Name : Cherlia Dinda

NIM : 180110101015

Chapter Seven
ABOVE THE CLAUSE: THE CLAUSE COMPLEX
7.1 The notion of ‘clause complex’

7.1.1 Introductory examples

In narrative text, the flow of events is construed as a series of episodes. Sequence of figures
realizes a generic element from the ‘middle’ part within the overall structure of narratives
(see Hasan, 1984/1996: 54); this element is the Sequent Event. Sequent Event is the relation
of temporal sequence; so if readers are familiar with the structure of narratives, they will
expect to find passages developed through this kind of relation. if this relation is not
marked explicitly by the lexicogrammar, it can be inferred by the listener or reader based on
the properties of the figures that make up the episode.

The semantic sequence of figures is realized by a series of clause complexes. . It realizes the
figures that make up the episode as clauses; and it combines these clauses into complexes
of clauses. These complexes serve to construe semantic sequences of figures — not the
whole episode, but local sequences in the flow of events that together make up the episode.
Semantically, the effect of combining clauses into a clause complex is one of tighter
integration in meaning. This integrating of a series of events into a sub-sequence is a feature
of narratives in general.

7.1.2 Clause complexing and (circumstantial) transitivity in clauses

Circumstances augment the configuration of process + participants in the clause in terms of

either projection or expansion. These two types of relation correspond, in turn, to different
process types: projection corresponds to verbal and mental clauses, and expansion
corresponds to relational clauses. A circumstantial element in a clause contains only a minor
process, not a major one; so unlike a clause it cannot construe a figure, it cannot enact a
proposition/proposal and it cannot present a message. A sequence of projection or
expansion may be realized by two clauses that are combined structurally to form a clause
complex, as in a happened and then b happened or after a happened, b happened. On the
one hand, the sequence may be realized by two clauses that are not combined structurally
but are linked cohesively instead: A happened. Then b happened. These grammatical
opportunities for realizing a sequence of projection or expansion form a scale defined by
two poles: one pole is the simple clause with a circumstantial element and the other is the
cohesive sequence of two independent clauses. This figure also shows other facets of the
location of the clause complex in the overall system of English.

(1) In terms of metafunction, it is organized by the logical mode of the ideational

metafunction, contrasting with circumstantial augmentations of the clause
(experiential) and cohesive sequences (textual).
(2) In terms of rank, it is located at the highest rank of the grammar — clause rank; and
it is thus related to the clause in terms of logical complexing rather than in terms of
experiential constituency
(3) In terms of stratification, a clause complex realizes a semantic sequence of
projection or expansion; and it is, in turn, realized by a sequence of tones in speech
and by a sentence in writing.
7.1.3 Clause complexing, formation of groups and the sentence
The clause complex is realized graphologically as a ‘sentence’, in the way that this has
evolved, over the centuries, as a unit in the written language. The sentence is the highest
unit of punctuation on the graphological rank scale and has evolved in the writing system to
represent the clause complex as the most extensive domain of grammatical structure. . In
various other descriptions, the term sentence has also been used to refer to a grammatical
unit. Groups have developed their own multivariate constituent structures with functional
configurations such as the Deictic + Numerative + Epithet + Classifier + Thing of the nominal
group in English. Here the elements are
(i) distinct in function,
(ii) realized by distinct classes, and
(iii) more or less fixed in sequence.

In a clause complex, the tendency is much more for any clause to have the potential for
functioning with any value in a multi-clausal complex. We shall assume, therefore, that the
notion of ‘clause complex’ enables us to account in full for the grammatical combination of
clauses. The dependent clause is included within the main clause after the textual and/or
interpersonal Theme and before the topical Theme: main clause << dependent clause >> —
more specifically, main clause [textual + interpersonal Theme] << dependent clause >> main
clause [topical Theme ^ Rheme]. The motivation behind such sequences with included
dependent clauses is thus textual: the main clause is powerfully contextualized first by its
own textual and/or interpersonal Theme, and then, within the domain of the clause
complex, by the dependent clause that qualifies it, and finally by its own topical Theme.

