The clause complex

Before introducing the clause complex, it is necessary to give a brief overview of language itself and the broader concept of text. A text can be defined as a product of an ongoing process of selection in a very wide network of systems, precisely “a system network.” The systemic theory (or SFG), a strong foundation of my study, is named this way because the grammar of a certain language “is represented in the form of system networks […]” (Halliday and Matthiessen: 2014: 23). “Each system – each moment of choice – contributes to the formation of the structure” (Halliday and Matthiessen: 2014: 24). The structure can appear in different ‘written’ (and spoken) forms such as texts, sections, subsections, paragraphs, clause complexes etc. Clause complexes are “the highest grammatical units of punctuation. In the analysis of a written text each sentence can be treated as one clause complex” (except single clause sentences) (Halliday and

Matthiessen 2014: 436). I use Halliday’s (1985) and Halliday and Matthiessen’s (2014) term ‘clause complex’ to refer to relations of clauses, which are also referred to as sentences. In my view, the distinction of clause complex, clause nexus and clause represents an accurate division of the general category of sentences. Clause complexes are construed by logico-semantic relations and taxis. (cf. Halliday and Matthiessen 2014: 432) All logical structures are either related in a paratactic or hypotactic relation, with the former bridging clauses of the same level (initiating-continuing) and the latter connecting clauses on a different (dominant-dependent) level. (cf. Halliday and Matthiessen 2014: 442)

Any pair of clauses connected by taxis or interdependency is referred to as clause nexus. (cf. Halliday and Matthiessen 2014: 441) Clause complexes are created through tactic relations and are employed as a chain, including a pair of two clauses at a time. (cf. Halliday and Matthiessen 2014: 442ff) These pairs of clauses contain different clause types. Primary clause refers to the initiating clause within a paratactic nexus and a dominant one in a hypotactic nexus. The secondary clause refers to the continuing clause within a paratactic nexus and a dependent one in a hypotactic nexus. (cf. Halliday and Matthiessen 2014: 442) Logico-semantic relations are subdivided into two main categories: expansion, which is realized through relational clauses, and projection, which is realized by mental and verbal clauses. (cf. Halliday and Matthiessen 2014: 432) Expansion refers to the enhancement, elaboration or extension of the primary clause by the secondary clause. Within projection, “the secondary clause is projected through the primary clause, which instates it as a locution or an idea” (Halliday and Matthiessen 2014: 432). Hedges and boosters can, for example, be found in a projecting mental clause as in I believe that we will win this race. However, they can also appear in a projected clause as in He ensured us that we will surely win this race. They can appear in various types of logico-semantic relations.

A general summary of my discussion is provided in Figure 11, which only concerns parts (related to e.g. hedging expressed through projection) of the divisions and subdivisions offered by the authors. While hedges and boosters occur in all of these clause complex types, I explore, in particular, projecting clauses such as X believes (mental), X suggests (verbal). Figure 11 presents a more detailed view on projection.

Figure 11: Summarizing table of taxis and logico-semantic relations of the clause com- plex (Halliday and Matthiessen 2014: 438).

As I include various lexical verbs, which appear to be the most frequent hedging and boosting category in academic writing (RAs) (cf. Hyland 1998a: 108ff), it is relevant to distinguish the way they are used by students to project ideas and statements in their theses and term papers (see Table 10). Finite clauses such as whether the data significantly improved were included in the counting, as they are reports of questions. (cf. Halliday and Matthiessen 2014: 171-172)

Table 10: Projection manifested in the clause and clause complex (Halliday and Mat- thiessen 2014: 433).

