberately misleading through selective omission — the logical fallacy known as contextonomy.  What Halliday (1981 [1965]) actually wrote in this pre-Systemic paper was the following: 

Hypotaxis is in some ways intermediate between parataxis and multivariate structure involving rankshift; in fact all hypotaxis could be regarded as rankshift, although this would result in very different bracketing of constituents and would obscure the important respects in which hypotaxis differs from rankshift and resembles parataxis. We may summarise the types of structure dealt with as follows:

Fawcett's Argument Against Expansion And Projection

Fawcett (2010: 321n):

¹² Many of those who accept Halliday's approach to 'paratactic' and 'hypotactic' relations in structure would claim that the categorisations of relations between clauses (and other units) into 'projection' and 'expansion' (and then of the latter into 'elaboration', 'extension' and 'enhancement') are independently self-justifying. But there are in fact different ways of analysing all of these phenomena that many others, including myself, consider to be more insightful. See Section 11.9 of Chapter 11 and Fawcett (1996) and (in press) for examples of these.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because no-one who understands Halliday's model — including its epistemological assumptions — would claim that the logico-semantic relations of expansion and projection are "independently self-justifying". To be clear, the theoretical value of these distinctions lies in their explanatory potential, which is substantial. As Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 127) point out:

expansion and projection are trans-phenomenal categories in the sense that they are manifested over the system as a whole — not merely in different logical environments across ranks but also experientially.

For example, expansion and projection are manifested in relational processes:

• elaboration as intensive,
• extension as possessive, and
• enhancement and projection as circumstantial.

Similarly, expansion and projection are manifested in circumstances:

• elaboration as Role,
• extension as Accompaniment,
• enhancement as Extent, Location, Manner, Cause, Contingency, and
• projection as Matter, Angle.

Moreover, expansion is manifested in the textual systems of cohesive conjunction and lexical cohesion. In the case of the latter:

• elaboration is manifested as repetition, synonymy, hyponymy,
• extension is manifested as meronymy, and
• enhancement is manifested as collocation (in many cases).

See also Table 10-3 in Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 670-2).

[2] To be clear, this is a bare assertion unsupported by argument.

[3] To be clear, Section 11.9, How embedding and co-ordination can replace 'hypotaxis' and 'parataxis', clearly has considerably less explanatory potential than the logico-semantic relations of expansion and projection (see [1]). Moreover, clarifications and critiques of the section can again be viewed here:

• How The Cardiff Grammar Handles Hypotactic And Paratactic Projection
• How The Cardiff Grammar Handles Hypotactic Extension And Enhancement
• How The Cardiff Grammar Handles Hypotactic "Elaboration"
• How The Cardiff Grammar Handles Paratactic Expansion
• Summary Of How The Cardiff Grammar Handles Hypotaxis And Parataxis

[4] To be clear, Fawcett (in press) is still unpublished 21 tears after the first edition of this volume.

The Case Of The Missing Unit Complexes

Fawcett (2010: 320, 320n):

Is there any reason why Halliday should not include in his representations the 'unit-complexes' that the description implies? The reason why he does not address this question is, I would guess, that the additions to the 'rank scale' that such structures imply would threaten its viability because of the unacceptable quantity of 'singulary branching' that the maintenance of the principle of 'accountability at all ranks' would introduce. They are therefore unwelcome in Halliday's theory, both as 'units on the rank scale' and as the representation of such units on paper.¹⁰

¹⁰ A possible alternative answer might in principle be that, while this would suit 'hypotactic' structures quite well, it would not suit 'paratactic' structures, because co-ordination does not involve a 'modifier-head' relationship (as is recognised in all theories). However, given Halliday's view of the centrality of the 'rank scale' in the theory, it seems more likely that the reason suggested in the main text is the right one.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue. In all his representations Halliday does include the unit complexes that the description makes explicit ("implies"). For example, in the following representation (Halliday 1994: 216), the unit complex that is "included" is the clause complex:

[2] To be clear, one possible reason why Halliday does not address this question is that, because he writes at a level to be comprehensible to an intelligent 12-year-old, he would be justified in assuming that, for most readers, the question would not arise.