Lexicogrammar in discourse development

1

Lexicogrammar in discourse development: logogenetic patterns of wording Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen Department of Linguistics, Macquarie University, vi/2001

Published as: Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2002. “Lexicogrammar in discourse development: logogenetic patterns of wording.” In Guowen Huang & Zongyan Wang (eds.) Discourse and Language Functions. Shanghai: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. pp. 2-25.

1 Introduction Text is, in the first instance, a flow of meaning. Consider the following passage: Text 1-1: Extract from hailstorm story [UTS/ Macquarie Corpus] Penny: you’re speaking of being tortured. What happened to all ... you had a bit of hail storm damage didn’t you? Clive:

Oh God yes.

Penny:

Your house was absolutely decimated wasn’t it.

Clive:

A bit? ... A bit?

Hermine: Oh yeah. It’s so. Clive:

Car and house. [inaudible word]

Penny: I mean I only heard a little bit about it from Di. So what what actually happened? Clive: Yeah. Ah. ... Well I mean the the strange thing about it was that when it started at about eight o’clock at night ... um we were sitting watching the tv and suddenly I thought ... God there’s a bloody riot going on in the street someone’s ch, throwing bottles around you know. Hermine: Mm. That’s what it sounded like. Penny:

Yeah?

2

Clive: And um ... Paul opens the door ... and this ... ice-block I kid you not shoots horizon[laughs]tally through the door ...right into the {Hermine:Oh I hadn’t heard that.} kitchen. And it’s a long ... sort of yeah. ... You know that you Penny:

Oh big little ... how big was it?

Hermine: You mean you didn’t know ... yes. Clive:

those ... length of our house.

Hermine: You’re saying you still didn’t know what was happening? Clive:

No.

Hermine: You didn’t even know. Clive: I mean ... opened the door thinking that there was a riot going on with people throwing bottles or tiles or or bricks. Hermine: Did sound like that didn’t it. It was just so loud. Di:

Yeah yeah yeah.

Clive: And then opened the door and the first thing I realized was that that this ice-block shoots horizontally through the door, and we thought “oh my God”; and then all hell breaks loose. We go outside and everyone’s outside by the this stage but really dangerous because tiles were actually ... you know cascading off {Penny: Mm. God yeah. ... Mm.} the roof and you know car bang bang bang cars going off. Di:

Was everybody in the street?

Clive: Yeah. But then it got too bad so everyone had to rush in because it was dangerous. I mean it literally was ... not just the ice-blocks but the the tiles coming off. Here we are “tuning” into a casual conversation among good friends and colleagues exchanging stories about a freak hailstorm that took place in Sydney in 1998. Clive is starting his recounting what happened. His contribution is a flow of past personal experience, organized as a sequence of one event following another in time (as in his last two turns: and then … the first thing … and then … but then). So one kind of flow of meaning is the flow of personal experience. To the people taking part in the text — the interactants, this flow of meaning is constructed in real time. They develop it locally, using the resources of language to organize the flow. To the observer, this flow of meaning can be observed in real time, as a process. This is what I did when this conversation was recorded in one of the SHLRC sound studios in the Department of Linguistics at Macquarie University. The interactants were seated around a table inside the studio, and the sound technician and I were outside observing them through a sound-proof glass wall. I was able to track the conversation at various levels. For example, I watched the volume changing on the digital tape recorder, thus seeing an aspect of the conversation as sound; and I was able to do some fragmentary real-time analysis of the content. But analysis of text takes time — a great deal of time, so it is necessary to be able to slow down and freeze the flow of meaning: we have to be able to observe it not only as process (in

3

real time or in slow motion), but also as product. When the hour-long conversation among Clive, Di, Hermine and Penny had been transcribed, it became possible to view it as a product. The view of text as product is, of course, the familiar one to linguists and other observers of text. This is how text was viewed traditionally, in the form of written products (although all folk theories of language evolved originally in entirely oral cultures, focussing exclusively on spoken text). And the account of text — and also of the linguistic system behind it — was an account of products. Here time is “frozen”; we have a synoptic view of the flow of meaning. One consequence of this view is that techniques for dealing with the product are developed and given prominence in research. Chief among them is constituency analysis, applied to a text as a whole (as with the schematic or generic structure of a text) or to smaller segments (as with grammatical constituency analysis1). The synoptic view reveals one aspect of text; and it is one that we experience naturally as writers and readers when we edit written text and often also when we read it “synoptically”. But even written text is experienced as a flow unfolding in real time, in the process of writing and reading; and this is our main experience of spoken text, and also of signed text (cf. Johnston, 1992). As analysts, how can we develop the appropriate tools for interpreting and representing the flow of meaning — for modelling text as process, complementing the product model? Broadly, there are two complementary strategies. (1) On the one hand, we have to reinterpret traditional models such as the constituency model in terms that take account of process as well as product. Thus in his foundational paper on the theory of grammar, Halliday (1961) emphasized that structure should be modelled as “patterned activity”: Language is patterned activity. At the formal level, the patterns are patterns of meaningful organization: certain regularities are exhibited over certain stretches of language activity. (p. 56) The category set up to account for the stretches that carry grammatical patterns is the ‘unit’. (p. 57) The unit being the category of pattern-carrier, what is the nature of the patterns it carries? In terms once again of language as activity, and therefore in linear progression, the patterns take the form of repetition of like events. Likeness, at whatever degree of abstraction, is of course a cline, ranging from ‘having everything in common’ to ‘having nothing in common’. ... In grammar the category set up to account for likeness between events in successivity is the ‘structure’. If the relation between events in successivity is ‘syntagmatic’, the structure is the highest abstraction of patterns of syntagmatic relations. (p. 59)

All structure is to be interpreted as patterned activity; we should see it in terms of “likeness between events in successivity” and we should not re-ify it by representing it as some kind constructional form imposed on words. One result of this line of investigation was the development of models of modes of structure oriented towards “patterned activity” — the notion of interdependency structure (univariate structure), the notion of prosodic structure, and the notion of wave-like structure, each being

1

The extent to which the constituency view of language has dominated emerges clearly when it is contrasted with other ways of interpreting linguistic structure — dependency approaches from L. Tesnière onwards (but with medieval precursors), and approaches based on the systemic theory of different modes of meaning being realized by different modes of structure (see below). In addition, the constituency view tends to foreground syntagmatic organization at the expense of paradigmatic organization — as represented by the system network of systemic functional theory (cf. Butt & Matthiessen, forthc.).

4

engendered by a different metafunctional aspect of the flow of meaning (Halliday, 1965, 1979; Matthiessen, 1988; Martin, 1996). Here I will focus on interdependency structure. It can be illustrated from Clive’s recount in the conversational passage above. The following is one clause complex: 1

And then [I] opened the door

x2

1 +2

x3

and the first thing I realized was that that this ice-block shoots horizontally through the door, 1

and we thought

“2

“oh my God”; and then all hell breaks loose.

