CHAPTER 2 METHODOLOGY, DATA, AND GENERAL FINDINGS
3.1. Projection in English Clause Complexes
3.1.2. How does Projection Work in English Clause Complexes?
3.1.2.4. How does Projection Facilitate other Linguistic Phenomena in
A clause complex of projection, theoretically consists of a projecting clause and a projected clause, but it is not exceptional in English that a clause complex of projection consists of more than two clauses in which one projecting clause projects two or more projected clauses, or two or more projecting clauses together project one projected clause.
Such cases lay the ground for other linguistic phenomena: ellipsis and substitution.
a. Ellipsis
In clause complexes of projection, the function of the projected clause is, in most cases, to signal that the other clauses are projected locutions / ideas. In a clause complex where two or more clauses are projected, there should be, theoretically speaking, two or more projecting clauses to make up different pairs within the complex. However, the common case is, if the locutions / ideas are produced by one and the same person, there is no need to repeat the projecting clauses: one projecting clause is used while others are clipped away.
43a. Sounding more like Harry than himself, || he says || getting married would be ‗daf‘
|| and exclaims: || ‗Yaa! Fifeen bob a week. || D‘y‘ think I‘m going to sponge on you. ||
What the devil d‘y‘ take me for?‘ (110_50)
43b. Sounding more like Harry than himself, || he says || getting married would be
‗daf‘ ||and exclaims: || ―Yaa! Fifeen bob a week,‖ || and he asks || ―D‘y‘ think I‘m going to sponge on you. ||What the devil d‘y‘ take me for?‖
44a. The view prevails || that all players are vulnerable when playing high-contact sports; || that adults who voluntarily participate in inherently risky sports are taken to be aware of the risks. (109_72)
97
44b. The view prevails || that all players are vulnerable when playing high-contact sports; || it also prevails / says || that adults who voluntarily participate in inherently risky sports are taken to be aware of the risks.
There are missing clauses in 110_5 (43a) and 109_72 (44a) but these missing clauses can be traced and recovered as in 43b and 44b. As the projected clauses are all locutions uttered by one and the same speaker at the same speech event, the projecting clauses, except the initial one, can sometimes be clipped away without affecting the semantic explicitness of the complex. What allows such ellipsis of projecting clauses and the probability of tracing and recovering the elliptic projecting clauses is the logico- semantic relation of projection that works in the complexes, which tells that a projected clause can always be paired by a projecting clause, in which the sayer and the projecting process are to be inferred thanks to the other projecting and projected clauses in the complex. Such a phenomenon as this usually happens in written language where the structure of the clause complex, however complicated, can still be mapped out and then rearranged or rebuilt. In spoken language, for the sake of listeners‘ following the string of clauses, the projecting clauses are frequently repeated, not clipped.
b. Substitution
If the function of the projecting clause is just to show that the other clause in the pair is a projected locution / idea, the projected clause is the message to get across and can be projected more than one time according to the purpose of communication. It is common that for at least one time of projection, the locution / idea must be in its full form, but in other times of projection, it can be substituted with the pro-forms as the full form can be traced through endophoric reference: either anaphoric or cataphoric. In English clause complexes of projection, the projected clause can be substituted by this, that, so, not as in the following complexes:
45. The information wants to be free, || or so || it is said. (103_11) (anaphoric reference)
46. So we just decided || it would be more interesting, || that on some level Tony knows this, || that his friend is betraying him, || it makes him ill… and his subconscious erupts like that || and gives him the information. (107_7) (cataphoric reference)
98
47. Rathmann replies, ||―Like an old man with a white beard and a German accent?‖
(107_40) As he says || this, || Rathmann and Hall frame a shot of a bust of Freud that‘s sitting on a credenza behind them. (107_41) (anaphoric reference)
48. Despite his own best efforts, however, the delegates to the convention, || so || he thought, || had proved unequal to the task, || producing a document that finessed the core issues behind a veneer of willfully ambiguous compromises. (107_47) (anaphoric reference)
49. Snee writes || that,|| the constant strain of romantic fiction … confuses and mystifes the nature of personal relations. (110_55) (cataphoric reference)
50. In letters to WMU, politicians, and newspaper editors, opponents argued || that (1) stripping the restriction and developing the Orchard was a betrayal of a public trust, (2)|| the land should be preserved for its conservation value, || and (3) expansion of the BTR was not necessary || but, if it became so, || somewhere else would be better.
