The Thought Occurs

Sunday, 17 April 2011

Qualities Of Projection Vs Qualities Of Expansion

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 209-10):
Qualities of projection are agnate with processes in figures of sensing; … In contrast qualities of expansion display patterns of agnation within being & having … This fundamental difference explains other differences; for example, qualities of projection tend to occur in agnate pairs of the ‘like’ and ‘please’ type that we find with figures of sensing … whereas qualities of expansion do not.

Friday, 15 April 2011

Compact Vs Dispersed Grammatical Realisation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 593):
The grammatical realisation of FIGURATION is ‘compact’, being confined to the TRANSITIVITY system of the clause. In contrast, the grammatical realisation of EXPANSION is ‘dispersed’, ranging over more than one grammatical unit. (… compactly realised systems such as configuration [sic] may become dispersed in their realisation through the process of grammatical metaphor.)

Thursday, 14 April 2011

Transgrammatical Semantic Domains

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 592):
… there are semantic domains that range over more than a single grammatical unit. Thus the semantic domain of modality is construed in more than one place in the grammar; for example, it is construed by clauses such as I suppose and it is possible, by verbal groups with finite modal operators such as may and by adverbial groups and modal adverbs such as perhaps. These modal patterns within different grammatical units are not interchangeable/synonyms; they have distinct values within the overall semantic system of modality. … This means that the semantic system of modality is more extensive than the modal features of any one given grammatical unit would suggest; it is realised not by a single grammatical unit but by a range of units: semantic unit a ➘ grammatical units m, n and o.

Wednesday, 13 April 2011

Grammatical Metaphor: Additive Not Replacive

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 263):
In metaphor … the phenomenon is reconstrued as another category; what is being exploited is the potential that arises — but only after the categories have first been construed as distinct; not otherwise — of treating every phenomenon in more ways than one. In this process the original interpretation is not supplanted; it is combined with the new one into a more complex whole.

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 283):
… we have shown that the metaphorical version is not simply a meaningless (ie synonymous) variant of some congruent form; it is ‘junctional’ — that is, it embodies semantic features deriving from its own lexicogrammatical properties.

Sunday, 10 April 2011

The Conflation Of Axis And Stratification In Protolanguage

In protolanguage,
system conflated with content 
is realised by 
structure conflated with expression.

(1) two levels of abstraction: system/content and structure/expression
(2) two axes: (paradigmatic) system and (syntagmatic) structure
(3) two strata: content and expression

Wednesday, 6 April 2011

Abstract Location Vs Other Circumstances

Diagnostic: WH– Probe

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 266-7):
Abstract space is the source of various expressions that serve as realisations of other types of circumstance such as Manner … Rôle … It can be difficult to determine whether such an expression serves as an abstract Location or as a circumstance of another type. But probes involving Wh– items usually help us draw the line. For example, using the spatial where