Figure 1-1: The interdependency structure of clause complexing It is developed through interdependency relations such as ‘and then’ linking clauses, one step at a time.2 Clive could have stopped after the first clause, and he could have continued after the last clause (and then all hell breaks loose); the structure of clause complexing is dynamic and open-ended precisely because it is formed out of interdependency relations that operate locally. And the same principle applies to the semantic development of the recount. It is formed out of a series of rhetorical (conjunctive) relations that link one passage of text to the next. (2) On the other hand, we have to develop ways of modelling the process of creating meaning as a text unfolds. This process is known as logogenesis (Halliday & Matthiessen, 1999: 18). For any given text we analyse, the process can be reconstructed out of an analysis of the product by showing how successive selections within the linguistic system form patterns. Each selection instantiates the meaning potential that lies behind the text. This can be illustrated by reference to the clause complex analysed structurally in Figure 1-1 immediately above. In Figure 1-2, the successive selections that are made in the formation of this clause complex are set out as a text score (see e,g, Matthiessen, 1995: 824-5; cf. Weinreich’s, 1972, notion of Textpartitur). Each link in the complex is characterized a selection within the systems of TAXIS and LOGICO-SEMANTIC TYPE. The selection within the system of SYSTEMIC RECURSION determines whether the complex will be developed further or not. Such a text score can be drawn up for any number of systems, over any passage of text, including a complete text. It represents the selections that are “played” as the text unfolds, just as with the notes in a musical score. As we shall see later, when we explore longer passages that have been scored in this way, we can identify logenetic patterns extending over the different phases of a text (cf. Michael Gregory’s phasal analysis, as proposed and developed in the 1980s). The passage in Figure 1-2 is very short; but even here we can see that ‘parataxis’ is selected consistently as the complex unfolds and that ‘enhancing’ and ‘extending’ provide the main method of development within the complex.

2

The description of the system of “CLAUSE COMPLEXING” is summarized in the Appendix.

5

and then all hell breaks loose. and we thought and the first thing I realized was...

systemic potential

And then [I] opened the door

text instance

"oh my God"

Figure 1-2: Selections instantiating system of CLAUSE COMPLEXING The interpretation of a text as a process of ongoing selections within the systemic potential is well-established in systemic functional theory. It was emphasized in Halliday (1977, represented in abridged from as Chapter 7 of Halliday, 1978). However, it was only in the 1990s that this perspective began to be foregrounded in

6

the systemic analysis of texts. My own thinking had been influenced by our work on computational text generation in the 1980s, where it had been necessary to model the process of instantiation explicitly as a systemic selection algorithm (see Matthiessen & Bateman, 1991). I applied the logogenetic perspective to texts analysis in a paper presented at the second Chinese Conference on Discourse Analysis, held at Hangzhou University in 1993 (see Matthiessen, 1993). In this paper, I will develop the discussion of how the logogenetic perspective can be applied in text analysis. I will focus on logogenetic patterns that emerge at the level of lexicogrammar and then discuss semantic implications towards the end of the paper. I will continue to deal with the systems of clause complexing, drawing mainly on spoken English.

2 Logogenesis and clause complexing (1) Having illustrated the general principles by reference to the short passage of casual conversation in Text 1-1 above, I will now introduce another example of casual conversation. It is the kind of conversation that takes place among work mates during a coffee break at a work place. The interactants are 8 men (not all of whom are there during the whole conversation), ranging in age from mid 20s to mid 50s. The basic contextual features are set out in Table 2-1. The conversation lasts 13 minutes and clocks up 204 clauses (857 words) or around 16 clauses (65 words) per minute. Some basic grammatical features are set out in Table 2-2. Table 2-1: Context of “Men 2” [UTS/ Macquarie Corpus3] Time:

2/9/1983: Coffee Break 10.10 am

Setting:

The tea room of a large motor vehicle factory in Australia. There are variously seven men in the room. along with the female interviewer who has a long talk with one of the men about the study she is conducting. The conversation is mainly light hearted and strays often.

Interactants:

3

All Men: Group 2: Factory Supervisors

Female, mid 20s, Australian, conducting the taping session



Male employee, mid to late 40s, Italio-Australian with thick accent



Male employee, mid to late 50s, Anglo Australian



Male employee, mid to late 30s, Italio-Australian with thick accent



Male employee, mid to late 20s, Anglo-Australian. Says very little.



Male employee, late 20s to early 30s, Anglo-Australian



Male employee, mid to late 40s, Anglo-Australian

The text comes from a part of the corpus contributed by Di Slade, one of the originators of the UTS/ Macquarie Corpus.

7



Male employee, mid to late 30s, Scottish-Australian with thick accent. Comes in at end of tape and says very little.

Table 2-2: Grammatical features of “Men 2” Duration Units

“Density”

13 minutes clause: complexes

150 complexes

clause: simple

204 clauses

words:

857 words

clause / complex

1.4 clauses

words / clause:

4.2 words

words / minute:

65 words

An extract from the beginning of the conversation is given above as Text 2-1. Although many casual conversations start out in a similar way, with the interactants bantering and fishing about for something that will take off, this conversation continues essentially in the same manner. There is frequent turn taking, with short turns; and the interactants move from one area of experience to another without any sustained development of any one concern. We can see this very clearly by examining the way in which the conversation unfolds grammatically in the construction of sequences of events by means of clause complexes. Figure 2-1 shows how the whole 13-minute conversation develops through clause complexes of different degrees of intricacy. The x-axis represents the number of selections of the terms ‘go on’ in the system of SYSTEMIC RECURSION (see Figure 8-1 in the Appendix), and the y-axis represents the logogentic time frame of the text. As the conversation unfolds, there is a succession of troughs and peaks of complexity; but the conversation never reaches great complexity. Many complexes are in fact simple clauses and the most intricate, or complex, clause complex combines only 4 clauses, which is quite a low number for casual conversation (see e.g. Halliday, 1985; Matthiessen, in press). The lack of complexity reflects the fact that the conversation never takes off to expand any one given event into an extended episode. Text 2-1: Extract from “Men 2” A:

Hello.

C:

Hello Luigi.

K:

Good morning.

A:

How are you?

C:

You've done it again, I told you not to bloody do it [= you bloody wog.

E:

]= What was it?

C:

What have you got here to eat, [=Papa?

8

E:

]= What was it?

C:

Ashtray upsets him.

A:

Oh you don't like smoking?

C:

He hates [= smoking.

K:

]= Filthy habit.

J:

No, he smokes.

A:

What is that?

K:

Mmm, Hungarian Pastry.

C:

I don't think so.

K:

What do you mean you really don't think so?

C:

No I don't think so.

K:

What have we got to read mate?

C:

Nothing to read? Well, what do you , why do want to read?

A:

What's the date today?

J:

Today is the second of the ninth.

A:

Thank you.

J:

And don't make such a noise. [pause: 5 seconds]

C:

It wouldn't matter to him really, he's half deaf [= after all these years [=working at this place.

A

[= Yeah

K

[= Yeah

J:

Yep its true.

E:

You're right, very deaf.

C:

And how are you Johnny boy? What you got creamy stuff again?

J:

Creamy, [= oh ha.

C:

[= Ah, no, Jesus you're gonna get fat.

J:

You cannot do without cream mate.

C:

I agree with that.

J:

Who cares if I get fat?

F:

I do.

C:

I would.

9

K:

No I wouldn't, my brother ...[=

C:

]= He's never going to get fat.

J:

I've been eating like this for the last ten years [= and nothing happens.

Figure 2-1: Unfolding of clause complexes in Men #2 — variation in systemic recursion

10

Figure 2-2: Example of hypotactic clause complex in Men # 2

11

Figure 2-3: Example of paratactic clause complex in Men # 2 In Figure 2-1 we can trace the process of the text unfolding by reference to the system of SYSTEMIC RECURSION. We can also, of course, view the text synoptically as a finished product by investigating the accumulations of selections by the end of the text.4 This is shown in Figure 2-4 for the systems of TAXIS and LOGICO-SEMANTIC TYPE. Here the favoured and disfavoured patterns of instantiation in Men # 2 are revealed: the dominant type of relation is that of paratactic elaboration. An example of such a complex is given in Figure 2-3. What this suggests is that the conversation is concerned with restating, clarifying, commenting and the like — elaborating the content rather than extending or enhancing it.

