A Corpus-Based Approach to Clause Combining in English from the Systemic Functional Perspective - Qingshun He - 2019 - Springer Singapore

The M.A.K. Halliday Library Functional Linguistics Series

Qingshun He

A Corpus-Based
Approach to Clause
Combining in English
from the Systemic
Functional Perspective


The M.A.K. Halliday Library Functional
Linguistics Series
Series editors
Chenguang Chang
Guowen Huang


About the Series
This series focuses on studies concerning the theory and application of Systemic
Functional Linguistics. It bears the name of Professor M.A.K.  Halliday, as he is
generally regarded as the founder of this school of linguistic thought. The series
covers studies on language and context, functional grammar, semantic variation,
discourse analysis, multimodality, register and genre analysis, educational linguistics
and other areas. Systemic Functional Linguistics is a functional model of language
inspired by the work of linguists such as Saussure, Hjelmslev, Whorf, and Firth. The
theory was initially developed by Professor M.A.K. Halliday and his colleagues in
London during the 1960s, and since 1974 it has held an international congress every
year at various continents around the world. It is well-known for its application in a
variety of fields, including education, translation, computational linguistics,
multimodal studies, and healthcare, and scholars are always exploring new areas of

application.
More information about this series at />

Qingshun He

A Corpus-Based Approach
to Clause Combining
in English from the Systemic
Functional Perspective


Qingshun He
School of Foreign Languages
Sun Yat-Sen University
Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

ISSN 2198-9869    ISSN 2198-9877 (electronic)
The M.A.K. Halliday Library Functional Linguistics Series
ISBN 978-981-13-7390-9    ISBN 978-981-13-7391-6 (eBook)
/>© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the

editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors
or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims
in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721,
Singapore


Notational Conventions

1
the initiative clause
2
the continuing clause
α
the dominant clause
β
the dependent clause
=elaborating
+extending
×enhancing
“locution
‘idea
|||
clause complex
||clause
|group/phrase
[[[ ]]] rank-shifted or embedded clause complex
[[ ]]
rank-shifted or embedded clause

[ ]
rank-shifted or embedded group/phrase
<< >> included clause

v


Acknowledgments

This research could not have been completed without the help of many colleagues
and friends, among whom, I am particularly grateful to Profs. Guowen Huang at
South China Agricultural University and Chenguang Chang at Sun Yat-sen
University. Profs. Binli Wen (Guangdong University of Foreign Studies), Bingjun
Yang (Shanghai Jiao Tong University), Xiaopeng Liang (Qingdao University of
Science and Technology), and Lise Fontaine (Cardiff University) have generously
supported me in many ways during the writing and revising of the manuscript. I
would give my deepest thanks to Emeritus Profs. Dennis Hawkes and Freda Hawkes
at the University of South Wales for their kind encouragement and help during my
visit in Cardiff. Many thanks also to Rebecca Zhu, Carolyn Zhang, and Vaishnavi
Venkatesh from Springer for their help. The research is supported by the National
Social Science Foundation of China (17BYY185).
Qingshun He

vii


Contents

1Introduction������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    1
1.1Research Background��������������������������������������������������������������������������    1

1.2Purpose of the Study����������������������������������������������������������������������������    4
1.3Organization of the Book ��������������������������������������������������������������������    6
References����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    7
2A Systemic Functional Approach to Clause Combining in English������   11

2.1Introduction ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   11
2.2Overview of Clause Combining����������������������������������������������������������   11
2.2.1Parataxis����������������������������������������������������������������������������������   14
2.2.2Hypotaxis��������������������������������������������������������������������������������   16
2.2.3Embedding������������������������������������������������������������������������������   20

2.3Cline����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   26
2.4Cline in Clause Combining ����������������������������������������������������������������   30
2.5A Sketch of Grammatical Metaphor����������������������������������������������������   36
2.5.1Ideational Metaphor and Interpersonal Metaphor������������������   37
2.5.2Textual Metaphor��������������������������������������������������������������������   38

2.6Summary����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   39
References����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   40
3Research Design ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   43

3.1Research Questions ����������������������������������������������������������������������������   43

3.2Research Methods ������������������������������������������������������������������������������   44

3.3Data Collection������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   45

3.4Data Processing ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������   47
References����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   48
4Genre Distributions of Clause Combining����������������������������������������������   51

4.1Introduction ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   51
4.2Crown Corpus-Based Research on Clause Combining ����������������������   51
4.2.1Overall Frequency Distribution����������������������������������������������   51
4.2.2Genre Distribution of Overall Frequency ������������������������������   55


ix


x





Contents

4.2.3Genre Distribution of Logico-semantic Relations������������������   56
4.2.4Genre Distribution of Embedding������������������������������������������   63
4.2.5Existing Questions������������������������������������������������������������������   64
4.3Research Based on the BNC and the COCA��������������������������������������   64
4.3.1Genre Distribution of Expansion��������������������������������������������   64
4.3.2Genre Distribution of Projection��������������������������������������������   78
4.3.3Genre Distribution of Embedding������������������������������������������   88
4.4Summary����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   93
References����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   94