7.2 Types of relationship between clauses

(i) TAXIS (degree of interdependency): hypotaxis/parataxis. All clauses linked by a logico-

semantic relation are interdependent. Two clauses related as interdependent in a complex
may be treated as being of equal status. The clauses making up such a nexus are primary
and secondary. The primary is the initiating clause in a paratactic nexus, and the dominant
clause in a hypotactic. The secondary is the continuing clause in a paratactic nexus and the
 dependent clause in a hypotactic. The nesting in either of two ways. (i) The nesting can be
represented explicitly as internal bracketing — e.g. 1 ^ 2 (a ^ b); (ii) or it can be represented
as a simple string — e.g. 1 ^ 2a ^ 2b.
(ii) LOGICO-SEMANTIC RELATION: expansion/projection. Logico-semantic relations may hold
between a primary and a secondary member of a clause nexus. But it is possible to group
these into a small number of general types, based on the two fundamental relationships of
expansion and projection.
(1) Expansion: the secondary clause expands the primary clause, by (a) elaborating it,
(b) extending it or (c) enhancing it.
(2) Projection: the secondary clause is projected through the primary clause, which
instates it as (a) a locution or (b) an idea.
Expansion relates phenomena as being of the same order of experience, while projection
relates phenomena to phenomena of a higher order of experience. A small number of
subtypes: three of expansion, and two of projection. The names of these, with suggested
notation, are as follows.
(1) Expansion:
elaborating = (‘equals’)
extending + (‘is added to’)
enhancing × (‘is multiplied by’).
(2) Projection:
locution “ (double quotes)
idea ‘ (single quotes).
7.3 TAXIS: parataxis and hypotaxis
(i) A univariate structure is an iteration of the same functional relationship. . Such iterative
structures are unique to the logical mode of meaning; they are, as noted, formed out of
logico-semantic relations.
(ii) A multivariate structure is a configuration of different functional relationships, like Theme
+ Rheme, Mood + Residue + Moodtag, or Actor + Process + Recipient + Goal. A prototypical
example of a segmental structure is the transitivity structure of a clause, a prototypical
example of a prosodic structure is the tone contour that typically extends over a clause, and a
prototypical example of a culminative structure is thematic prominence at the beginning of
the clause (followed by rhematic non-prominence).
These are, as we have seen, formed out of a small number of logico-semantic relations such
as exemplification, addition and temporal sequence. In all univariate structures the units
related in this way are interdependent; but two degrees of interdependency have evolved —
parataxis and hypotaxis. This is the distinction in the system of taxis introduced above.
Parataxis and hypotaxis are general relationships that are the same throughout the grammar.
Parataxis is the linking of elements of equal status. The paratactic relation is logically (i)
symmetrical and (ii) transitive. This can be exemplified with the ‘and’ relation.
Hypotaxis is the binding of elements of unequal status. The hypotactic relation is logically (i)
non-symmetrical and (ii) non-transitive. For example, ‘when’. Parataxis and hypotaxis are the
two basic forms taken by logical relations in natural language. The terms in a logico-semantic
relation are ordered by them as either equal (paratactic) or unequal (hypotactic).
In the case of both parataxis and hypotaxis, the secondary clause may be elliptical; this is
typically ellipsis of the Subject, or the whole Mood element (which is the norm with
hypotaxis). In the case of parataxis, the domain of ellipsis may also be the primary clause.

7.4 Elaborating, extending, enhancing: three kinds of expansion

The different types of expansion shade into one another at certain points; and expansion itself
can come very close to projection.

7.4.1 Elaboration
In elaboration, one clause elaborates on the meaning of another by further specifying or
describing it. The secondary clause does not introduce a new element into the picture but
rather provides a further characterization of one that is already there, restating it, clarifying it,
refining it, or adding a descriptive attribute or comment. Elaboration may be either paratactic
or hypotactic; the two are contrasted in terms of meaning and realization. The elaborating
relationship in meaning is thus symbolized by the identity of tones. Paratactic elaborating
clauses are, in contrast, often without a marker of the elaborating relationship, especially in
speech where the relationship is indicated by tone concord. In terms of meaning, paratactic
elaboration and hypotactic elaboration are largely complementary, covering different aspects
of elaboration. Paratactic elaboration involves exposition, exemplification and clarification,
while hypotactic elaboration involves description. In the hypotactic variant, there is always a
relative element that refers back to the domain of elaboration; in the agnate paratactic
variant this corresponds to a non-relative anaphoric reference.