4

The accumulation of selections within the system can, of course, be sampled as the text unfolds; the patterns of favoured and disfavoured terms in the system emerge gradually in the course of unfolding.

12

Figure 2-4: CLAUSE COMPLEXING in Men #2 The picture we get from the clause complex analysis suggests that the conversation never takes off to explore any one particular area. And this is precisely what we find when we investigate the way in which the interactants develop the conversation move by move. We find short micro-phases where they deal with some particular issue, and then they move on to some other issue. The connection is often derived from their shared material setting: the interactants comment on somebody’s smoking, on somebody’s food, on somebody’s eating habits, and so on. Let us consider one example, from the beginning of the conversation: see Figure 2-5. Here C initiates an exchange of meaning by giving information —Ashtray upsets him; this is very likely offered as an explanation of something that has just happened in the interaction. A responds to this by using one of the normal strategies: he demands more information5 — Oh, you don’t like smoking? This is addressed not to C, but to the person who must have objected to the ashtray. The connection between C’s move and A’s response is constructed (i) interpersonally, through the pattern of exchange (initiating statement — responding question); and (ii) textually, through a cohesive link of restating elaboration between ashtray upsets him and you don’t like smoking. One aspect of this elaboration is lexical — the link between ashtray and

5

Alternatively, Oh you don’t like smoking? can be interpreted as a consultative statement. In other words, A infers this information from what C has just said and then proceeds to check that his inference is valid.

13

smoke; the other aspect is grammatical — the link between ‘emotive mental’ clauses of the “please” type (x please y) and ‘emotive mental’ clauses of the “like” type (y like x). The person addressed by A does not respond — nobody says I don’t like smoking or the like; instead C responds by giving the information demanded by A — He hates smoking. Again there are two connections here; the development of the conversation is constructed (i) interpersonally, through the pattern of exchange (question — response statement) and (ii) textually, through a cohesive link of restating elaboration between you don’t like smoking? and he hates smoking. One aspect of the elaboration is again lexical — the relation of repetition between smoking and smoking and the scaling up from don’t like to hate within the field of emotion; and the other aspect is grammatical — two ‘emotive mental’ clauses of the “like” type. K then seizes the opportunity that has been opened up by A’s and C’s exploration of the field of smoking and initiates a new exchange by offering an opinion — the negatively appraised6 statement Filthy habit. Interpersonally, this is a new exchange and it could have been developed further if someone had responded to it, for example by challenging it (No, it isn’t! or the like); strong opinions serve as conversational fuel. Textually, this statement is an elaboration; it elaborates on smoking, not by restating it but by classifying it: K locates smoking in a taxonomy, classifying it ideationally as a habit and appraising it interpersonally as filthy.

Figure 2-5: Micro-phase in Men # 2 — exchanges and rhetorical relations

6

For work on appraisal initiated by Jim Martin, see e.g. Martin (1998), Eggins & Slade (1997).

14

As we noted, K’s negatively appraised statement — Filthy habit — is not taken up by any of the other interactants. Instead, J makes a contribution that is a bit hard to link to what has gone before — No, he smokes. J indicates a switch in polarity with no; but it is not clear whether he is reacting to He hates smoking or not. As outside observers, we can’t tell because A then steers the conversation in a new direction by demanding information about an item of food — What is that? This new development is shown in Figure 2-6. As this diagram shows, the conversation continues according to the same pattern: the interactants move from one short sequence of exchanges to another, pursuing one exchange for a while and then opening up another. The conversational journey is not planned in advance; it is developed locally, one leg at a time. It is managed locally, in the way described by Eggins (1990) and Eggins & Slade (1997: Ch. 4). This property of spontaneous talk is characterized by Ford & Thompson (1996: 134) as follows: In the past two decades, conversation analysts have uncovered patterns and principles of interaction, particularly in the areas of turn-taking and the sequential organization of talk. The picture of spontaneous interaction that emerges very clearly from this research depicts a complex and intricately monitored human practice that is maximally sensitive to moment-by-moment input by all parties to a conversation, and is, therefore, characterized by an organization that is locally managed.

In terms of the field of discourse, the journey the interactants undertake in the text above moves from one small area to another: smoking — food — reading material — today’s date. These are all part of daily life — ‘quotidian’, in terms of Ruqaiya Hasan’s network of field; none of them are momentous nor far removed from the immediate material setting. The main lexical areas are represented in a schematic overview of Roget’s Thesaurus in Figure 2-7. The diagram shows how different regions within the overall systemic potential of the lexical part of lexicogrammar are instantiated in the course of the micro-phases discussed above. The strategies for developing the conversation locally are the ones we have already pointed to — (i) interpersonal negotiation and (ii) textual expansion. The favoured type of expansion is that of elaboration. This is significant, since ‘paratactic elaboration’ is the favourite strategy in clause complexing, as already shown in Figure 2-4 above.

15

Figure 2-6: Micro-phases in Men # 2 — exchanges and rhetorical relations

16

SYSTEMIC POTENTIAL

TEXT INSTANCE 1° abstract

I existence

2° concrete 3° formal 4° modal 1° absolute

II relation

2° continuous 3° partial 4° general 1° simple

III quantity

2° comparative 3° conjunctive 4° concrete 1° general

IV order

2° consecutive 3° collective

82 multiformity

5° categorical

83 conformity 84 unconformity

1° abstract

V number

301 ... regularity, consistency, constancy ... routine, drill, practice, custom, habit; fixed ways, rut, groove, streetcar lines; methodicalness, system ...

81 rule

4° distributive

I abstract relations

2° determinate 3° indeterminate

1° absolute

VI time

2° relative 3° recurrent

VII change

1° simple 2° complex 164 production 165 destruction 166 reproduction 167 producer

1° constancy of sequence

VIII causation

2° connection between cause & effect

168 destroyer 169 parentage

3° power in operation

171 productiveness

170 posterity 172 unproductiveness

4° indirect power

173 agency 174 vigorousness

5° combination of causes

175 intertness 176 violence 177 moderation

1° abstract space

I space in general

2° relative space 3° existence in space

301 ... pastry, bakemeat, patty, pasty, singhara, turnover, crumble; tart, flan, puff, pie, pie-crust; cake, see cake, ...

1° general

II dimensions

2° linear

301 food

3° centric

II space 1° general

III form

371 mankind ... person, individual, human being, everyman, everywoman; creature, fellow creature, mortal, body; a being, soul, living soul; God’s image; one, somebody, someone, so and so, such a one; party, customer, character, type ...

2° special 3° superficial 1° general

IV motion

2° degrees of motion 3° conjoined with force

A

C

4° with ref. to direction

I matter in general III matter

1° vitality

III organic matter

2° sensation

=

Oh you don't like smoking?

388 pungency

J

Ashtray upsets him.

[respond & demand & information]

381 calefaction

II inorganic matter

K

[initiate & giving & information]

381 ... ash, ashes, volcanic ash, lava, tuff, carbon, soot, smut, lampblack, smoke; product of combustion, clinker, charcoal, ember, cinder, coke, slag, dross, scoria, sullage, oxide, bone-ash

[respond & give & information]

=

388 ... smoke, use tobacco, indulge, smoke a pipe, draw, suck, inhale; puff, blow smokerings; blow smoke, funk; chew, quid; take snuff, take a pinch

He hates [= smoking.

=

[initiate & give & information] ]= Filthy habit.

I intellectual operations in general

[initiate & give & information]

+

II precursory conditions and operations III materials for reasoning

No, he smokes.

IV reasoning process

485 belief ... believe, ... opine, think, conceive, fancy ...

V results of reasoning

IV intellect

division (I): formation of ideas

VI extension of thought

division (II): communication of ideas

I nature of ideas communicated

VII creative thought

II modes of communication

C

III means of communication

K

A

J

[initiate & demand & information] What is that?

