Transitivity- clause as representation

Unitati de invatare

The system of transitivity

Types of clauses

Relation to Other Metafunctions

Obiective

• Studentii trebuie sa poata identifica elementele de transitivitate in structura propozitiilor
• Studentii trebuie sa isi insuseasca caracteristicile semnatice are diferentiaza diversele tipuri de propozitii
• Studentii trebuie sa fie capabili sa recunoasca tipurile de propozitii

Timpul alocat temei: 4 ore

Bibliografie recomandata :

Bloor, Thomas, Bloor, Meriel. The Functional Analysis of English. A Hallidayan Approach. Second edition. London: Arnold, 2004.

Dik, Simon. Studies In Functional Grammar, Amsterdam University Press, 1980

Eggins, Suzanne. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Pinter, 1996.

Fries, Peter. On the Status of Theme in English: arguments from discourse in Forum Linguisticum 6, pp. 1-38, 1981.

Halliday, M.A.K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar, second edition, Arnold, London, 1994

Halliday, M.A.K. On Grammar, eds. Jonathan Webster, London & New York: Continuum, 2003.

Ghadessy, Mohsen. Thematic Development in English Texts, London: Pinter, 1995.

Martin, J.R. English Text: System and Structure, Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1992.

Lyons, John. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1968

Matthienssen, Christian & Bateman, John. Text Generation and Systemic- Functional Linguistics, Pinter, London, 1991

Matthienssen, Christian; Painter, Claire & Martin, J.R. Working With Functional Grammar, Arnold, London, 1997

Thompson, Geoff. Introducing Functional Grammar, Arnold, London, 1996

R. Quirk and J. Svartvik, A Corpus of English Conversation, Eds. 1980.

4.1. The system of transitivity

The system of TRANSITIVITY belongs to the experiential metafunction and is the overall grammar resource for construing sentences. These are represented as a configuration of a process, participants involved in it, and circumstances. There are, of course, countless kinds of sentences and countless ways in which they may unfold, but the grammar construes a small number of distinct types, each with its own particular characteristics. These constitute the process type.

Imagine you are looking up at the sky, with a number of things happening all the time. Out of this ongoing change, you can construe a quantum of changes as one process configuration realized in the grammar as one clause. For example, A kite is flying across the sky. Here the sentence is construed as a configuration of a ' a kite' + 'is flying' + 'across the sky', or more abstractly in terms of transitivity system, as Actor + Process + Location. This is a representation which imposes three elements:

Actor: a kite

Process: is flying

Circumstance: across the sky.

It may seem that this is the only way it could be, but it isn't. English gives us the option of construing this as: it's winging across the sky (like in it's raining), it's kiting across the sky, the sky is crossing a kite. Even without going outside conventional English, we can see there is always a choice in how to construe experience. For instance, we might separate out 'kite', leaving it to be inferred from the manner of flying: something is flying across the sky like a kite or we might separate out the motion and the mode of motion: a kite's traversing the sky by flying.

So far we have described TRANSITIVITY as a resource of construing our experience in terms of configurations of a process, participant and circumstances. Such configurations are determined by two major systems, those of PROCESS TYPE and CIRCUMSTANTIATION.

(i). PROCESS TYPE is the resource for sorting out our experience of all kinds of events into a small number of types. These differ both in respect of the Process itself and the number and kind of participants involved. The system discriminates six different types of process in English. The three major ones are material, mental and relational, each with a small set of subtypes. In addition, there are three further process types, the behavioural, verbal and existential. These six kinds of clauses are illustrated in table 1:

Table 1:

Each of the six types of process has its own small set of participant roles. For example, a material clause involves an Actor and possibly a Goal:

She stirred the coffee.

Actor Process:Material Goal

Table 2 shows the central participants or the participants associated with each process type according to the classification made by Halliday in his Introduction in Functional Grammar. Two further participants, generalized across process types, Beneficiary and Range, are considered closer to circumstances than other participants by Halliday.

(ii). CIRCUMSTANCES are general across process types (especially because they are less involved in the process than participants). Examples are given in table 4. A brief outline of characteristics of each type is given below.