5 Diachronic Distribution of Clause Combining����������������������������������������   95
5.1Diachronic Distribution of Overall Frequency������������������������������������   95
5.2Diachronic Distribution of Expansion������������������������������������������������   99

5.3Diachronic Distribution of Projection ������������������������������������������������  102
5.4Diachronic Distribution of Embedding ����������������������������������������������  105
5.5Diachronic Distribution of Non-finite Clauses������������������������������������  108
5.5.1Diachronic Distribution of Non-finite Clauses
of Expansion ��������������������������������������������������������������������������  111
5.5.2Diachronic Distribution of Non-finite Embedded
Clauses������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  119
5.5.3Diachronic Distribution of Personal Pronoun
Subjects of Absolute Clauses��������������������������������������������������  121

5.6Summary����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  124
References����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  125
6Grammatical Metaphor in Clause Combining����������������������������������������  127

6.1Introduction ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  127
6.2The Creation of Grammatical Metaphor ��������������������������������������������  127
6.3Types of Grammatical Metaphor in Clause Combining����������������������  129
6.3.1Ideational Metaphor����������������������������������������������������������������  130
6.3.2Textual Metaphor��������������������������������������������������������������������  131
6.4Diachronic Distribution of Grammatical Metaphor
in Clause Combining ��������������������������������������������������������������������������  132
6.4.1Diachronic Distribution of Experiential Metaphor ����������������  133
6.4.2Diachronic Distribution of Logical Metaphor������������������������  148
6.4.3Diachronic Distribution of Cohesive Metaphor����������������������  150
6.5Genre Distribution of Grammatical Metaphor in Clause
Combining ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  163
6.5.1Genre Distribution of Experiential Metaphor ������������������������  163
6.5.2Genre Distribution of Logical Metaphor��������������������������������  167
6.5.3Genre Distribution of Cohesive Metaphor������������������������������  168
6.6Summary����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  172

References����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  174


Contents

xi

7Conclusion��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  177
7.1Research Findings ������������������������������������������������������������������������������  177
7.2Limitations and Suggestions����������������������������������������������������������������  180
7.2.1Limitations������������������������������������������������������������������������������  181
7.2.2Further Research ��������������������������������������������������������������������  182
References����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  183
Appendices��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  185


Abbreviations

BROWN the Brown Corpus (American English, 1961)
FROWN
the Freiburg-Brown Corpus (American English, 1992)
CROWN the China-Brown Corpus (American English, 2009)
LOB
the Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen Corpus (British English, 1961)
FLOB
the Freiburg-Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen Corpus (British English, 1991)
CLOB
the China-Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen corpus (British English, 2009)
BNC
the British National Corpus

COCA
the Corpus of Contemporary American English
COHA
the Corpus of Historical American English
CLAWS
Constituent-Likelihood Automatic Word Tagging System
CLAWS 7 The newest version of CLAWS
SFL
Systemic Functional Linguistics
SPOKSpoken
FICFiction
MAG
Popular Magazines
NEWSNewspaper
ACADAcademic
NFNon-fiction
NA
Non-academic
MISCMiscellaneous

xiii


List of Figures

Fig. 2.1 Cline from clause to group................................................................ 30
Fig. 2.2 System network of clausal relations................................................. 36
Fig. 4.1 Genre distribution of elaboration in the BNC................................... 67
Fig. 4.2 Genre distribution of elaboration in the COCA................................ 68
Fig. 4.3 Comparing the genre distributions of elaboration

in the BNC and the COCA................................................................ 68
Fig. 4.4 Genre distribution of extension in the BNC...................................... 70
Fig. 4.5 Genre distribution of extension in the COCA................................... 71
Fig. 4.6 Comparing the genre distributions of extension in the BNC
and the COCA................................................................................... 71
Fig. 4.7 Genre distribution of enhancement in the BNC................................ 73
Fig. 4.8 Genre distribution of paratactic enhancement in the BNC............... 74
Fig. 4.9 Genre distribution of hypotactic enhancement in the BNC.............. 75
Fig. 4.10 Genre distribution of enhancement in the COCA............................. 75
Fig. 4.11 Comparing genre distributions of enhancement in the BNC
and the COCA................................................................................... 76
Fig. 4.12 Genre distribution of paratactic enhancement in the COCA............ 77
Fig. 4.13 Genre distribution of hypotactic enhancement in the COCA........... 78
Fig. 4.14 Projections in Halliday and Matthiessen (2014) and the BNC......... 81
Fig. 4.15 Genre distribution of projection in the BNC..................................... 82
Fig. 4.16 Projections in the BNC and the COCA............................................. 86
Fig. 4.17 Genre distribution of projection in the COCA.................................. 87
Fig. 4.18 Genre distribution of embedding in the BNC................................... 91
Fig. 4.19 Genre distribution of embedding in the COCA................................ 92
Fig. 5.1 Diachronic distribution of logico-semantic relations
between clauses................................................................................. 96
Fig. 5.2 Diachronic distributions of different types of logico-semantic
relations between clauses.................................................................. 97
Fig. 5.3 Diachronic distributions of interdependent relations
between clauses................................................................................. 98
xv


