Clause Complex Embedded As Qualifier Of Epithet

Cf I'm not very surprised…

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 275):

Submodifiers like so, very, too go with nominal groups but not with verbal groups: we can say I was very afraid of it but not I very feared it; you’re not too keen on it but not you don’t too want it.

Please

From A Vast Cloud Of Gas And Dust

 For 'from'/'out of' as Manner: means, see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 313).

Predicated Theme vs Postposed Subject

Note that both clauses have the same interpersonal structure, though the Subject is realised by a nominal group in the predicated Theme clause, but by an elaborating paratactic nominal group complex in the postposed Subject clause.

Note also that the predicated Theme clause is encoding (the Value is encoded by reference to the Token your good luck), whereas the postposed Subject clause is decoding (the Token is decoded by reference to the Value your good luck).

Probability Realised By Both Finite Modal Operator And Noun Of Modalisation

There are thus 2 probabilities:

1. the probability of complications or adverse effects (➘ noun of modalisation);
2. the probability of increasing that probability (➘ Finite).

For nouns of modalisation, see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 536).

The Materiality Of Birth

Once upon a time, there was a girl and the girl had a shadow. The two were connected, tethered together. And the girl ate, her food was given to her warm and tasty. But when the shadow was hungry, he had to eat rabbit raw and bloody. On Christmas, the girl received wonderful toys; soft and cushy. But the shadow's toys were so sharp and cold they sliced through her fingers when she tried to play with them. The girl met a handsome prince and fell in love. But the shadow at that same time had Abraham, it didn't matter if she loved him or not. He was tethered to the girl's prince after all. Then the girl had her first child, a beautiful baby girl. But the shadow, she gave birth to a little monster. Umbrae was born laughing. The girl had a second child, a boy this time. They had to cut her open and take him from her belly. The shadow had to do it all herself. She named him Pluto, he was born to love fire. So you see, the shadow hated the girl so much for so long until one day the shadow realised she was being tested by God.

Reasoning:

1. In the first clause, the question is whether a beautiful baby girl is a depictive Attribute or a unit in a nominal group complex. Viewed 'from above', both interpretations construe an elaborating relation between her first child and a beautiful baby girl. However, viewed 'from below', a beautiful baby girl is realised by its own tone group, with the same tone choice as the preceding tone group (tone concord). This is a feature of paratactic elaboration (apposition), but not of depictive Attributes.

2. In the second clause, the question is how to analyse the shadow. In this instance, there is no possible tone concord with she, so the two do not form an elaborating paratactic nominal group complex, and so the shadow is a distinct clause element. The clue here is textual. Whatever its experiential function, the shadow is realised by its own tone group, making it the focus of New information, switching the focus of attention from the girl. Similarly, if the shadow is a distinct clause element, then it must function as marked Theme, since the Subject/Actor is she. The simplest explanation comes from taking the view 'from roundabout' and interpreting the shadow as agnate to such Matter circumstances as regarding the shadow, as for the shadow etc.

3. In the third clause, the question is whether open is the particle of a phrasal verb or a resultative Attribute. Viewed 'from above', both interpretations construe open as the result of cut, and viewed 'from roundabout', both interpretations have the same modal structure, since the particle of a phrasal verb and a resultative Attribute both serve as Adjunct. In this instance, the view 'from below', however, favours a resultative Attribute interpretation, since the particle of a phrasal verb is either a preposition or an adverb (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 413), whereas open is an adjective, which is a typical realisation of a resultative Attribute.

Interpersonal Metaphor Of Mood

(The) Glaxo Exhibit: Theme, Transitivity & Mood

hypotactic extending verbal group complex of conation:

Here not is interpreted as a formal or written variant of the Finite negative element n't, rather than a distinct modal Adjunct, on the basis that the unmarked Mood tag would be should she? rather than shouldn't she?. See Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 175-6).

The lexical choice of see adds a 'mental' feature to the material Process.

The additional participant rôle of Behaver is explained by Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 576, 577):

The extending complex is a two-part process, in which the Subject fills a dual participant role: Behaver (in the conative component) plus Actor, or some other role, in the happening itself.

