Projections "Within Clauses" [2]

Martin & Rose (2007: 51-2):

The Act also uses projections within clauses in relation to claims of victimhood, and in relation to the powers of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission:

... the gathering of information and the receiving of evidence from any person, including persons claiming to be victims of such violations or the representatives of such victims ...

establish such offices as it may deem necessary for the performance of its functions

... conduct any investigation or hold any hearing it may deem necessary and establish the investigating unit referred to in section 28

These are examples of ‘saying’ and ‘thinking’ (claiming to be, may deem).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the "projection within a clause" here is the projection relation between claim and be in the verbal group complex serving as identifying Process in the embedded clause persons claiming to be victims of such violations or the representatives of such victims:

persons	claiming	to	be	victims of such violations or the representatives of such victims
Token	Process: relational			Value
	a	"	b

[2] To be clear, the "projection within a clause" in both these cases is the assignment of an attributive relation by cognitive projection:

as	it	may deem	necessary for the performance of its functions
	Attributor	Process: relational	Attribute

it	may deem	necessary
Attributor	Process: relational	Attribute