... 642 expedience

division (I): individual volition V volition

I volition in general

1° conceptional

II prospective volition

2° subservience to ends

644 goodness 645 badness 646 perfection

III voluntary action

=

643 inexpedience

645 ... bad, arrant, vile, base ... scruffy, filthy, dirty; foul, ...

...

I general

=

II special

=

III conditional IV possessive relations ...

I affections generally II personal VI affections

III sympathetic IV moral V religious

1° passive 2° discriminative 3° prospective 4° contemplative 5° extrinsic

+

[respond & give & information] I don't think so.

V results of action division (II): intersocial volition

[respond & give & information] Mmm, Hungarian Pastry.

647 imperfection

IV antagonism

[respond & give & information]

857 rashness 858 caution 859 desire 860 indifference 861 dislike 862 fastidiousness 863 satiety

861 ... dislike, mislike, disrelish, distaste ... disapprove; ... despise; ... can’t stand, detest, loathe, abominate, abhor, hate ... cause dislike, ... enrage, ,,, upset, ...repel, offend, grate, jar, displease; disgust ...

=

[initiate & demand & information] What do you mean you really don't think so?

No I don't think so.

[respond & demand & information] Nothing to read? Well, what do you , why do want to read?

=

[initiate & demand & goods-&-services] What have we got to read, mate?

[initiate & demand & information] What's the date today? = [respond & give & information] Today is the second of the ninth. = [respond] Thank you.

Figure 2-7: Instantiation of lexical potential in two phases of Men # 2

3 Logogenesis and clause complexing (2) In contrast to the coffee break conversation involving all men considered so far, the conversations I will now turn to have a tendency to move into phases that unfold with great peaks of intricacy in clause complexing.

3.1 “Joanne” Let’s first consider one gossip phase from an all-women coffee break conversation (UTS/Macquarie corpus, text due to Di Slade). The basic grammatical features are given in Table 3-1. What’s most immediately striking is the considerably higher average number of clauses per clause complex — 3.3 instead of 1.4, i.e. more than double; and this difference is brought out even more dramatically when we look at how the text unfolds through time. The logogenetic progression of this phase is charted in Figure 3-1. I have used the same type of display as in Figure 2-1 above: the diagram shows the number of clauses per clause complex in the course of the unfolding of the conversation, thus indicating the number of selections of ‘go on’ in the system of SYSTEMIC RECURSION. While the “banter” among the men never reached a complexity greater than 4 clauses per complex, this gossip phase reaches a

17

complexity of 22 clauses for one complex. And this very intricate clause complex is followed by some other peaks: one of 12 clauses and one of 8 clauses. Table 3-1: Grammatical features of “Joanne” Duration Units

“Density”

clause: complexes

22 complexes

clause: simple

72 clauses

words:

357 words

clause / complex

3.3 clauses

words / clause:

5.0 words / clause

narrative sequence in Substantiating Behaviour stage

0

5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

peak of complex of 22 clauses

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

18

Figure 3-1: Unfolding of clause complexes in “Joanne” Such very intricate complexes are characteristic of spontaneous casual conversation where there are sustained turns representing episodes in narratives, extended arguments, and the like. In the present context, the intricacy is of interest mainly because it points to a different kind of work being done in the creation of the discourse. Thus in the following extract from the gossip phase shown in Figure 3-1, speaker M is producing a narrative to substantiate the claim that a co-worker, Joanne, is an annoying person (she gets really pushy). The narrative is sustained across three of M’s turns, as shown by the underlining:

19

Text 3-1: Narrative sequence in gossip (“Joanne”) ||| M: I'm about to throw Joanne out the window. ||| F: Joanne who? ||| M: Lattimer. ||| F: Why? ||| M: She gets really pushy. ||| I'm looking for a file for Adam, || Kerry handed me three others || and I was in the middle of finding the third one for her. ||| A: Kerry gave you three, did she? ||| M: Yeah, || you know, they had to be done. |||  And Joanne came up || and she said, || "Oh, can you do this?" || and I said, || "Look you're at the end of a very long line: || be prepared to wait || and she said, || "Well, she's at the Oncology clinic right now." || and I said, || "But these have to be done as well; || I can't help || and sort of smiled all the way through it || and she went,... || I said, || "Look, it's three minutes to three; || these should be done in a minute || if you want to wait till then || and she went || (sigh) ahhh. || then she went away || and I thought || “Oh yeah, * end of story” ||| A: * She gets very worried. ||| M:  And then she came back in again || and um she said, || "Are those files there; || did Kerry give you those files there?" || and I knew || what she was going to say next || and I said, || "Ah, among others," || and um, she went, || "Oh, oh they can wait until after this one, || 'cause they're not needed, okay." || and I said * ... ||| F: * Why couldn't she grab someone else? ||| M: Because Liz and I are the only ones doing them || and they don't know that Ann can do them. |||  But um, I said, || "Look Liz is going” || I said, || "Look, you know it's nearly three o'clock now; || Liz should be back any second now." || I said, || "Anyway, I've got afternoon tea now || and I've got to go to taping." ||| The narrative gets suspended three times: the first time, A asks M a question as a reaction to information given in the narrative, and M answers the question before she returns to the narrative; the second time, A makes a statement (which overlaps with M’s end of story), commenting on Joanne’s behaviour, but M does not reply to this and continues her narrative; and the third time, F asks M a question arising out of the narrative, which M answers before picking up the narrative thread again. This kind of interleaving is typical of conversational narratives (see Ochs, 1997). In fact, the whole narrative sequence can be interpreted as a single complex, extended serially across three turns.7 As already noted, the complexes increase in complexity because of the kind of work the interactants are doing. In order to substantiate her claim about Joanne, M has to produce an episode from her work experience as evidence. And this is where the complexity takes off and the discourse becomes fluidly intricate. In this case, the “backbone” is the passage shown above — the narrative sequence with quoted speech: “she said … — and then I said … — and then she said …”. We can see this very clearly when we examine the progression of relation types used to link clauses into clause complexes — projection (reporting and quoting speech and thoughts) and expansion (elaborating, extending and enhancing relations): see Figure 3-2. The narrative sequence shows up as peaks in instances of two types of relation — projection and enhancement. Here projection is essentially quoted speech — “I said …” and “she said …”; and enhancement is temporal sequence — “and then”. Part of

7

In the analysis on which the counts given in this chapter are based, I have been more conservative and not extended any clause complexes across turns.

20

the “megaplex” reproduced in Text 3-1 above is shown diagrammatically in Figure 3-3. The figure shows how the megaplex is developed clause nexus by clause nexus8, through both linear progression (vertical dimension) and internal layering (horizontal dimension). Each move in the development is very simple, constructed out of a logico-semantic relation; and the complexity emerges out of these locally simple moves. The corresponding systemic “text score” is shown for the first part of the megaplex in Figure 3-4. This score shows very clearly how the pattern of a narrative sequence with quoted speech emerges in the course of the development of the complex. Overall, clause complexes in “Joanne” are dominated by relations of enhancement and projection; and within these, temporal succession and projection of speech (locution) are the favourite subtypes. As we have seen, temporal succession helps construct the flow of events in narrative passages and projection of speech constructs dialogic passages within the narrative. The profile of favoured relation types contrasts in an interesting way with the of the 13 minutes of chat discussed above (“Men #2”): see Figure 3-5. In the chat, the favourite type of relation for linking clauses into clause complexes is not enhancement but elaboration, as in I've got some cake here; || look, she gave me that. This means that there is very little movement forward in time, but a good deal of restatement, clarification and the like. Within projection, the projection of thought (ideas) dominates, not the projection of speech (locution) as in “Joanne”; this projection of thought is mostly of the type that is characteristic of casual conversation — I think, I reckon, do you reckon and so on.