Similar to the concepts of dominant and dependent clauses, there are the ones of main and subordinate clauses. Minor clauses will be briefly introduced. The main clause is the clause that can stand on its own, from which the subordinate clause depends on. The subordinate clause is often referred to as clausola in Italian. There are minor clauses or isolated items such as certamente! (certainly!), which are only analysed if they fulfil the requirements of being ranked as boosters. However, they are not frequently found in academic writing. The other cases are major clauses. A free major clause can be indicative (offers or requires information) or imperative (demands services and goods) in its mood. If it belongs to the indicative type, it can be declarative (providing

information) or interrogative (requiring information). If it is interrogative, it is either a ‘WH-’ interrogative or a ‘yes/no’ interrogative. (cf. Halliday and Matthiessen 2014: 97) It is also important to mention that the main part of the analysed clause complexes belong to the indicative category since they are declarative. However, hedges and boosters are found in interrogatives as well.

indicative, declarative: Bears eat honey. Bears don’t eat honey.

indicative, interrogative: yes/no Do bears eat honey? (expects either ‘yes’ or ‘no’, Don’t bears eat honey? (expects the answer ‘yes’).

indicative, interrogative: WH- What eats honey? What do bears eat? imperative: Eat! Let’s eat! (Halliday and Matthiessen 2014: 97)

Having defined the clause complex, projection, declarative clauses and similar concepts, two crucial clause-complex components still need to be discussed, the mood and the residue. The term residue will be compared to the proposition and it will be explained why term propostion is used for this study. The semantic function belonging to a clause in the process of exchanging information (rather than goods and services) is called a proposition. The proposition, in its basic definition, refers to either a statement or question. (cf. Halliday and Matthiessen 2014: 139) It is often conveyed by syntactically subordinate forms of expression. (cf. Schneider 1999: 15) The reminder of a clause is labelled by Halliday and Matthiessen (2014: 143) as ‘residue’, often referred to as proposition. However, the authors mark it as “inappropriate”, for example, because it only refers to the act of exchanging information and not of e.g. services. In my study, modal assessment devices can be found in every part of the clause complex. Since the category of exchanging goods and services concerns proposals whereas my main focus is on the proposition, I mainly use this term, rather than the all-inclusive term, ‘residue.’ After having explained the remainder of the clause and the acts of exchanging information or goods/services, it is important to explain the other more interpersonal component of the clause complex, namely mood. Mood is more relevant for my study. The following quote explains mood in more detail:

Mood is the major interpersonal system of the clause; it provides interactants involved in dialogue with the resources for giving or demanding a commodity, either infor- mation or goods-&-services - […]: statements (giving information), questions (de- manding information), offers (giving goods-&-services), and commands (Halliday and Matthiessen 2014: 97).

The mood element is formed by the ‘subject’ (a nominal group), e.g. he, and the ‘finite operator’ that belongs to a verbal group and is part of the minority of verbal operators expressing modality (or tense) e.g. might, could. (cf. Halliday and Matthiessen 2014: 142) The subject represents the item in which “is vested the success or failure of the proposition” (Halliday and Matthiessen 2014: 146). The one that is, so to speak, being held responsible – responsible for the functioning of the clause as an interactive event”. The subject in such clauses usually is the one that is also the actor; but not necessarily so, as in “I’ll be guided by your wishes, shall I? [⌀: ‘you’] Get (yourself) invited to their meeting, will you?” In these passive contexts, the subject is not connected to the actor, though it holds responsibility. (cf. Halliday and Matthiessen 2014: 146) In cases when nominal groups function as subject, they form down-ranked clauses operating as

head, for example // It is clear//that this process is a failure. These instances are also expressions of modality (cf. Halliday and Matthiessen 2014: 140). This was a simple definition of the broad system of mood and its main components, which are crucial for my study.

This subsection provided a holistic description of the clause complex, by showing its higher delicacy level of text, its lower level of clause nexus, clause (major and minor), it logico-semantic (projection, expansion) and taxis (paratactic, hypotactic) relations and its main components (mood, residue/proposition). A well-grounded and detailed analysis of hedges and boosters needs to extend beyond the morphological level of the lexeme. Therefore, this subsection was useful. The three interpersonal meanings are other higher levels of hedges and boosters. They are presented in the following subsection.