7.4.1.1 Paratactic elaboration

Paratactic (notation 1 =2).
(i) Exposition. Here the secondary clause restates the thesis of the primary clause in
different words, to present it from another point of view, or perhaps just to reinforce
the message.
(ii) Exemplification. Here the secondary clause develops the thesis of the primary clause
by becoming more specific about it, often citing an actual example. Here the explicit
conjunctives are for example, for instance, in particular; or, in writing, e.g
(iii) Clarification. In this case the secondary clause clarifies the thesis of the primary clause,
backing it up with some form of explanation or explanatory comment. Expressions
such as in fact, actually, indeed, at least are common in this type; the nearest written
abbreviation is again i.e.
7.4.1.2 Hypotactic elaboration

Hypotactic (notation 𝛼 = 𝛽 ). The combination of elaboration with hypotaxis gives the

category of non-defining relative clause (also called ‘non-restrictive’, ‘descriptive’). Hypotactic
elaboration is a strategy for introducing into the discourse background information (in
narrative often, though not necessarily, with a secondary past tense), a characterization, an
interpretation of some aspect of the dominant clause, some form of evaluation (as can also
happen with paratactic clarification). Elaborating dependent clauses may be either finite or
non-finite. We will consider these two in turn.

(i) Finite. If the secondary clause is finite, it has the same form as a defining relative
clause of the WH- type. It differs from a defining relative clause, however, in two
ways: there is a distinction in the meaning, and there is a corresponding distinction
in the expression, both in speech and in writing.
It is helpful to treat them under three headings according to the domain within the
primary clause, although these are not sub-types, simply convenient groupings:
(a) Clauses with which whose domain is either the whole of the primary clause or
some part of it that is more than a nominal group (the paratactic and cohesive
agnates being extended text references with it or this)
(b) Clauses with which (occasionally that), who or whose whose domain is a nominal
group (the paratactic and cohesive agnates being personal references with he, she,
it, they and their possessive equivalents)
(c) Clauses with when or where, having as domain some expression of time or place
(ii) Non-finite. Here, the same semantic relationship obtains as with the finites, and
again the domain may be one nominal group or some larger segment of the primary
clause, up to the whole clause.
In most instances of non-finite elaboration, the Subject is left implicit, to be
presupposed from the primary clause; and it is often difficult to identify it exactly.

7.4.2 Extension

In extension, one clause extends the meaning of another by adding something new to it. What
is added may be just an addition, or else a replacement, or an alternative.

7.4.2.1 Paratactic extension

Paratactic (notation 1 + 2). The combination of extension with parataxis yields what is known
as co-ordination between clauses. It is typically expressed by and, nor, or, but. Three major
subtypes of paratactic extension, (i) addition, (ii) variation and (iii) alternation.

` (i) Addition.

One process is simply adjoined to another. Addition falls into three subtypes — (a)
‘additive: positive’ (‘and’), (b) ‘additive: negative’ (‘nor’) and (c) ‘adversative’ (‘but’ —
 ‘and conversely’). Paratactic additions are often accompanied by cohesive
expressions such as too, in addition, also, moreover, on the other hand.

(ii) Variation.
Here, one clause is presented as being in total or partial replacement of another.
Variation falls into two subtypes — ‘replacive’ (‘instead’) and ‘subtractive’ (‘except’).

7.4.2.2 Hypotactic extension

Hypotactic (notation 𝛼 + 𝛽 ). The combination of extension with hypotaxis also embraces (a)
addition, (b) variation and (c) alternation, but with the extending clause dependent. The
dependent clause may be finite or non-finite.
(i) Finite.
(a) Addition. Hypotactic clauses of addition are introduced by the conjunctions
whereas, while.

(b) Variation. There is no finite form for replacement. For subtraction the finite
clause is introduced by except that, but (for the fact) that.

(c) Alternation. The hypotactic form of the alternative relation is if ... not (i.e. ‘if not a,
then b’, with the dependent clause typically coming first).

(ii) Non-finite. Non-finite hypotactic extending clauses cover both (a) addition and (b)
variation. Two subtypes are absent from the non-finite system: ‘negative additive’ addition
and ‘alternative’ variation. The non-finite form of hypotactic extending is an imperfective
clause; (structure a +b).

7.4.3 Enhancement

In enhancement one clause (or subcomplex) enhances the meaning of another by qualifying it
in one of a number of possible ways: by reference to time, place, manner, cause or condition.
As with extension, long sequences are more likely to be construed paratactically than
hypotactically; paratactic temporal sequences play a significant role in the construction of
event lines in narrative text and other (passages of) text where chronology is an important
organizing principle.