xvi

List of Figures

Fig. 5.4 Diachronic distributions of different types of interdependent
relations between clauses.................................................................. 98
Fig. 5.5 Diachronic distributions of parataxis and hypotaxis
in the COHA..................................................................................... 101
Fig. 5.6 Diachronic distributions of different types of expansion
in the COHA..................................................................................... 101
Fig. 5.7 Diachronic distributions of projected quotation
and projected report.......................................................................... 104
Fig. 5.8 Diachronic distributions of different types of projection
in the COHA..................................................................................... 105
Fig. 5.9 Diachronic distributions of four types of embedding
in the COHA..................................................................................... 107
Fig. 5.10 Diachronic distribution of non-finite clauses of expansion
in the COHA..................................................................................... 113
Fig. 5.11 Diachronic distribution of expansion of participles
and infinitive clauses in the COHA................................................... 114
Fig. 5.12 Diachronic distribution of the three types of participle
clauses of expansion in the COHA................................................... 115
Fig. 5.13 Diachronic distributions of finite clauses and infinitive
clauses of purpose in the COHA....................................................... 116
Fig. 5.14 Diachronic distribution of non-finite embedded clauses
of subject in the COHA..................................................................... 120
Fig. 5.15 Diachronic distribution of personal pronoun subjects
of absolute clauses in the COHA...................................................... 123
Fig. 6.1 Diachronic distributions of verbs and their nominalizations
in the COHA..................................................................................... 134
Fig. 6.2 Diachronic distributions of mass and countable
nominalizations in the COHA........................................................... 136

Fig. 6.3 Diachronic distributions of present participles
and gerunds in the COHA................................................................. 139
Fig. 6.4 Diachronic distributions of determiners of gerunds
in the COHA..................................................................................... 140
Fig. 6.5 Diachronic distributions of gerunds, mass nouns,
and countable nouns in the COHA................................................... 142
Fig. 6.6 Diachronic distribution of passive constructions with
and without by-phrase in the COHA................................................. 147
Fig. 6.7 Diachronic distributions of hypotactic conjunctions
and verbalizations in the COHA....................................................... 149
Fig. 6.8 Diachronic distributions of conjunctive adverbs
and paratactic conjunctions in the COHA........................................ 152
Fig. 6.9 Diachronic distributions of hypotactic conjunctions
and conjunctive prepositions introducing non-finite
clauses in the COHA......................................................................... 154


List of Figures

xvii

Fig. 6.10 Diachronic distributions of hypotactic conjunctions
and conjunctive prepositions introducing non-finite clauses
in the COHA (2)................................................................................ 156
Fig. 6.11 Diachronic distributions of hypotactic conjunctions
and zero conjunctions introducing non-finite clauses
in the COHA..................................................................................... 158
Fig. 6.12 Diachronic distributions of hypotactic conjunctions
and zero conjunctions introducing non-finite clauses
in the COHA (2)................................................................................ 160

Fig. 6.13 Diachronic distributions of hypotactic conjunctions
although, when, and if and conjunctive prepositions
before, after, and since in the COHA................................................ 162
Fig. 6.14 Genre distributions of verbs and nominalizations
in the COCA..................................................................................... 164
Fig. 6.15 Genre distributions of mass nominalizations and countable
nominalizations in the COCA........................................................... 165
Fig. 6.16 Genre distributions of all verbs and the 21 verbs
in the COCA (equal totality)............................................................. 166
Fig. 6.17 Genre distributions of hypotactic conjunctions
and verbalizations in the COCA....................................................... 168
Fig. 6.18 Genre distributions of conjunctive adverbs and paratactic
conjunctions in the COCA................................................................ 169
Fig. 6.19 Genre distributions of hypotactic conjunctions
and conjunctive prepositions introducing non-finite
clauses in the BNC............................................................................ 170
Fig. 6.20 Genre distributions of finite and non-finite clauses
introduced by hypotactic conjunctions in the COCA
and the BNC (equal totality)............................................................. 172
Fig. A1 System network of clausal relations in English................................ 191
Fig. A2 System network of clause combining working in the UAM
Corpus Tool....................................................................................... 192


List of Tables

Table 3.1 Genres and texts in the Crown corpus............................................46
Table 3.2 Genre distribution and size of the COCA and the BNC.................47
Table 3.3 Phases and size of the COHA.........................................................48
Table 4.1 Clause complexes analyzed by Halliday

and Matthiessen (2014)..................................................................52
Table 4.2 Interdependent relations in the Crown corpus................................52
Table 4.3 Interdependent relations realized by finite secondary
clauses in the Crown corpus...........................................................53
Table 4.4 Interdependent relations in the Crown corpus (all levels)..............53
Table 4.5 Interdependent relations realized by finite secondary
clauses in the Crown corpus (all levels).........................................54
Table 4.6 Correlation test of different types of interdependent relations.......54
Table 4.7 Genre distribution of simple clauses and clause
complexes in the Crown corpus......................................................55
Table 4.8 Correlation test of the genre distributions of clause
combining in the Crown corpus.....................................................55
Table 4.9 Genre distributions of the logico-semantic relations......................56
Table 4.10 Genre distribution of elaboration in clause complexes..................59
Table 4.11 Genre distribution of elaboration in clause complexes (finite).......59
Table 4.12 Genre distribution of extension in clause complexes.....................60
Table 4.13 Genre distribution of enhancement in clause complexes...............60
Table 4.14 Genre distributions of reporting and quoting.................................62
Table 4.15 Genre distributions of speech functions of projection....................62
Table 4.16 Genre distributions of positions of projecting
and projected clauses......................................................................62
Table 4.17 Genre distribution of embedding....................................................63
Table 4.18 Explicit conjunctive expressions realizing expansion....................65
Table 4.19 Genre distribution of elaboration in the BNC................................66
Table 4.20 Genre distribution of elaboration in the COCA.............................67
Table 4.21 Genre distribution of extension in the BNC...................................69
xix