8

A clause nexus is a combination of two clauses (or subcomplexes) linked by a tactic relation of projection or expansion (see Halliday, 1994: 218). The systems of TAXIS and LOGICO-SEMANTIC TYPE represented above characterize such a nexus-forming relation. The system of SYSTEMIC RECURSION gives the option of opening up a new nexus thus augmenting the clause complex further.

0

0

enhancement 0 0

0

0

0

0

extension

0

0

0

0

elaboration

4

2

0

0

0

5

6 7

0

3

4 5

0

0

0

projection

3 2

1 2 1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0

0

0

0

6

8

0

0

1

0

7

0 0

8

0

0

6

0

1

4

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

1

0

0

0 3

0

3 1

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

1

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

0

3

7

8

extension enhancement

projection elaboration

enhancement extension elaboration projection 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

projection: ‘I said ...’; ‘she said ...’

enhancement: ‘and then ...’

21

Figure 3-2: Progression of logico-semantic types in complexes in a gossip passage (“Joanne”)

22

internal nesting (layering)

M: linear expansion

1

I'm looking for a file for Adam,

x2

Kerry handed me three others

x3

and I was in the middle of finding the third one for her. A: Kerry gave you three, did she? M: Yeah, you know, they had to be done.

x4

x5

And Joanne came up,

and she said:

1

“Oh, can you do this?”

“2 x6

1

and I said:

“2

“Look you’re at the end of a very long line;

1

x2 x7

be prepared to wait!” and she said:

1

“Well, she’s at the Oncology clinic right now.”

“2 x8

1

“2

and I said:

“But these have to be done as well;

1

I can’t help.”

=2 x9

and sort of smiled all the way through it,

x10

and she went ...

x11

I said,

1

“2

"Look, it's three minutes to three;

1

=2

!

x"

x12

if you want to wait till then

1

and she went

“2

“(sigh) ahhh”

x13

x14

these should be done in a minute

then she went away

1

‘2

and I thought

"Oh yeah, end of story." A: She gets very worried.

x15

And then she came back in again

Figure 3-3: Narrative unfolding as clause complex in casual conversation

systemic potential

1 —> “2

—> x7

1 —> x2

1 —> “2

—> x6 1 —> “2

1 —> x2 —> x3 —> x4 —> x5

text instance

...

1 —> =2

1 —> “2

—> x8

23

Figure 3-4: Text score for first part of “megaplex” in “Joanne”

24

Figure 3-5: Comparison of chat (Men # 2) and generic “chunk” of gossip (“Joanne”) in terms of favoured logico-semantic type [projection: idea / locution vs. expansion: elaboration / extension / enhancement]

25

3.2 Additional examples By tracing the successive selections within the clause complexes of “Joanne”, we can see the logogenetic patterning and discern different phases. In particular, the phase of increased intricacy stands out, revealing where the sustained narrative development takes off. This kind of pattern is quite common. I will give two additional examples. The first example is another gossip passage from a casual conversation during a tea break at a work place (UTS/Macquarie corpus, text due to Di Slade). Figure 3-6 represents the changes in the system of SYSTEMIC RECURSION as the text unfolds. As in the previous example, the peaks are indicative of generic stages of Substantiating Behaviour (for a characterization of this stage of gossip, see Slade, 1996; Eggins & Slade, 1997). One of the two highest peaks is a narrative sequence of the same kind we found in “Joanne”: ||| She said, || "Have you seen any photos of me at the fancy dress?" || and I said, || I said, || "Well, as a matter of fact, I've seen one or two, um, of you Tamara, || but you know, nothing... || and, um, she said || "Do you know of anyone else [[who's taken any photos of me at the fancy dress]]?" ||| [Clause complex 10] The other is a sequence of characterizations: ||| And then she had... || I can't think what else, || I know,... eye shadow and the whole bit || and then she had this old stick with a star on it || um, and she had this stick thing... this stick thing that had a star on it, || and then she had a cape around her shoulders or something || and went "Ooops" or something to people || then started laughing. ||| [Clause complex 26] The different characters of these two sequences can be seen when we examine the progression of selections in the system of LOGICO-SEMANTIC TYPE: see Figure 3-7. While the first peak is dominated by enhancement and projection, the second is dominated by enhancement and elaboration. In this way, a trace of the logogenetic pattern will reveal the nature of the local development of the text; and such patterns can then be correlated with higher-stratal stages such as Substantiating Behaviour.

Figure 3-6: Unfolding of clause complexes in “Tamara” Wrap-Up: Yeah, here's something: you'd just go and break off a tree and stick a star on it.

descriptive sequence in Substantiating Behaviour stage

Substantiating Behaviour: She said “Have you seen any photos of me at the fancy dress?" and I said, I said "Well, as a matter of fact, I've seen one or two, um, of you Tamara, but you know, nothing... and, um, she said "Do you know of anyone else who's taken any photos of me at the fancy dress?"

narrative sequences in Substantiating Behaviour stage

Third Person Focus: But this reminds me of Tamara.

Sustantiating Behaviour: She walks in... she stopped me, she stopped me and she said, umm "Oh, by the way, have you have you seen any photos of me?"

Substantiating Behaviour: And then she had... I can't think what else, I know,... eye shadow and the whole bit and then she had this old stick with a star on it , um, and she had this stick thing... this stick thing that had a star on it, and then she had a cape around her shoulders or something and went "Poof" or something to people then started laughing.

peaks of complex

26

Substantiating Behaviour: She said "I just wanted to see how well the costume turned out."

Substantiating Behaviour: And then she had... I can't think what else, I know,... eye shadow and the whole bit and then she had this old stick with a star on it , um, and she had this stick thing... this stick thing that had a star on it, and then she had a cape around her shoulders or something and went "Poof" or something to people then started laughing.

Substantiating Behaviour: She walks in... she stopped me she stopped me and she said, umm "Oh, by the way, have you have you seen any photos of me?"

Substantiating Behaviour: She said “Have you seen any photos of me at the fancy dress?" and I said, I said "Well, as a matter of fact, I've seen one or two, um, of you Tamara, but you know, nothing... and, um, she said "Do you know of anyone else who's taken any photos of me at the fancy dress?"

27

Figure 3-7: Progression of logico-semantic types in complexes in a gossip passage (“Tamara”)

28

The second example is an interview with Dirk Bogarde, published on the web. The pattern of unfolding in this text is again quite typical — a pattern of peaks and troughs in the intricacy of clause complexes: see Figure 3-8. As we found in the two gossip passages, the highest peak is part of a narrative sequence, which is told by Bogarde as an illustration of a point made earlier in the interview: Text 3-2: Extract from interview with Dirk Bogarde ||| In another instance, a great friend of mine from California, a cousin, was staying with me in France, || we were raking in the hay; || I said || "I'm getting old || I'm going to have to sit down in the shade," || and she said, || "Thank God, || at least we can do it. ||| ||| Wouldn't it be awful || if..." ||| ||| And that's exactly “what happened to her‘. ||| ||| She had a massive stroke || while she was dressing for dinner in San Francisco, || and that was the end of it. ||| ||| People with “whom she was dining‘ couldn't find her. ||| ||| When she didn't arrive, || they went to her flat || and found her on the floor || and got her to the hospital. || but she was a total vegetable. ||| ||| Now, she had told me || — and she'd told my sister and one or two other people-|| that if such a thing ever did happen to her || she didn't want any help || and could we get it over to her daughter || not to be put through it. ||| ||| As it happens, || Margo was an extremely rich woman. ||| ||| Her daughter wanted "the best" for Mommy-|| so Mommy got the best “that money can buy‘. || and a lot of people profited || in sustaining her hopeless condition. ||| ||| She had day and night nurses of all kinds, shapes and sizes. ||| ||| They stripped her clean of every bit of jewellery “she ever had‘, || though that's neither here nor there. ||| ||| The doctors charged exorbitant fees; || the hospital bills mounted month by month. |||  ||| One day her daughter Penny went || to see her || and called me afterwards; || she said: || "I must tell you, || something extraordinary's happened, || I must tell you || what it is, || it's simply incredible, || she cried." || and I said || what do you mean || she cried? || so she said: || "Well we were in there || and suddenly she must have heard my voice || because there was one long tear [[that started to trickle down]]." ||| ||| Now, come on, || that was Margo saying || "For Christ's sake, let me go! || I'm [[where I promised never to be]]!" ||| ||| It took a year for her to die. ||| The arrow indicates the peak clause complex in this narrative passage. As in the earlier examples, it involves a mixture of enhancement (‘and then’) and projection (‘she/ I said’). The analysis is shown in Figure 3-9. This is one of many semantic