7.4.3.1 Paratactic enhancement

Paratactic (notation 1 X 2). The combination of enhancement with parataxis yields what is also
a kind of co-ordination but with a circumstantial feature incorporated into it. The
circumstantial feature is typically expressed (a) by the conjunctions then, so, for, but, yet, still;
(b) by a conjunction group with and: and then, and there, and thus, and so, and yet; or (c) by
and in combination with a conjunctive.

(i) temporal
same time(now, and), later time (and then)
(ii) spatial
same place (and there)
(iii) manner
means (and in that way, and thus)
comparison (and so, and similarly)
(iv) causal-conditional
cause: reason/purpose
(a) cause ^ effect (so, and so)
(b) effect ^ cause (for)
condition: positive (and then)
condition: negative (otherwise)
condition: concessive
7.4.3.2 Hypotactic enhancement
Hypotactic (notation 𝛼 𝑥 𝛽 ). The combination of enhancement with hypotaxis gives what are
known in traditional formal grammar as ‘adverbial clauses’. As with parataxis, these are
clauses of time, place, manner, cause, and condition. Hypotactic chains of more than two
clauses are not uncommon. Their contribution to the development of discourse is, naturally,
very different from that of paratactic chains: in a hypotactic chain, each new link in the chain
moves further away from the place in the discourse where the dominant clause is located.
Hypotactically enhancing clauses may be finite or non-finite. The non-finite are introduced
either
(a) by a preposition such as on, with, by functioning conjunctively
(b) by one of a subset of the binders — there are a few of these, such as when, which can
function also with a non-finite clause. The following are some examples of hypotactic
enhancing clauses which are finite: time, place.
(c) Manner: quality, comparison, means
(d) cause-condition: cause-reason, cause-purpose, cause-result, concession, condition:positive,
condition:negative

With a finite clause, the conjunction serves to express both the dependency (the hypotactic
status) and the circumstantial relationship. As well as simple conjunctions such as because,
when, if, and conjunction groups like as if, even if, soon after, so that, there are three kinds of
complex conjunction, one derived from verbs, one from nouns and the third from adverbs.

(a) Verbal conjunctions are derived from the imperative or from the present/active or
past/passive participle + (optionally) that: provided (that), seeing (that/how),
suppose/supposing (that), granted (that), say (that).
(b) Nominal conjunctions include in case, in the event that, to the extent that, and the +
various nouns of time or manner, e.g. the day, the moment, the way.
(c) Adverbial conjunctions are as/so long as, as/so far as, (as) much as, for example as long as
you’re here . . ., as far as I know . . ., much as I’d like to . . . (compare non-finite as well as,
which is extending not enhancing).
7.4.4 Expansion clauses that are not explicitly marked for any logical-semantic relation
Certain markers of expansion are multivalent; they can mark either elaboration and extension
or extension and enhancement. Two kinds of problem arise in analysis, one with finite the
other with non-finite clauses.
(i) A finite clause is in principle independent; it becomes dependent only if introduced by a
binding (hypotactic) conjunction.

(ii) A non-finite clause, on the other hand, is by its nature dependent, simply by virtue of being
non-finite. It typically occurs, therefore, without any other explicit marker of its dependent
status.

7.4.5 Embedded expansions

It is important to distinguish between the ‘tactic’ relations of parataxis and hypotaxis on the
one hand and embedding. Whereas parataxis and hypotaxis are relations between clauses (or
other ranking elements. Embedding is thus the ‘rank shift’ by which a clause or phrase comes
to function within the structure of a group. The characteristic function of an embedded
element is as Postmodifier in a nominal group, as in the above examples. Other functions are:
as Head of a nominal group (i.e. as a nominalization). The meaning of an embedded clause, or
phrase, that is functioning as an expansion is essentially to define, delimit or specify.

7.4.6 Acts

There is one further function of embedded clauses which is related to expansion in that,
although there is no Head noun (so the embedded clause itself functions as ‘Head’), the
embedded clause is the nominalization of a process. For example, [[threatening people]] will
get you nowhere. Such a clause is the name of an action, event or other phenomenon. We
have now reached a point where we can relate these clauses to their close relatives that lie
just beyond the bounds of expansion, on different frontiers.