xx

List of Tables

Table 4.22 Genre distribution of extension in the COCA................................70
Table 4.23 Genre distribution of enhancement in the BNC.............................72
Table 4.24 Genre distribution of the five types of enhancement
in the BNC......................................................................................74
Table 4.25 Genre distribution of enhancement in the COCA..........................75
Table 4.26 Genre distributions of the five types of enhancement
in the COCA...................................................................................77
Table 4.27 Genre distribution of projection in the BNC..................................80
Table 4.28 Projections in Halliday and Matthiessen (2014)
and the BNC...................................................................................81
Table 4.29 One-level and two-level embedded projection...............................84
Table 4.30 Genre distribution of projection in the COCA...............................85
Table 4.31 Projections in the BNC and the COCA..........................................85
Table 4.32 Genre distributions of embedding in the BNC...............................90
Table 4.33 Genre distribution of embedding in the COCA..............................92
Table 5.1 Logico-semantic relations between clauses...................................96
Table 5.2 Interdependent relations between clauses......................................97
Table 5.3 Correlation test of the diachronic distributions
of the three types of interdependent relations................................99
Table 5.4 Diachronic distribution of expansion in the COHA.......................100
Table 5.5 Correlation test of the diachronic distributions
of different expansions...................................................................102
Table 5.6 Diachronic distribution of projection in the COHA.......................103
Table 5.7 Correlation test of the diachronic distributions
of different types of projections.....................................................105
Table 5.8 Diachronic distribution of embedding in the COHA.....................106
Table 5.9 Correlation test of the diachronic distributions

of embedding in the COHA............................................................108
Table 5.10 Diachronic distribution of non-finite clauses
of expansion in the COHA.............................................................112
Table 5.11 Diachronic distribution of the three types
of non-finite clauses of expansion in the COHA............................114
Table 5.12 Diachronic distribution of finite clauses and infinitive
clauses of purpose in the COHA....................................................116
Table 5.13 Diachronic distribution of non-finite embedded
clauses of subject in the COHA.....................................................120
Table 5.14 Diachronic distribution of personal pronoun subjects
of absolute clauses in the COHA...................................................123
Table 6.1 Diachronic distributions of verbs and their
nominalizations in the COHA........................................................134
Table 6.2 Diachronic distributions of present participles
and gerunds in the COHA..............................................................138
Table 6.3 Diachronic distributions of determiners of gerunds
in the COHA...................................................................................140


List of Tables

xxi

Table 6.4 Diachronic distributions of gerunds, mass nouns,
and countable nouns in the COHA.................................................141
Table 6.5 Diachronic distribution of passive constructions
with and without by-phrase in the COHA......................................146
Table 6.6 Diachronic distributions of hypotactic conjunctions
and verbalizations in the COHA.....................................................149
Table 6.7 Diachronic distribution of conjunctive adverbs

and paratactic conjunctions in the COHA......................................151
Table 6.8 Diachronic distributions of hypotactic conjunctions
and conjunctive prepositions introducing non-finite
clauses in the COHA......................................................................153
Table 6.9 Diachronic distributions of hypotactic conjunctions
and conjunctive prepositions introducing non-finite
clauses in the COHA (2)................................................................156
Table 6.10 Diachronic distributions of hypotactic conjunctions
and zero conjunctions introducing non-finite clauses
in the COHA...................................................................................158
Table 6.11 Diachronic distributions of hypotactic conjunctions
and zero conjunctions introducing non-finite clauses
in the COHA (2).............................................................................160
Table 6.12 Diachronic distributions of hypotactic conjunctions
although, when, and if and conjunctive prepositions
before, after, and since in the COHA.............................................162
Table 6.13 Genre distributions of verbs and nominalizations
in the COCA...................................................................................163
Table 6.14 Genre distribution of all verbs in the COCA..................................166
Table 6.15 Correlation test of genre distributions of different types
of verbs in the COCA.....................................................................167
Table 6.16 Genre distributions of hypotactic conjunctions
and verbalizations in the COCA.....................................................168
Table 6.17 Genre distributions of conjunctive adverbs and paratactic
conjunctions in the COCA.............................................................169
Table 6.18 Genre distributions of hypotactic conjunctions
and conjunctive prepositions introducing non-finite
clauses in the BNC.........................................................................170
Table 6.19 Frequencies of finite clauses and non-finite clauses
introduced by hypotactic conjunctions in the COCA

and the BNC...................................................................................171
Table A1

Genre distributions of clause combining
in the Brown Corpus.......................................................................193


Chapter 1

Introduction

This research intends to examine English clause combining and the potential of
transfer therein. Clause combining generally involves two clauses. Traditional
grammar (e.g., Quirk et al. 1985) distinguishes two basic patterns of clause combining, i.e., coordination and subordination. Subordination is readily identifiable by
two basic properties, i.e., dependency and embedding. Halliday (1985, 1994) and
Halliday and Matthiessen (2004, 2014) categorize embedded clauses into embedded defining clauses and embedded fact clauses. An embedded defining clause is the
restrictive relative clause that is embedded in a nominal group to function as its
post-modifier. An embedded fact clause is the clause that is embedded in a fact noun
to function as its appositive, including subject appositive and object appositive.