29

strategies or routines that can be identified by carrying out detailed analysis of logogenetic patterning in the wording of text. As always, we have to be prepared to “shunt” (cf. Halliday, 1961). In future, when our computational tools for automatic analysis have improvied, we should be able to move up to the semantics, manually identify semantic strategies in the text, and then use machine learning techniques to develop logogenetic profiles of them. Alternatively, we should be able to get the system to identify recurrent logogenetic patterns and offer them as possible realizations of semantic strategies.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

156

151

146

141

136

131

126

121

116

111

106

101 96

91

86

81

76

71

66

61

56

16

1! One day her daughter Penny went 1x" to see her x21 and called me afterwards; |x2=21 she said: x2=2”21! "I must tell you, x2=2”21”" something extraordinary's happened, x2=2”2=2! I must tell you x2=2”2=2”"11 what it is, x2=2”2=2”"1=2it's simply incredible, x2=2”2=2”" =2 she cried." x31 and I said x3”21 what do you mean x3”2’2 she cried? x41 so she said: x4”21 "Well we were in there x4”2x2! and suddenly-she must have heard my voice- x4”2x2x" because there was one long tear

161

18

30

Figure 3-8: The unfolding of clause complexes in an interview with Dirk Bogarde 166

51

46

41

36

26

31

21

16

11

6

1

31

Figure 3-9: Narrative passage from Bogarde interview By adopting the perspective of logogenesis, we can thus learn a great deal about how these spoken texts unfold through time. We have seen a very clear difference between the casual banter between the men and the last three texts. In the banter, the clause complexes never reach a complexity of more than 4 clauses per clause; there are no long, sustained passages guided by more intricate complexes. Elaboration plays a significant role. In the other three texts, the resource of clause complexing is pushed much further, creating local peaks of considerable intricacy — 17 clauses in the Bogarde interview. The narrative passages are characterized by a mixture of enhancement and projection; enhancement propels the clause complex forward globally, and projection sets up dialogic sequences along the way.

4 Comparison of spoken and written unfolding In general, casual speech has the potential for clause complexing of considerable intricacy, reaching peaks of the kind illustrated above. This does not mean that the potential will always be taken up. As we have seen, the unfolding of the banter among the men is consistently quite flat, without any peaks of complexity. But such differences are significant, and the logogenetic profile of a text reveals its nature. The peaks are motivated by semiotic pressure — such as the narrative pressure we have seen illustrated. Let us now switch to an example of prototypical writing to examine its logogenetic profile. Prototypical writing includes academic books and articles and administrative, bureaucratic and legal discourses. The following extract of scientific writing comes from a university-level text book in geology (Robert J. Foster. 1971. Physical Geology. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill.): ||| Dolostone (dolomite) is composed of dolomite. ||| It is recognized by effervescence after scratching (to produce powder) with dilute hydrochloric acid; || it will also react

32

(without scratching) with concentrated or with warm dilute hydrochloric acid. ||| Dolostone is generally formed by replacement of calcite, presumably soon after burial. ||| The reduction in volume in this replacement may produce irregular voids || and generally obliterate fossils. ||| This extract is characteristic of the geology text: clause complexes tend not to be very intricate, but unlike the spoken texts we have examined, this text contains many nominalizations (underlined in the passage above). To get a sense of how this written text unfolds through clause complexes, we can compare it with a spoken passage such as the interview with Bogarde:9 Figure 4-1 shows 93 clause complexes from the geology text and the Bogarde interview. The difference between the two texts is very striking. On the one hand, the average number of clauses per clause complex is considerably higher for the spoken text (2.6 as opposed to 1.6) and on the other hand, the potential for intricacy is much greater: the maximum number of clauses per complex is 17 in the spoken text but only 4 in the written one. The lack of high intricacy in the written text is clearly related to the high incidence of nominalizations. When we consider clausal variants of these nominalizations, we find that what could be construed as a clause complex has been compacted into a clause. For example: (a) ||| The reduction in volume in this replacement may produce irregular voids. ||| : (b) ||| The volume is reduced || when calcite is replaced, || and voids may therefore form. ||| Here version (a) is a single clause whereas version (b) is a complex formed out of three clauses. They differ significantly in lexical density (Halliday, 1985): in version (a), the clause contains 6 lexical items, but in version (b), the average per clause is 2 lexical items. Version (a) is an example of grammatical metaphor (Halliday, 1994: Ch. 10; Halliday & Martin, 1993; Halliday & Matthiessen, 1999: Ch. 6). It is a metaphorical realization of a sequence of events. In contrast, version (b) is a congruent realization. These versions are of course locally different. But they are also part of different logogenetic profiles in the development of (prototypical) spoken and written text. These different profiles are associated with different ways of processing text. As noted in Section 1, spoken text is only processed in “real time”, whereas written text can be slowed down as it is processed, making it possible to cope with the higher lexical density, and it can also be reviewed as a complete product.

9

The ideal would be to compare pairs of text where the only variable is the mode — (prototypical) spoken vs. (prototypical) written. The two texts compared obviously differ also in field and tenor.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

maximum: 4 clauses

clauses / complex [Geology exposition] — average: 1.6 clauses

clauses / complex [Bogarde interview] — average: 2.6 clauses maximum: 17 clauses

33

Figure 4-1: Comparison of the unfolding of spoken text (light grey) and written text (dark grey)