(1) Process nominal groups

Here, the process has been nominalized at the word rank, with turning as noun. The
structure is that of a nominal group having prepositional phrase with of as Postmodifier;
the Complement of the of phrase corresponds to what would be the Complement if the
process was realized as a clause.
(2) Projections: we saw that the boats had been turned. If I say I can see the boats turning,
this is an event. A process ‘the boats are turning’ is being treated as a single complex
phenomenon
7.5 Reports, ideas and facts: three kinds of projection
The logical-semantic relationship whereby a clause comes to function not as a direct
representation of (nonlinguistic) experience but as a representation of a (linguistic)
representation. There are in fact three systems involved in the differentiation of different
kinds of projection: (i) the level of projection (idea vs. locution), (ii) the mode of projection
 (hypotactic reporting vs. paratactic quoting), and (iii) the speech function (projected
proposition vs. projected proposal).
(i) Level of projection. Through projection, one clause is set up as the representation
of the linguistic “content” of another — either the content of a ‘verbal’ clause of
saying or the content of a ‘mental’ clause of sensing.
(ii) Mode of projection. That projection combines with the same set of
interdependencies that have been shown to occur with expansion — (1) the two
tactic interdependency relations of parataxis and hypotaxis and (2) the
constituency relation of embedding. Level of projection and mode of projection
intersect to define four kinds of projection nexus.
(iii) The speech function of the projection. Speech functions other than statements can
also be projected. In fact, paratactic projection allows for a greater range: we can
quote not only propositions and proposals but also minor speech functions such as
greetings and exclamations (e.g. they said ‘Goodbye, Mr Chips’). This is part of the
general principle whereby reporting reduces the potential for projecting dialogic
features.

7.5.1 Quoting (‘direct speech’): verbal process, parataxis

The projecting clause is a verbal process clause, one of saying, and the projected clause
represents that which is said. In a quoting nexus the ‘tactic’ relationship, the type of
dependency, is parataxis; the two parts have equal status. The projected clause retains all
the interactive features of the clause as exchange, including the full mood potential,
vocatives and expletives, tone selections, and (textual) continuatives. The reason for this is
that the main function of the projecting clause is simply to show that the other one is
projected: someone said it.

7.5.2 Reporting (‘indirect speech’): mental process, hypotaxis

Hence a process of thinking in a ‘mental’ clause also serves to project; the process is
typically of the ‘like’ type, but the ‘please’ type is also possible. The projected idea clause is
either an indirect statement or an indirect question; as the table indicates, different sets of
verbs are associated with these two types. In the environment of ‘mental’ projection, the
contrast between statement and question is not concerned with the speech functional
orientation of giving vs. demanding information but rather with the status of the validity of
the information.

7.5.3 Reporting speech, quoting thought

7.5.3.1 Reporting speech

It is possible to ‘report’ a saying by representing it as a meaning. This is the ‘reported

speech’, or ‘indirect speech’, of traditional Western grammars. This is not to suggest, of
course, that when a speaker uses the paratactic, ‘direct’ form he is always repeating the
exact words; far from it. But the idealized function of the paratactic structure is to represent
the wording; whereas with hypotaxis the idealized function is to represent the sense, or gist.

7.5.3.2 Quoting thought

This combination of a verbal process with ‘reporting’, although we are treating it as logically
subsequent to quoting, being arrived at by analogy with the reporting of a mental process, is
the normal way of representing what people say, in most registers of English today.

7.5.4 Projecting offers and commands

We must now turn to the projection of clauses of the ‘goods-&-services’ kind, offers and
commands, to which we gave the general name ‘proposals’.

7.5.4.1 Quoting offers and commands

Offers and commands, and also suggestions which are simply the combination of the two
(offer ‘I’ll do it’, command ‘you do it’, suggestion ‘let’s do it’), can be projected paratactically
(quoted) in the same way as propositions, by means of a verbal process clause having a
quoting function.

7.5.4.2 Reporting offers and commands

Like propositions, proposals can also be reported: projected hypotactically (1) by ‘verbal’
clauses as ‘indirect speech’ or (2) by ‘mental’ clauses as ‘indirect thought’. One central
feature they share is the mode of the projected proposal: it is ‘irrealis’, or non-actualized,
and the projecting clause represents the verbal or mental force of actualization. The mode is
reflected in the realization of the reported clause.

7.5.5 Quoting vs reporting; free indirect speech

7.5.5.1 Quoting and reporting as modes of projection

Quoting and reporting are not simply formal variants; they differ in meaning.The difference
between them derives from the general semantic distinction between parataxis and
hypotaxis, as it applies in the particular context of projecting.