Table 2:

4.1. Types of Clauses

Material clauses

Material clauses construe doings and happenings. Generally, they are concrete: changes in the material world that can be understood as motion in space (she drove down the coast) and as changes in physical state (the lake froze, the butter melted). However, such concrete material processes also serve as a model for construing our experience of change in abstract phenomena. For example, Prices fell throughout this period construes movement in an abstract space of measurement. Similarly, together with the wind destroyed most of the city we have their arguments destroyed her theory. In fact, 'Material' covers both concrete and abstract processes.

The one inherent participant is the Actor - the one doing the material deed. In addition, there may also be a Goal - a participant impacted by a doing (the one done to/ with), and sometimes a Beneficiary - a participant benefiting from the doing (the one given to or done for), or else (in clauses without a Goal) a Range - a participant specifying the scope of a happening. Examples are shown in table 3.

The Goal is either actually brought into existence by the doing ( building a house, bake a cake, compose a song), or it exists prior to the doing, but is affected in some way. In the latter case, the Goal can be probed with do to/ with, as in what did she do with the chair? or what she did with the chiar was to move it. Also, it can also be accompanied by a representation of the result of the impact, such as a new location (she moved the chair into the corner) or quality (she scrubbed the chair clean). In this it differs from the Range which can not be probed with do to/ with. We can not say: what she did with the mountain was climb it [Range]. This is because the Process doesn't have any impact on the Range.

Table 3: Types of circumstances in English

The Beneficiary can be probed by looking at that version of a clause where it follows the Goal. In this case, it is realized with a preposition- either to, marking it as a recipient type of Beneficiary, or for, marking it as a client type of Beneficiary:

She gave her aunt a teapot :   She gave a teapot to her aunt.

She built her aunt a house: She built a teapot for her aunt.

The Recipient appears when there is a transfer of existing goods represented, while the Client is involved where there is provision of service (including the creation of new goods).

Table 4: Participant roles in material clauses.

As we previously said, material clauses deal with concrete facts, but also serve as material for construing abstract ones. Starting from this, we can notice that there are several problems raised by material clauses.

a.   How do we decide if a clause is material or non-material? An important test for distinguishing among the main process types is to check the unmarked tense selection used to represent present time. Is it the Simple Present or Present Continuous? Of the three types (material, mental, relational), only material clauses use the Present Continuous.

James is watching a football match right now. Material Clause

At the moment Jane likes Latino music. Mental Clause

Mary has no energy at the moment.  Relational Clause

In this respect, material clauses are like behavioural and verbal ones.

A second test is to see if material clauses can project another clause or not (i.e. report or quote). If it can, it is not material, but rather verbal or mental. Finally, it is important to notice that in certain types of text a material process may be quite abstract (see the explanation above).

b.       Another problem is raised by material clauses with an Attribute. In addition to the participant, we may also have an Attribute which has a Goal. For example:

They    left the house happy.

Actor Process: Material Range attribute (depictive)

They    painted the wall pink.

Actor Process: Material Goal attribute (resultative)

We must notice the danger that exists in interpretation according to the relational model of Attributor + Process + Carrier + Attribute (see below, relational clauses). Nevertheless, in a material clause the Attribute can always be left out of the sentence, which is not the case in an attributive relational clause. For example:

material : we folded the paper flat: we folded the paper.

relational : we keep the paper flat: we keep the paper.

c.   The third problem concerning material clauses is the way in which we differentiate between Goal and Range. The difference between them is very clear in the prototypical case: the Goal is the participant in a process which is performed by the Actor. For example:

She broke the glass; they threw the litter in a wastebasket.

In conclusion, the nature of the relationship between Actor- Process and Goal is very much a material one.

In contrast, the Range elaborates or enhances the Process.

a.   it elaborates the Process by the traditional category of cognate object:

He made a fatal mistake.

b.       Alternatively, the Range may enhance the Process by a circumstantial feature of space (location or extent):

The horse jumped the fence.

We can notice that the difference between the Goal and the Range lays in the degree and type of their involvement in the Process: the Goal is a real participant, being in fact affected by the performance of the Process, while the Range is a further specification of the Process itself. Due to these differences we have different probes.

The Goal can be often be followed by an Attribute, a Role, a Recipient, or a Location of destination that represents the result of its being affected: drive the car [Attribute] hot; cut the onions [Role: product] into cubes; kick the cat [Location] down the stairs; give [Recipient] him the car. It can be probed by do to/ with: What did he do to the wall? - He painted it pink.