1.1  Research Background
Coordination is said to hold if two grammatical units are syntactically equivalent or
have the same status in the given syntactic context (Lang 1984; Lehmann 1988;
Huddleston and Pullum 2002; Haspelmath 2004a, b; Carston and Blakemore 2005;
Crysman 2006). Coordination is realized by coordinate conjunctions, and the most
typical coordinate conjunction in English is and, which can be used to link any two
grammatical units.
Quirk et al. (1985: 918) distinguish two types of coordination, i.e., syndetic coordination and asyndetic coordination. The former has an explicit conjunctive expression and hence is the unmarked or typical coordination (e.g.,1-1a), while the latter
does not have an explicit conjunctive expression and hence is the marked or untypical coordination. There is always a punctuation mark between the two elements of
asyndetic coordination (e.g., 1-1b).

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019
Q. He, A Corpus-Based Approach to Clause Combining in English from the
Systemic Functional Perspective, The M.A.K. Halliday Library Functional
Linguistics Series, />
1


2

1-1a.
  b.

1 Introduction

Economically and politically, they’ve been completely disenfranchised.
(BNC_MISC)
Slowly, carefully, he felt his way back toward the stairs. (BNC_FIC)

Typical coordination is symmetrical, that is, the two coordinated clauses can be
reversed. The irreversible coordination is asymmetrical. Many linguists (e.g., Lang
1984; Johannessen 1998; Blakemore 2005) have specifically discussed asymmetric
coordination, arguing that asymmetric coordination is so commonly seen that it has
become the unmarked organization, thus making typical coordination an ideal rather
than a true typical organization. In many cases, the meaning will change with the
displacement of the coordinate clauses (Levinson 2000: 121; Blakemore and
Carston 2005: 570). For example:
1-2a.
  b.
  c.

The mountains shook, and the earth trembled. (BNC_FIC)
The treatment succeeded, and the patient recovered rapidly. (BNC_NA)
Tell me where to stay, and I will go there. (BNC_FIC)

1-2a is a symmetrical coordination, and the two clauses can be transposed, while
1-2b is asymmetric, and the two clauses cannot be transposed. They are equal only
in form. The asymmetry is only related to meaning and has nothing to do with syntax. 1-2c is also asymmetric. The two clauses are not equal in form. The asymmetry
is related not only to meaning (imperative and declarative) but also to syntax
(phrasal verb and complete clause). “Syntactic-semantic mismatches may occur in
natural language coordination” (Fabricius-Hansen and Ramm 2008: 10). Many linguists (e.g., Fabricius-Hansen 1992; Lefèvre 2000) have discussed this kind of
syntactic-­semantic mismatch.
Subordination refers to clauses “that are embedded as a constituent of a matrix
sentence” (Holler 2008: 188). Typical subordination in traditional grammar includes
adverbial clauses, subject clauses, object clauses, relative clauses, and appositive
clauses. Subordination is a hierarchical relation. The subordinate clause is syntactically lower than the matrix clause it is embedded in (Aarts 2006; Blühdorn 2008).
There may be no formal markers of subordination between the two clauses (Reis
1999).
Of the two types of subordination, the dependent clause is attached to the matrix
clause and cannot be used alone, and the embedded clause is embedded in the
matrix clause assuming an element of the matrix clause or in a constituent of the
matrix clause to function as its modifier. They are different from coordination in that
a coordinate clause can be neither dependent nor embedded.
Semantically, the subject clause or the complement clause is an argument of the
predicate. They differ from adverbial clauses and relative clauses in that the latter
two are often subsumed under the notion of syntactic adjuncts (Lang et al. 2003;
Austin et al. 2004). Adjuncts have the semantic features of asymmetric coordination. For example, nonrestrictive relative clauses tend more to realize coordination
than restrictive relative clauses. See example 1-3:

1.1  Research Background

3

1-3a. When Ernest came home, he could not believe his eyes. (BNC_FIC)
  b. Eventually they got divorced, which was so good for the family.
(BNC_NEWS)
  c. People who could not bear it walked out. (BNC_MISC)
  d. The fact that Mr. Ridley looked awful on television is not entirely his
fault. (BNC_NEWS)
  e. They believe that the minimum wage could threaten their jobs.
(BNC_NEWS)
  f. That I took the commandments quite literally was not surprising.
(BNC_MISC)
The subordinate clauses in 1-3a and 1-3b are dependent clauses. The former is an
adverbial clause introduced by the subordinate conjunction when and the latter a
nonrestrictive relative clause introduced by the relative pronoun which, respectively.
Both function as adjuncts of the matrix clauses. In other words, without these two
subordinate clauses, the matrix clauses can still stand alone. The subordinate clauses
in 1-3c and 1-3d are embedded in the matrix clauses. The former is a restrictive relative clause introduced by the relative pronoun who, imposing restriction on the antecedent people, and the latter an appositive clause introduced by the complementizer
that, functioning as the description of the meta-noun fact. Without these two clauses,
the corresponding matrix clauses can also stand alone. The subordinate clauses in
1-3e and 1-3f are an object clause and a subject clause introduced by the complementizer that, respectively. Both are indispensable constituents of the matrix clauses
and hence cannot be omitted. These two clauses are neither typical-embedded
clauses nor typical-dependent clauses.
The major difference between coordination and subordination is that “a subordinate clause is often placed in the background with respect to the superordinate
clause” (Quirk et al. 1985: 919). The syntactic representation of semantic symmetry
is that the two coordinated clauses can be translocated with no significant changes
in meaning (Verstraete 2005); the syntactic representation of semantic asymmetry is
that the translocation of the two coordinated clauses will lead to significant changes

in meaning. “Where an inversion of the relata gives rise to such a change of meaning, it can be concluded that the connection is not understood as symmetrical, even
if it is syntactically encoded by a coordinator” (Blühdorn 2008: 70). In other words,
the coordination in form is not necessarily that in meaning and vice versa. In subordination, the lower level clauses are embedded in the higher-level matrix clauses.
“Semantically asymmetric connections, too, can be characterized, in a sense, as
embedding relations” (Blühdorn 2008: 74).
In addition, conjunctive adverbs establish connections on discourse level, “while
subordinators and coordinators establish connections on sentence level” (Blühdorn
2008: 68). For example:
1-4a. Mrs. Allinson was very reassuring. However, Mrs. Singh clearly saw
cedars as a temporary phase. (BNC_ACAD)
  b. The victim had become owner at the time of the deception. Therefore,
the accused did not obtain the price of the deception. (BNC_ACAD)


4

1 Introduction

During the past decades, many people conducted research on the two basic patterns
of clause combining from the sentence level (e.g., Foley and Van Valin 1984;
Kortmann 1996; Johannessen 1998; Cristofaro 2003; Haspelmath 2004a, b) and the
discourse level (e.g., Thompson and Longacre 1985; Mann and Thompson 1988;
Günthner 1996; Lefèvre 2000; Asher and Vieu 2005). At the sentence level, two
clauses are connected to form a clause complex by such linkers as coordinate conjunctions, subordinate conjunctions, complementizers, relative pronouns, prepositions or non-finite verbs, etc. At the discourse level, the two discourse components
combine together by means of cohesive devices such as conjunctive adverbs,
anaphora, or zero conjunctions (Halliday and Hasan 1976; Polanyi 1988; Knott and
Dale 1994; Knott et al. 2001).
Recent studies on coordination and subordination generally focus on two questions. The first is the relationship between coordination and subordination. It is generally believed that coordination and subordination are not absolute dichotomies. It
is a continuum from typical coordination to typical subordination (e.g., Quirk et al.
1985; O’Dowd 1992; Kortmann 1996; Johannessen 1998; Givón 2001; Cristofaro

2003; Haspelmath 2004a, b; Verstraete 2007; Holler 2008), which has undergone a
series of intermediate stages, such as coordination with features of subordination
introduced by and and pseudo-coordination introduced by subordinate conjunctions. Similarly, as for the two types of subordination, it is also a continuum from
the typical embedding (e.g., restrictive relative clauses) to the typical dependency
(e.g., adverbial clauses).
The second question about the studies on coordination and subordination is the
corpus-based quantitative research (e.g., Johansson and Hasselgård 1999; Webber
et al. 2003; Wolf and Gibson 2005; Cosme 2008; Ramm 2008). The use of the two
patterns of clause combining is different in different languages, and their use in the
same language may also be different in different genres. The corpus-based quantitative research makes it possible to explore the characteristics of cross-language
applications, cross-stylistic applications, and the diachronic evolution of coordination and subordination.

1.2  Purpose of the Study
Clause combining is also focused on within the framework of systemic functional
linguistics (Halliday 1985, 1994; Halliday and Matthiessen 2004, 2014). The relationship between coordination and subordination embodies the notion of ​​cline in
SFL, and the corpus-based quantitative research embodies the idea of probability in
SFL. Meanwhile, SFL studies language-in-use, and the quantitative research method
based on natural language is also the main research method of SFL.
According to SFL, two independent clauses can be combined together to construct a semantic sequence by means of a certain cohesive device, and two clauses
can also form a clause complex of parataxis or hypotaxis by conjunctive expressions. A clause can also be embedded in another clause as an element of that clause