If the reported clause is interrogative it typically shifts into the declarative; the declarative is
the unmarked mood, and is used in all clauses that do not select for mood independently,
including all dependent clauses.

7.5.5.2 A third mode of projection: free indirect speech

Quoting and reporting are thus two distinct modes of projection, representing two degrees
of remove from the original source. In certain kinds of discourse, we find a mode of
projection that combines features of quoting and reporting. Strictly speaking it is not so
much intermediate as a blend: it has some of the features of each of the other two types.
The structure is paratactic, so the projected clause has the form of an independent clause
retaining the mood of the quoted form; but it is a report and not a quote, so time and
person reference are shifted.

The intonation pattern of free indirect speech is still further anomalous, since it follows that
of quoting and not that of reporting. This is because the projected clause still has the status
of an independent speech act.

7.5.6 Embedded locutions and ideas

Like the three types of expansion, both locutions and ideas can be embedded. Besides
entering into paratactic and hypotactic clause nexuses, they can be ‘rank-shifted’ to function
as Qualifiers within a nominal group.

Nouns that project belong to clearly defined classes, verbal process nouns (locutions) and
mental process nouns (ideas); they correspond rather closely to, and in many instances are
derived from, the verbs used in the projecting clause, especially the reporting ones. The
nature of the realization of the embedded clause depends on the speech functional
subcategory:

(I) Propositions

(a) stating: projected clause either

(i) finite, that + indirect indicative, or

(ii) non-finite, of + imperfective.

(b) questioning: projected clause either

(i) finite, if/whether or WH- + indirect indicative, or

(ii) non-finite, whether or WH- + to + perfective.

(II) Proposals.

(a) offering (incl. suggesting): projected clause either

(i) non-finite, to + perfective or of + imperfective, or

(ii) finite, future indirect indicative.

(b) commanding: projected clause either

(i) non-finite, to + perfective, or

(ii) finite, modulated or future indirect indicative.

7.5.7 Facts
Thus verbal processes, and mental: cognitive processes, project in the indicative mode
(propositions), while verbal processes, and mental: desiderative processes, project in the
imperative mode (proposals). The projecting environment may be a verbal or mental
process clause, or a (metaphorical) nominal group with a verbal or mental process noun
(locution or idea) as its Head.

The first three differ in terms of modality of the subtype of modalization:

(1) cases (nouns of simple fact) relate to ordinary non-modalized propositions ‘it is (the case)
that . . .’

(2) chances (nouns of modality) relate to modalized propositions ‘it may be (the case)
that . . .’

(3) proofs (nouns of indication) relate to propositions with indications, which are equivalent
to caused modalities, ‘this proves/implies (i.e. makes it certain/probable) that . . .’

7.5.8 Summary of projection

Jill says something; this is a verbal event. To represent it, I use a ‘verbal’ clause Jill said, plus
a quote of her verbal act ‘It’s raining’. The two have equal status (paratactic), because both
are wordings. That is to say, both my locution Jill said and Jill’s locution it’s raining are
lexicogrammatical phenomena. Both verbal and mental acts have names, such as statement,
query, belief, doubt; and these also serve to project, with the projected clause embedded as
Postmodifier. Parallel to projected information (propositions) is the projection of goods-&-
services (proposals), which similarly may be paratactic, hypotactic, or embedded as Qualifier
to a noun. The difference in the mental processes is that propositions are projected by
cognitive processes whereas proposals are projected by desiderative ones. Such projections
may be embedded as they stand, as nominalizations — equivalent to functioning as Head.
But frequently they occur as Post-modifier to a noun of the ‘fact’ class. Whereas any clause
that is projected by another clause, verbal or mental, is either a quote (paratactic) or a
report (hypotactic, or embedded if the process is a noun), any clause that has the status
‘projected’ but without any projecting process is a fact and is embedded, either as a
nominalization serving as Head or as Postmodifier to a ‘fact’ noun serving as Head. This
includes some of those functioning in mental clauses, as mentioned above, and all
projections functioning in relational clauses.

7.6 Clause complex and tone

The tone sequences 1-1, 3-1, and 4-1 are the unmarked realizations of these three
grammatical relationships, respectively. However, as is typical of such associations of
grammatical and phonological variants, the tonal patterns construe meaning of their own,
so that the tonal and structural features may be combined in any of the possible ways. Here,
as we have represented things, there are nine possibilities; and each has its own particular
nuance.