C L A U S E C O M P L E X I N G Clause complexing comes under the logical metafunction of language, which in turn belongs to the broader ideational metafunction of language. It refers to the relationships that exist between clauses in a sentence. These relationships are of two types, taxis and logico-semantics. This is what Halliday has to say: "We shall assume, therefore, that the notion of 'clause complex' enables us to account in full for the functional organization of sentences. A sentence will be defined, in fact, as a clause complex. The clause complex will be the only grammatical unit which we shall recognize above the clause. Hence there will be no need to bring in the term 'sentence' as a distinct grammatical category. We can use it simply to refer to the orthographic unit that is contained between full stops. This will avoid ambiguity: a sentence is a constituent of writing, while a clause complex is a constituent of grammar." (Halliday 1994: 216) Before we proceed further, here's a little intrusion on the analytical convention to be used for clause complexes. Please note that clause complexes are indicated differently from ranking clauses. Ranking clauses, as you know, are marked off by //...//. A clause complex, on the other hand, is marked off this way: |||...|||. We will use this convention throughout this webbie. Also, please note that if a clause complex contains one and only one ranking clause, it is called a simplex. Hokie. Now, why do we need clause complexing? Here are two good reasons: Reason 1: Clauses are interrelated in specific ways, and the mere division of a sentence into its constituent clauses may obscure these relationships. Consider, for instance, the following:
There are altogether three ranking clauses in (1). Hence:
You'll agree that the clausal division above obscures the fact that the second and third clauses—"after the lawyer had read them and verified the facts"—are closely related (both of them are dependent clauses and are subordinate to the main clause). We therefore need some way to signal this relationship. And that's the general idea behind clause complexing. Reason 2: Patterns of distribution in a text may be stylistically significant. A text that contains many clause simplexes, for example, would have a very different effect on the reader vis-à-vis a text with many clause complexes. We'll now take a look at the two types of inter-clausal relationships in a clause complex, beginning with the system of taxis and, if we're still conscious, logico-semantics. Also known as taxis or the tactic system. The tactic system tells us whether the clauses are of equal or unequal status:
In (2), we have two clauses. Since both are main clauses, they are equal in status and are therefore in paratactic relation. Hence:
Now consider the first two clauses in (3) below:
Both these clauses are dependent clauses, and are therefore of equal status. For this reason, they are also in paratactic relation. Hence:
But ... arghhh ... I'm not familiar with the Greek alphabet!!! Relax ... I've prepared a reference list for you. Turn to the right margin of this page to have a look-see at the scientific- (scientistic?) looking letters. You don't need to memorise the entire table, mind you. You just need to be familiar with the first three or four letters. (No clause complex analysis will ever require you to use the full 24 letters of the Greek alphabet!) Now, let's return to the business of the day. In reality, as you might have guessed, a mixture of parataxis and hypotaxis is far more common. This is exemplified in our earlier example (3):
Here's a run-down of the steps taken in the analysis of (3):
On a note of caution, please do not get the wrong idea that a clustering of dependent clauses must mean that they are in paratactic relation. You must first make sure that no clause is dominant over another before concluding so. Have a look at the following:
Using the top-down approach, it is easy enough to see that the first two clauses are dependent on the main clause "clobber them". However, if you look carefully at the dependent clauses, you'll realise that they are not in paratactic relation. Specifically, "if you can't confuse them" is the dominant clause, and "after failing to convince them" is dependent on it. Hence:
And now for logico-semantics. This basically refers to the nature of the relation between clauses. This relation is both logical and semantic, which explains why we have this irritating term. The logico-semantic relationships are of two broad kinds—Expansion (comprising Extension, Enhancement, and Elaboration), and Projection (comprising Locution and Idea). Expansion
Projection
|
Page-internal links
![]() Interdependency Parataxis Hypotaxis Logico-semantics Extension Enhancement Elaboration Locution Idea Online quiz Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd ed. London: Arnold. These Greeks, I tell you ...
|