1.2  Purpose of the Study

5

or embedded in a component of another clause to function as a modifier of this
component. The relationship between two independent clauses is cohesive and that
between the two clauses in a clause complex is structural, while embedding is the
relation between components. Therefore, SFL distinguishes such relations between

clauses as parataxis, hypotaxis, and embedding.
Hypotaxis in SFL as a part of subordination in traditional grammar (Matthiessen
and Thompson 1988) does not include embedding. Embedded defining clauses of
SFL realize quality of participants, and embedded fact clauses realize participants
in clauses. A participant is realized as subject or complement in grammar. However,
SFL considers subject clauses as embedded clauses, the whole construction being a
simple clause, while complement clauses as projected clauses, the whole construction being a clause complex.
Thompson (1996), Fawcett (1996), and Huang (1999) consider the hypotaxis in
the Hallidayan sense as embedding. They believe that the dependent clauses can
also be regarded as the circumstances of the dominant clauses. He (2002), on the
other hand, puts constructions consisting of an embedded clause in the Hallidayan
sense into the category of clause complexes. The criterion to judge whether a clause
is embedded is double transitivity analyses or double syntactic analyses, that is,
whether one of the two clauses can be a constituent of another clause or a constituent of a constituent of another clause. Adverbial clauses, subject clauses, and complement clauses in traditional grammar all are subject to double syntactic analyses
and double transitivity analyses. Therefore, they can all be regarded as clause complexes or simple clauses with embedded clauses.
Finite clauses have the potential to realize parataxis, hypotaxis, and embedding,
and non-finite clauses can realize hypotaxis and embedding. In addition to finite and
non-finite clauses, prepositional phrases can also realize embedding. This is because
clauses and clause complexes are concepts at the lexico-grammatical stratum, while
parataxis, hyotaxis, and embedding are concepts at the semantic stratum. The transfer at the lexico-grammatical stratum will create new meaning but will not change
the logical relation. A sequence at the semantic stratum can be realized as two independent clauses, a clause complex, a simple clause, or even a rank-shifted phrase or
word group. Although two independent clauses do not belong to the category of
clause complexes in SFL, a hypotactic relation may also be realized as a paratactic
conjunction.
Therefore, the overall purpose of this study is to explore the patterns of clause
combining and their genre and diachronic distributions and to further analyze the
transfers between the patterns of clause combining that create grammatical metaphor. The specific objectives are as follows:
1. To construct a system network of clause combining. This research will distinguish parataxis and hypotaxis at the lexico-grammatical stratum and those at the
semantic stratum, based on which, this research will rethink the system network
of clause complexes in SFL and construct the system network of clause

combining.


6

1 Introduction

2. To explore the general characteristics of text organization. It is possible to find
out the application tendencies of different types of clause combining, to summarize the basic features of text organization through corpus-based quantitative
research of clause combining, and to explore their synchronic and diachronic
distributions.
3. To identify the transfers within clause combining patterns. Both textual metafunction and grammatical metaphor are second-order language phenomena
(Halliday and Matthiessen 1999; Taverniers 2006). Ideational metaphor and
interpersonal metaphor have textual effects (Halliday and Mattihessen 2004,
2014), but this does not mean at all that ideational and interpersonal metaphors
are also textual metaphors. Textual metaphor is not induced by the rank-shift-­
producing ideational metaphor or the transcatetorization-producing interpersonal metaphor; rather, it is induced by its own organizations (He et al. 2015).
Therefore, textual metaphor arises from the reorganization of the cohesive structure, thematic structure, and information structure. The study of grammatical
metaphor in the patterns of clause combining can provide a reasonable explanation for the existence of textual metaphor. The recognition of textual metaphor
should follow the basic principle of double functionality.

1.3  Organization of the Book
This research consists of three parts. The first part is the literature review and the
theoretical background. The second part is the corpus-based quantitative research of
the synchronic and diachronic distributions of different types of clausal relations in
English. The third part is the corpus-based research of grammatical metaphor in
English clause combining.
The first part consists of three chapters. Chapter 1 is the introduction, including
the research background, the aim of the study, and the layout of this research.
Chapter 2 is the theoretical background. This chapter will review the traditional

studies of coordination and subordination and provide an overview of functional
syntax theory, pointing out the theoretical basis for conducting research on clause
combining. Through defining embedding in the framework of SFL, this research
proposes the identification criteria of embedding, and according to the notion of
cline and the rank scale hypothesis, this research differentiates the depth of embedding and constructs the system network of clausal relations. Chapter 3 is the methodology. This chapter puts forward the research questions, research method, and
data collection and analysis.
The second part consists of two chapters. Chapter 4 is the corpus-based research
of the genre distributions of different patterns of clause combining. According to the
basic genre distribution patterns, this research analyzes the information density of
different genres. Chapter 5 is the study of the diachronic distribution of different
patterns of clause combining. This research is conducted to test the hypothesis that
different patterns of clause combining have different diachronic distribution trends.


References

7

The third part is Chap. 6. This chapter is a corpus-based study of grammatical
metaphor in clause combining. The research is conducted to explore the nominalization of verbal groups, the verbalization of conjunctive expressions, and the
­transcategorization of different types of conjunctive expressions. The genre and diachronic distributions of different types of grammatical metaphor will also be investigated in this chapter.
Chapter 7 is the conclusion. This chapter will first summarize this research, then
point out the existing questions, and suggest further research in this field of study.