34

5 Lexicogrammar and semantics The examples of logogenesis given in the preceding two sections have all been stated as patterns emerging at the stratum of lexicogrammar. The movements we have observed are thus formed very locally out of patterns of wording. But they can, at the same time, be interpreted semantically as creating patterns of meaning. We have already seen how surges in complexity — in the number of selections within SYSTEMIC RECURSION — emerging in the unfolding of a text indicate semantic stages such as narrative episodes (see e.g. Figure 3-8); and successive selections within TAXIS and LOGICO-SEMANTIC TYPES provide clues about the nature of such a stage, as illustrated by Figure 3-2 and Figure 3-7, where the alternation of ‘enhancing’ and ‘projection’ point to a narrative episode with dialogue. The clause complexes that are formed as a text unfolds will be more or less “local”: how far any given clause complex extends will depend on the degree of systemic recursion. Thus in the casual conversation among men (Text 2-1), none of the complexes exceed four clauses and all are thus quite local; but in the two gossip texts (Text 3-1 and “Tamara”) and in the interview with Dirk Bogarde (Text 3-2), the potential of clause complexing in spontaneous speech is taken up and certain clause complexes extend to link a great number of clauses together. Let’s consider one more example — a persuasive text, where the Vice-Chair of the California Common Cause organization tries to persuade the membership to vote against a popular proposal. This text is set out in Table 5-1 together with the analysis of clause complexes. There are two complexes of three clauses; the other complexes are only duplexes. While there are no highly intricate complexes, all clauses except for one combine with other clauses within a complex. The exception is [9]. The clause complexes develop certain key motifs in the text. The most pervasive one is that of ‘mental projection’; the writer construes himself as the Senser of a series of ‘mental cognitive’ clauses projecting propositions as ideas: I don’t believe, rather I think, but I don’t think. This motif of speaker-based projection is reinforced by the final clause complex, by means of ‘verbal projection’: therefore I urge you. These instances of projection are in fact also all interpersonal metaphors; I believe/ think stands for ‘probably’ with an explicit subjective orientation, and I urge you stands for ‘do!’. Clause complexing is also used to qualify by means of temporal and causal conditions: tempting as it may be (‘although it is tempting’: frustrated cause) we shouldn’t …; when we do so, we use …; we will … if we …. These conditions refer either to temptation away from the California Common Cause agenda or adherence to it. Table 5-1: California Common Cause text (from Mann & Thompson, 1985) I

II

[1]

[2]

α:

I don’t believe

‘β:

that endorsing the Nuclear Freeze initiative is the right step for California CC.

x

Tempting as it may be,

β:

35

[3] III

[4] [5] [6]

IV

[7]

α: x

β:

αα: αxβ: α: ‘βα:

[8]

‘βxβ:

[9] V

[10] [11]

VI

VII

[12]

[13]

1 =2 α: ‘β: α: β:

[14]

When we do so we use precious limited resources where other players with superior resources are already doing an adequate job. Rather, I think we will be stronger and more effective if we stick to those issues of governmental structure and process, broadly defined, that have formed the core of our agenda for years. Open government, campaign finance reform, and fighting the special interests and big money — these are our kinds of issues.

=

VIII

we shouldn’t embrace every popular issue that comes along.

α: “β:

Let’s be clear: I personally favour the initiative and ardently support disarmament negotiations to reduce the risk of war. But I don’t think endorsing a specific freeze proposal is appropriate for CCC. We should limit our involvement in defense and weaponry to matters of process, such as exposing the weapons industry’s influence on the political process. Therefore, I urge you to vote against a CCC endorsement of the nuclear freeze initiative. (Signed) Michael Asimow, California Common Cause Vice-Chair and UCLA Law Professor

The clause complexes contribute to the local development of the text. We can see this very clearly when we relate them to the overall, rhetorical development of the text as a semantic unit: see Figure 5-1. This diagram shows the rhetorical development of the text, represented in terms of Rhetorical Structure Theory (Mann & Thompson, 1987; Mann & Matthiessen, 1991; Mann, Matthiessen & Thompson, 1992). The nature of the organization is the same as we find in clause complexing (Matthiessen & Thompson, 1988; Matthiessen, 1995: 168-173): semantically, the text is developed by means of rhetorical relations that are like the logico-semantic relations that combine clauses into clause complexes. These relations can be characterized in term of (i) a tactical contrast between hypotaxis (nucleus-satellite relations) and parataxis (multi-nuclear relations), and (ii) type of expansion. In the text analysed in Figure 5-1, there is only one paratactic or multi-nuclear relation — contrast; the other relations are all hypotactic or nucleus-satellite relations. The rhetorical-relational organization of the text is developed locally, between pairs of text spans; but it can extend to organize a whole text, as in the case of the California Common Cause text, or at least a major generic stage of text. How far the rhetorical-relational organization extends will depend on the registerial nature of the text (cf. Halliday, 1997).

36

The rhetorical-relational organization of the text is realized in the lexicogrammar both directly and indirectly (cf. Butt & Matthiessen, forthc.). It is realized directly by conjunction and by clause complexing (for a detailed study, see Stuart-Smith, 2001); and it is realized indirectly by theme selection and lexical cohesion. In the present context, clause complexing is of particular interest since I have used it as the main source of illustration of logogenetic patterning in text. As a text is developed by means of rhetorical relations, local rhetorical complexes are realized by clause complexes — represented by boxes in Figure 5-1. For example, the rhetorical concession complex consisting of [2] and [3] is realized by a hypotactic clause complex of enhancement (see Table 5-1). Thus the local patterns of wording that emerge as the text unfolds realize local patterns of meaning — tempting as it may be, we shouldn’t embrace every popular issue that comes along is both a rhetorical complex (semantics) and a clause complex (lexicogrammar); but these local patterns of wording that emerge also form the basis for inferring less local, more global patterns of meaning. The more global the relationships are, the less direct guidance the lexicogrammar provides and the more listeners and readers will have to rely on semantic processes of inference (cf. Marcu’s, 1998, work on automatic recognition of rhetorical relations in text). However, the more global the relations are, the more likely they are to be guided by general considerations of contextual structure (generic structure or schematic structure) such as the Motivation ^ Appeal structure of persuasive situations in which texts like the California Common Cause text occur (cf. Martin, 1992: 181, on the role played by internal conjunctions in “scaffold[ing] the schematic structure of a text” — as with therefore in [14] of the California Common Cause text). In this way, the semantic structure of a text is construed both ‘from above’ (context) and ‘from below’ (lexicogrammar), as well as being the result of processes ‘from within’ (semantics).

Figure 5-1: Rhetorical analysis of the “California Common Cause” text (Mann & Thompson, 1985), with lexicogrammatical realizations by clause complexes superimposed we

When we

!!

! x"

other players

where

Rather, we

we

tempting x"

!’"

I Theme open government ...

let’s

Rheme those issues of ...

if we

’"x"

! COMPLEX

!

! COMPLEX

! CONJUNCTION: extending

x"

! COMPLEX

endorsing ...

!: I don’t believe ‘": that

endorsing ...

But

!: I don’t think ‘": that

! CONJUNCTION: enhancing

we

! ="

! CONJUNCTION: enhancing

[you] vote!

Therefore,

!: Therefore I urge you ‘": to vote ...

37

38

6 Conclusion In this paper, I have emphasized the logogenetic aspect of text. Here the primary dimension is time — the logogenetic time frame of the text. This is the time during which the text emerges as a flow of meaning through instantiation of the meaning potential. In exploring logogenetic patterns, I focussed on patterns of wording, taking clause complexing as the main example, and only turned to semantics in Section 5. I chose this focus for various reasons. (1) The most highly developed accounts we have of the resources of language are still those that focus on lexicogrammar, so it makes good sense to get more semiotic mileage out of text analyses based on those accounts by showing how patterns of wording emerged logogenetically as a text unfolds. This adds another dimension to a comprehensive analysis of that text — the dimension of time at the instance pole of the cline of instantiation. (2) Historically, moving beyond the grammar of the clause meant concentrating on (a) the stratal move upwards from lexicogrammar to semantics and context, and (b) the move upwards in size from the clause or semantic units corresponding to the clause to the whole text in its context of situation. Many of the developments up through the 1980s are summarized in Martin’s (1992) account of “English text” and the key contribution here is the stratal move upwards from lexicogrammar: Martin provides a semantic account of the lexicogrammatical resources of cohesion (Halliday & Hasan, 1976; Hu, 1981) and proposes a stratified model of context (the well-known register—genre—ideology model). At the same time, he shows how this stratal move means that the account can deal with semantic units that are “larger” than the grammatical unit of the clause. This picture can be complemented by adding the arrow of time at the instance pole of the cline of instantiation (cf. Martin, 1985, on dynamic accounts). Thus when we are exploring the relationship between clause and text, we can do so systematically by reference to the semiotic dimensions of systemic functional theory (cf. Halliday, 1982). (i) The cline of instantiation. At the stratum of lexicogrammar, a text will emerge as logogenetic patterns of wording through successive selections in the systems of the clause (complex), the systems of the various classes of group, and so on. Here a text is more general than a clause, the former being the outcome of successive clausal selections. (It is this aspect of text that is implicated in corpus-based investigations of grammar.) (ii) The hierarchy of stratification. At the stratum of semantics, a text will emerge as the construal of patterns of lexicogrammatical realizations in the wordings of clauses, groups, and so on. Here a text is more abstract than a clause, the two standing in a realizational relationship. (iii) The hierarchy of composition (rank scale). A text is typically more extensive than a clause; but as has been emphasized all along in systemic functional linguistics (e.g. Halliday & Hasan, 1976), this is an indirect relationship since it is mediated by the stratal distinction between semantics (text) and lexicogrammar (clause). Here a text is typically larger than a clause, but indirectly through the relation of realization.

