Dependent Clauses, Speech Function And Negotiability [New]

Martin (1992: 41-2):

Hypotactically dependent clauses may turn out to be better taken from a discourse perspective as an intermediate case (between embedded and independent clauses) — quantative [sic] studies might well show them to be more negotiable than embedded clauses, though less likely to be responded to than independent ones. Note in this connection that when projection is used to express modality metaphorically (Halliday 1985a:336), it is the structurally dependent clause that is in fact being negotiated:

I think he'll be there. (meaning 'maybe he'll be there'.)

— Will he? (more likely than Oh, do you?)

This need not of course block the 'sardonic' interlocutor from negotiating the projecting clause as if it deserved a congruent reading:

"I'm inclined to think—" said I.

"I should do so," Sherlock Holmes remarked impatiently.

I believe that I am one of the most long-suffering of mortals; but I'll admit that I was annoyed at the sardonic interruption. "Really, Holmes," said I severely, "you are a lit[t]le trying at times." (Doyle 1981:769)

Pending quantitative investigation of these patterns, hypotactically dependent clauses will be grouped with embedded ones as in the network above. The most negotiable clause type in this category involves dependent elaboration as these clauses can be tagged:

α Sherlock put Watson down,

= β which was mean, wasn't it?

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously observed, Martin is here trying to determine the grammatical unit that realises speech function, but is instead concerned with arguability ("negotiability"), which is a separate issue from speech function. Embedded and some dependent clauses may be presented as unarguable, but that does not necessarily entail that they do not realise a statement, question, command or offer. For example, in this hypotactic complex:

I asked if you like Joy Division

the dominant clause realises a statement, while the dependent clause realises question, as demonstrated by its paratactic agnate:

I asked "do you like Joy Division?"

[2] To be clear, thirty years on, these quantitative investigations remain undone.

[3] To be clear, this needs to be accounted for in the model, not just mentioned and forgotten.

[4] Strictly speaking, despite the relative pronoun which, the expansion relation in this instance is extension, rather than elaboration, since

• the dependent clause adds to the meaning of the dominant clause, rather than describes it;
• the paratactic agnate of the dependent clause is and that was mean, wasn't it?;
• it does not involve tone concord, since the unmarked tones would be tone3 and tone1.

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 468):

There is one group of non-defining relative clauses that strictly speaking would belong with extension rather than elaboration; for example,

||| She told it to the baker’s wife, || who told it to the cook. |||

Here the who stands for ‘and she’ and the clause is semantically an additive: the agnate paratactic variant would be ... and she told it to the cook. …

Note that such instances are not characterised by tone concord.

Misrepresenting Speech Function And Mood [New]

Martin (1992: 40):

The question of how many layers of meaning to recognise raises the problem of units: just what unit is it to which speech function is being assigned? Is for example the response Yes, I would, thank-you, but make it a small one. one speech act or two (or more)? Given what has been stressed to this point about the grammar making available resources for structuring dialogue the most appropriate unit would appear to be a clause selecting independently for MOOD. This rules out the embedded and hypotactically dependent clauses illustrated below:

They loved the team that won. (defining relative)

They defeated whoever they met. (nominalised wh clause)

They watched Manly winning. (act)

It pleased them that Balmain lost. (fact)

They wondered if they'd win. (hypotactic projection)

They won, which surprised them. (hypotactic expansion)

But it does admit paratactically dependent clauses, which do select independently for MOOD. Note the variation in MOOD possible after but, showing that the but is introducing a new move:

Yes, I would, thank-you, but make it a small one.

Yes, I would, thank-you, but I'd like a small one.

Yes, I would, thank-you, but could you make it a small one?

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously explained, Martin misunderstands all strata as "layers of meaning" (even phonology!), because he confuses strata (meaning-wording-sounding) with semogenesis ("all strata make meaning").

[2] This is a non-sequitur. The number of strata ("layers of meaning") has no bearing on "the problem of units", since the latter is only concerned with one stratum, irrespective of the number of strata.

[3] To be clear, Halliday (1985: 68) "assigns" speech function to the clause as interact or exchange.

[4] To be clear, this instance involves two major speech functions:

Yes, I would [statement]
but make it a small one [command] 

[5] Although it is true that such clauses are presented as presumed rather than negotiable (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 172), embedded and dependent clauses can realise speech functions, and can "select independently" for MOOD. For example, in:

Did anyone see [[ if the policeman shot him ]]? 

the ranking interrogative clause realises a question, whereas the rankshifted declarative clause realises a statement; and in:

Was anyone here || when the policeman shot him? 

the dominant interrogative clause realises a question, whereas the dependent declarative clause realises a statement. Other combinations are, of course, possible, as demonstrated by the imperative clause realising a command and declarative clause realising a statement in:

Don't shoot every policemen just because one of them is a murderer.

Moreover, in an exchange, an interlocutor can respond to a dominant clause, dependent clause, or embedded clause:

Robin said that Lise saw Tom cheating at cards.

— He said no such thing! (reply to dominant clause)

— She couldn't have! (reply to dependent clause)

— But he wasn't! (reply to embedded 'act' clause)