(103_39) (anaphoric reference)
As illustrated in the complexes above, so and not seems to be quite restricted to anaphoric reference while this and that can be used for both anaphoric and cataphoric reference. As the substitution of the projected clause, so can be inverted to the initial position to precede the projecting clause while this, that, and not always follow the projecting clauses.
In addition, as revealed from the clause complexes in the corpora of this paper, the choices of how the projected clause can be substituted or referred back also depend on the semantic features of the projecting verbs used to project the locution or idea. The reason is the use of projecting verbs reflects the speaker‘s degree of certainty of what is said / thought; this certainty, in turn, decides how the locution / idea is referred back later. This point can be illustrated through the analysis of clause complex 103_39 in 50a and its modified version as in 50b below:
50a. In letters to WMU, politicians, and newspaper editors, opponents argued || that (1) stripping the restriction and developing the Orchard was a betrayal of a public trust, (2)|| the land should be preserved for its conservation value, || and (3) expansion of the BTR was not necessary || but, if it became so, || somewhere else would be better.
(103_39)
99
50b. In letters to WMU, politicians, and newspaper editors, opponents pointed out ||
that (1) stripping the restriction and developing the Orchard was a betrayal of a public trust, (2)|| the land was preserved for its conservation value, || and (3) expansion of the BTR was not necessary || and, thanks to that, || somewhere else would be better.
The meaning of argue here is to present evidence and reason for something to happen in the future, once something is still being argued for, it is not yet an actual thing / fact. The meaning of point out here, however, is to mention, indicate, or orient to some actual thing / fact. This explains the difference in meaning between the opponents argue so (they are arguing for the suggested plan, they are not sure about the assertion as valid yet) and the editors pointed out that (in their opinion, that is the actual case).
As Halliday (1994: 256-258) states, in English, there are different ways of referring back to what is quoted and what is reported. Typically in English, that is usually used to pick up a quoted message, while so / not is used with a report. This is because the act of quoting implies a prior referent, some actual occasion that can then be referred back to, whereas in reporting there is nothing but the reported text. Accordingly, when it is not certain whether a piece of text is treated as a quote or a report, there are of course two ways to project it.
51a. Information wants to be free, || or so it is said. (103_11) 51b. Information wants to be free, and that‘s what it is said.
In 51b, the projected clause is treated as a quote: “who produced that verbal act?”
while in 51a, the projected clause is dealt with as a text “who affirmed that it was the case?” with the implication that the contrary is conceivable. The choice of reference and substitution in English clause complexes also depends badly on whether the projecting process is a verbal process or a mental process. With the projecting verb as a verbal process, the clause someone said that simply demonstrate one‘s production of the wording while someone said so raises the issue of whether what is said is in fact the case.
With the projecting verb as a mental process, the choice of reference and substitution depends on the speaker / reporter‘s degree of certainty. “That” is used as when the mental projecting verb implies more certainty from the speaker / reporter and
“so / not” is chosen when the mental projecting verb implies less certainty from the
100
reporter. “That” is chosen to refer back to the projected clause if the speaker / reporter believes what is projected is more actual, but “so / not” is chosen if the speaker / reporter believes what is projected is more hypothetical.
52. She had a winning answer. _ (i) I think so.
_ (ii) I know that.
53. She is trying to take that position. _ (i) If so, her situation will change.
_(ii) Because of that, she is completing her application dossier.
54. He is always right. _ (i) Perhaps so.
_ (ii) Certainly.
In 52 (i), the verb think demonstrates little sureness of the speaker / reporter in what is projected while know in 52(ii) exhibits the confidence that what is projected is a fact. The two applicable structures thus are I think so or I know that, not I know so.
The same tendency happens in 53 (i), (ii) and 54 (i), (ii). The choice of if and perhaps show less certainty in the speaker / reporter‘s attitude towards the substitute projected clause whereas the use of because of and certainly obviously indicate the actuality of what is previously said. The expressions “if so”, “perhaps so”, “because of that”, “certainly” are accordingly employed. There exists neither of the expressions
“because so” nor “certainly so”.