39

In a comprehensive account, all three aspects of the relationship between text and clause must be modelled systematically; but it is the first dimension — the cline of instantiation — that needs particular attention as we move into a new century. It has been given relatively less attention than the other dimensions, and it is the foundation on which process-oriented accounts must be based. In addition, it is this dimension that allows us to transcend the thesis and antithesis swings of the 20th century between “langue” and “parole” (Saussure, at the beginning of the century) and between “competence” and “performance” (Chomsky, at the middle of the century). Instead of operating with such false dichotomies, we can now recognize that Halliday’s theory of the cline of instantiation provides us with a synthesis.

7 References Butt, David G. & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. forthc.. The Meaning Potential of Language: Mapping Meaning Systemically. Book MS. Eggins, Suzanne & Diana Slade. 1997. Analysing casual conversation. London: Cassell. Ford, Cecilia E. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1996. “Interactional units in conversation: syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns.” In Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.). Interaction and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 134-184. Halliday, M.A.K. 1961. “Categories of the theory of grammar.” Word 17.3: 242-92. Halliday, M.A.K. 1965. “Types of structure.” Working Paper for the O.S.T.I. Programme in the Linguistic Properties of Scientific English. Reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday & J.R. Martin (eds.), 1981, Readings in systemic linguistics. London: Batsford. 29-41. Halliday, M.A.K. 1977. “Text as semantic choice in social contexts.” Teun van Dijk & Janos Petöfi (ed.), Grammars and descriptions. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Halliday, M.A.K. 1978. Language as social semiotic: the social interpretation of language and meaning. London & Baltimore: Edward Arnold & University Park Press. Halliday, M.A.K. 1982. “How is a text like a clause?” Sture Allén (ed.), Text Processing. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Halliday, M.A.K. 1997. “Towards a closer relationship between the study of grammar and the study of discourse.” In [Macau conference publication.] Halliday, M.A.K. 1979. “Modes of meaning and modes of expression: types of grammatical structure and their determination by different semantic functions.” D.J. Allerton et al (ed.), Function and context in linguistic analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 57-79. Halliday, M.A.K. 1985. Spoken and written Language. Geelong, Vic.: Deakin University Press. Halliday, M.A.K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.

40

Halliday, M.A.K. 1997. [Macau] Halliday, M.A.K. & Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Halliday, M.A.K. & James R. Martin. 1993. Writing science: literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer. Halliday, M.A.K. & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 1999. Construing experience through meaning: a language-based approach to cognition. London: Cassell. Hu, Zhuanglin. 1981. Textual Cohesion in Chinese. University of Sydney: M.A. Honours thesis. Johnston, Trevor. 1992. “The realization of the linguistic metafunctions in a sign language.” Language Sciences 14.4: 317-355. Mann, William C. & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 1991. “Functions of language in two frameworks.” Word 42.3. Mann, William C., Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen, and Sandra A Thompson. 1992. “Rhetorical structure theory and text analysis.” In William C. Mann & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Discourse description: Diverse analyses of a fund raising text. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Mann, William C. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1987. Rhetorical Structure Theory: a framework for the analysis of texts. Technical Report, ISI/RS-87-185. Marina del Rey, CA: USC/ Information Sciences Institute. Marcu, Daniel. 1998. “A surface-based approach to identifying discourse markers and elementary textual units in unrestricted texts.” In Manfred Stede, Leo Wanner & Eduard Hovy (eds.), Discourse Relations and Discourse Markers: Proceedings of the Workshop. Sponsored by the Association for Computational Linguistics. 15th August 1998, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. COLING-ACL ’98. 1-14. Martin, James R. 1985. “Process and text: two aspects of human semiosis.” James D. Benson & William S. Greaves (ed.), Systemic perspectives on discourse. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. Martin, James R. 1992. English text: system and structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Martin, James R. 1996. “Types of structure: deconstructing notions of constituency in clause and text.” In E. Hovy & D. Scott (ed.) Burning issues in discourse: a multidisciplinary perspective. Heidelberg: Springer. Martin, James R. 1998. “Beyond exchange: APPRAISAL systems in English.” Susan Hunston & Geoff Thompson (ed.), Evaluation in text. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 1988. “Representational issues in systemic functional grammar.” James D. Benson & William S. Greaves (ed.), Systemic Functional perspectives on Discourse. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 136-175. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 1993. [Hangzhou MS] Revised version to appear in David Butt & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen (forthc.).

41

Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. in press. “Combining clauses into clause complexes: a multi-faceted view.” In Joan Bybee & Michael Noonan (eds.), Complex sentences in grammar and discourse: essays in honor of Sandra A. Thompson. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 237-322. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. & John A. Bateman. 1991. Systemic linguistics and text generation: experiences from Japanese and English. London: Frances Pinter. Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1988. “The structure of discourse and “subordination”.” John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (ed.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 275329. Ochs, Elinor. 1997. “Narrative.” In Teun A. van Dijk (ed.). Discourse as structure and process: Discourse studies 1, a multidisciplinary introduction. London: Sage. 185-207. Stuart-Smith, Virginia. 2001. Rhetorical Structure Theory as a Model of Semantics: a Corpus-Based Analysis from a Systemic-Functional Perspective. Macquarie University: Ph.D. thesis. Weinreich, Harald. 1972. “Die Textpartitur als heuristische Methode.” Der Deutschunterricht 24.4: 43-60. Reprinted in H. Weinreich (1976), Sprache in Texten. Stuttgart: XXX.

42

8 Appendix: The system of CLAUSE COMPLEXING

hypotaxis TAXIS

parataxis

idea projection

clause

locution

LOGICOSEMANTIC TYPE

elaborating expansion

extending enhancing

stop RECURSION

go on

Figure 8-1: The system of CLAUSE COMPLEXING (TAXIS and EXPANSION/PROJECTION)

43

Table 8-1: Realization of TAXIS and LOGICO-SEMANTIC TYPE

projectio n

expansio n

parataxis

hypotaxis

[1 2 3 …]

[α β γ …]

idea

1 Calypso knew 

α

[‘]

‘2 “My aunt knows”.

‘β that her aunt knew.

locution

1 Calypso said 

α

[“ ]

“2 “My aunt knows”.

“β that her aunt knew.

elaboration

1 Calypso knew; 

α

[=]

=

=

extension

1 Calypso knew 

α

[+]

+

+

enhanceme nt

1 Calypso knew 

[x]

x

2 she was fully aware of it. 2 and her aunt knew.

2 so her aunt knew.

x

Calypso knew  Calypso said  Calypso knew, 

β being fully aware of it. Calypso knew 

β as well as her aunt knowing.

β Because Calypso knew 

α

her aunt knew.