References
Aarts, B. (2006). Subordination. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language & linguistics (2nd
ed., pp. 248–254). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Asher, N., & Vieu, L. (2005). Subordinating and coordinating discourse relations. Lingua, 115(4),
591–610.
Austin, J. R., Engelberg, S., & Rauh, G. (2004). Adverbials: The interplay between meaning, context, and syntactic structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Blakemore, D. (2005). And-parentheticals. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1165–1181.
Blakemore, D., & Carston, R. (2005). The pragmatics of sentential coordination with and. Lingua,
115(4), 569–589.
Blühdorn, H. (2008). Subordination and coordination in syntax, semantics, and discourse: Evidence
from the study of connectives. In C. Fabricius-Hansen & W. Ramm (Eds.), ‘Subordination’ versus ‘coordination’ in sentence and text: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 59–88). Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Carston, R., & Blakemore, D. (2005). Introduction to coordination: Syntax, semantics and pragmatics. Lingua, 115(4), 353–358.
Cosme, C. (2008). A corpus-based perspective on clause linking patterns in English, French and
Dutch. In C. Fabricius-Hansen & W. Ramm (Eds.), ‘Subordination’ versus ‘coordination’ in
sentence and text: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 89–114). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Cristofaro, S. (2003). Subordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crysman, B. (2006). Coordination. In K.  Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language & linguistics
(2nd ed., pp. 183–196). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Fabricius-Hansen, C. (1992). Subordination. In L. Hoffmann (Ed.), Deutsche Syntax: Ansichten
und Aussichten (pp. 458–483). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Fabricius-Hansen, C., & Ramm, W. (2008). Editors’ introduction: Subordination and coordination
from different perspectives. In C. Fabricius-Hansen & W. Ramm (Eds.), ‘Subordination’ versus ‘coordination’ in sentence and text: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 1–30). Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Fawcett, R. P. (1996). A systemic functional approach to complementation in English. In M. Berry,
C. Butler, R. P. Fawcett, & G. W. Huang (Eds.), Meaning and form: Systemic functional interpretations (pp. 297–366). Norwood: Ablex.
Foley, W. A., & Van Valin, R. D., Jr. (1984). Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Givón, T. (Ed.). (2001). Syntax: An introduction, Vol. II. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Gunthner, S. (1996). From subordination to coordination? Verb-second position in German causal
and concessive constructions. Pragmatics, 6(3), 323–370.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M.  A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward
Arnold.

8

1 Introduction

Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (1999). Construing experience through meaning:
A language-based approach to cognition. London/New York: Cassell.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd
ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). An introduction to functional grammar (4th
ed.). London/New York: Routledge.
Haspelmath, M. (2004a). Coordinating constructions: An overview. In M.  Haspelmath (Ed.),
Coordinating constructions (Typological studies in language 58) (pp.  3–40). Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Haspelmath, M. (Ed.). (2004b). Coordinating constructions. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
He, W. (2002). On recursiveness, embedding and functional syntactic reanalysis. Foreign Language
Research, 3, 64–69.
He, Q., Yang, B., & Wen, B. (2015). Textual metaphor from the perspective of relator. Australian
Journal of Linguistics, 35(4), 334–350.
Holler, A. (2008). German dependent clauses from a constraint-based perspective. In C. Fabricius-­
Hansen & W.  Ramm (Eds.), ‘Subordination’ versus ‘coordination’ in sentence and text: A
cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 187–216). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Huang, G. (1999). A functional approach to English syntactic analysis. Journal of Sun Yat-Sen
University (Social Science Edition), 4, 20–27.
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G.  K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johannessen, J. B. (1998). Coordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Johansson, S., & Hasselgård, H. (1999). Corpora and cross-linguistic research in the Nordic countries. In S. Granger, L. Beheydt, & J.-P. Colson (Eds.), Contrastive linguistics and translation
(pp. 145–162). Leuven: Peeters.
Knott, A., & Dale, R. (1994). Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of coherence relations.

Discourse Processes, 18, 35–62.
Knott, A., Sanders, T., & Oberlander, J. (Eds.). (2001). Levels of representation in discourse relations. Cognitive Linguistics, 12, 197–332.
Kortmann, B. (1996). Adverbial subordination: A typology and history of adverbial subordinators
based on European languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lang, E. (1984). The semantics of coordination (Studies in language companion series 9).
Authorized English translation from Lang (1997). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Lang, E., Maienborn, C., & Fabricius-Hansen, C. (Eds.). (2003). Modifying adjuncts. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Lefèvre, M. (Ed.). (2000). Subordination in syntax, semantik und textlinguistik. Tübingen:
Stauffenburg.
Lehmann, C. (1988). Towards a typology of clause linkage. In J.  Haiman & S.  D. Thompson
(Eds.), Clause combining in Grammar and discourse (pp. 181–226). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory
of text organization. Text, 8(3), 243–281.
Matthiessen, C. M. I. M., & Thompson, S. A. (1988). The structure of discourse and ‘subordination’. In J. Haiman & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse
(pp. 275–329). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
O’Dowd, E. (1992). The syntactic metaphor of subordination: A typological study. Lingua, 86,
46–80.
Polanyi, L. (1988). A formal model of the structure of discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 12,
601–638.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J.  (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the
English language. London/New York: Longman.