Non-Finite Clause: Theme, Transitivity And Mood

'Must' & 'Have To': Obligation & Probability

Both 'must' and 'have to' can realise high value obligation or probability, the latter form evolving from an earlier conative function; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 145, 572-3, 583).

 modulation: obligation (high value)

she	must	go
Theme	Rheme
Actor	Process: material
Subject	Finite	Predicator
Mood		Residue

she	has	to go
Theme	Rheme
Actor	Process: material
Subject	Finite	Predicator
Mood		Residue

modalisation: probability (high value)

she	must	have gone
Theme	Rheme
Actor	Process: material
Subject	Finite	Predicator
Mood		Residue

she	has	to have gone
Theme	Rheme
Actor	Process: material
Subject	Finite	Predicator
Mood		Residue

Un/Marked Themes In Positive And Negative Imperative Clauses

Positive Imperatives

unmarked Theme:

let's	go	home
Theme: unmarked	Rheme
Subject	Predicator	Adjunct

keep	quiet
Theme: unmarked	Rheme
Predicator	Complement

marked Theme:

you	keep	quiet
Theme: marked	Rheme
Subject	Predicator	Complement

do	keep	quiet
Theme: marked		Rheme
Finite	Predicator	Complement

Negative Imperatives

unmarked Theme:

don't	let's	quarrel	about it
Theme: unmarked		Rheme
Finite	Subject	Predicator	Adjunct

don't	argue	with me
Theme: unmarked		Rheme
Finite	Predicator	Adjunct

marked Theme:

don't	you	argue	with me
Theme: marked		Rheme
Finite	Subject	Predicator	Adjunct

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 103):

Theme in imperative clauses.
The basic message of an imperative clause is either ‘I want you to do something’ or ‘I want us (you and me) to do something’. The second type usually begins with let’s, as in let’s go home now; here let’s is clearly the unmarked choice of Theme. But with the first type, although the ‘you’ can be made explicit as a Theme (e.g. you keep quiet!, meaning ‘as for you, ... ’), this is clearly a marked choice; the more typical form is simply keep quiet, with the verb in thematic position. The function of the verb, in the mood structure (clause as exchange), is that of Predicator; here, therefore, it is the Predicator that is the unmarked Theme. 

In negative imperatives, such as don’t argue with me, don’t let’s quarrel about it, the principle is the same as with yes/no interrogatives: the unmarked Theme is don’t plus the following element, either Subject or Predicator. Again there is a marked form with you, e.g. don’t you argue with me, where the Theme is don’t you. There is also a marked contrastive form of the positive, such as do take care, where the Theme is do plus the Predicator take.

Subjunctively Telling God What To Do

Consider the following clauses (queried on sys-func) uttered by a priest as part of the Catholic mass:

The Lord	be	with you
Medium	Process	circumstantial Range
Subject: marked	Predicator	Adjunct
Mood	Residue

God	bless	you
Agent	Process	Medium
Subject: marked	Predicator	Complement
Mood	Residue

God	forgive	you	your sins
Agent	Process	Beneficiary	Medium
Subject: marked	Predicator	Complement	Complement
Mood	Residue

In terms of interpersonal semantics, these are instances of the minor speech function that Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 196) term 'well-wishing', which they group with salutations and valedictions as greetings.  (Subjunctive mood in English is theorised by Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 143) as a system of the verbal group, subjunctive mode, rather than of the clause.)

As wishes, they are topologically closer to the major speech function 'proposal', than to 'proposition', because the process of wishing projects proposals, rather than propositions. And this is shown by the fact that the clauses are realised grammatically by imperative mood, the congruent realisation of the proposal 'command'.

How then to explain the marked Subject (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 194-5) of these imperative clauses, through which a lowly priest is demanding (goods-&-)services of his Supreme Being? One way to explain it is in terms of tenor.

In the service of the Catholic mass, the priest acts as the earthly representative of the Christian God.  In enacting this tenor rôle, he reassures the congregation, on behalf of God, with meanings that would be congruently realised as:

the Lord is with you
God blesses you,
God forgives you your sins

The Lord	is		with you
Medium	Process		circumstantial Range
Subject	Finite	Predicator	Adjunct
Mood		Residue

 

God	blesses		you
Agent	Process		Medium
Subject	Finite	Predicator	Complement
Mood		Residue

God	forgives		you	your sins
Agent	Process		Beneficiary	Medium
Subject	Finite	Predicator	Complement	Complement
Mood		Residue

On this interpretation, the clauses spoken by the priest are instances of interpersonal metaphor in which statements — which are congruently realised by declarative clauses — are realised incongruently as imperative clauses.

This explains both the presence of the marked Subjects in the imperative clauses, and the inappropriate tenor of a human giving commands to a deity.

[This analysis was privately sent to the inquirer, Gareth Gilbert-Hughes, on 12 August 2019. Receipt was not acknowledged.]


Postscript:

Note that if the priest says, instead:

• May the Lord be with you
• May God bless you
• May God forgive you your sins

he risks losing the enactment of the superior tenor rôle of representing the Christian God, since these well-wishings can be exchanged by priest and parishioner alike; they are not necessarily wordings exclusive to the priest.

This explicitly identifies a further function of the metaphorical forms (implicit in the original analysis).