The Range represents the scope of the performance of the Process, so it can often be preceded by a proposition that indicates the nature of its scope (on, at, in, etc): she climbed up the ladder. When it is a restatement of the Process, there is typically an alternative word with the Process: make a mistake - err. Since the Range is not affected by the Process, it can neither have an Attribute nor be probed with do with/ to. ranges are contrasted with Goals in Table 5:

Table 5: Contrasting examples of Range and Goal

Mental clauses

Mental clauses construe a person involved in conscious processes, including processes of perception, cognition and affection. The one inherent participant is the Senser - the participant sensing, i.e. involved in conscious processing. This participant has consciousness. Nominal groups serving as Senser which denote non-conscious entities have to be construed metaphorically as 'personified'. In the following examples the Senser is underlined:

The man knew too much.

She liked her job.

Her task interested her.

It surprised him to see her so happy.

In addition to the Senser, mental clauses may involve one further type of participant, the Phenomenon being sensed. This can be any kind of entity maintained or created by consciousness - a conscious being, an object, a substance, an institution or an abstraction, but not only such 'things' but also acts:

e.g. I like swimming early in the morning.

and facts:

e.g. I like the fact that she apologised.

Grammatically, this means that a wide range of units can serve as phenomenon. In the following examples, the Phenomenon is underlined:

The man knew too much.

She liked her job.

Her task interested her.

It surprised him to see her so happy.

The Phenomenon may represent the 'content' of sensing. However, this content is not always represented by a separate clause. For example:

David thought - the moon was a balloon.

The second clause here is a projected clause which represents an idea brought into existence by the mental processing. Other examples:

She imagined - he would be late.

He wanted - them to leave.

There are also several questions that can be raised regarding mental clauses.

a.   how can we make a difference between mental and verbal clauses? Mental clauses are similar to some verbal clauses in their unmarked present tense selection - the Simple Present:

He thinks that would be a good idea. (mental clause)

He said that would be a good idea. (verbal clause)

They are also similar in that they may project another clause:

He thought - he was ambitious.

He said - he was ambitious.

But, the projection of mental clauses is an idea while the projection of verbal clauses is a locution. On the other hand, while all verbal clauses can project, only certain types of mental ones can (cognitive and affective ones). In addition, mental and verbal clauses differ a lot in that the verbal ones can have a Receiver, while the mental ones can not. Thus we can say:

Verbal clause: He said to us - that he was ambitious, but we can not say

Mental clause: He thought to us - that he was ambitious. Instead of this we can use: He thought to himself or He thought that this is the way of doing it.

b.       Another problems is raised by the difficulty of distinguishing between mental and relational clauses. Certain verbs can serve in relational attributive clauses as well as mental ones. One group is formed of the verbs taste, feel, smell. Note the difference in the following examples:

The rabbit smelled the fox. (mental)

The rabbit smells good. (relational)

In the first case, the rabbit is treated as a conscious being; in the second, having an Attribute, it is not necessarily a conscious being. The verb smell belongs to different sets in the two cases. Compare:

The rabbit smelled/ senses/ saw the fox. (mental)

The rabbit smells/ seems/ is good. (relational)

Further, while the mental clause can have a passive counterpart: The fox was smelled by the rabbit, the relational clause can not: Good was smelled by the rabbit is not possible.

A second group involves verbs which may construe either a mental process or a relation of causality. Compare:

Violent TV programmes affect/ influence our children. (mental)

Temperature affects/ influences humidity. (causal)

Note that the first example, like many other mental clauses, has an active counterpart where the Senser is the Subject as in Our children respond to violent TV programmes.

Mental and relational clauses both construe emotion. Very often the same emotion may be construed either as a mode of conscious processing or as an Attribute. For example:

Who fears Virginia Woolf?   (mental)

Who is afraid of Virginia Woolf?  (relational)

Her story depressed me. (mental)

I felt unhappy.    (relational)

Because both clause types construe emotion, it may ne hard to know whether a particular example is a mental or relational clause. The pairs above are clearly distinct. For instance, in a relational clause, fear or misery can be intensified by very (as in he is very afraid of Virginia Woolf; I felt very unhappy), and in a mental clause, they can be passive (as in Virginia Woolf is feared by him; I was depressed by her story). However, with clauses such as He is scared, it is harder to tell:

He is scared.

Mental Senser Process: passive

Relational   Carrier Process Attribute

The mental interpretation relates the example to He is scared by large dogs: large dogs scare him, he got scared, and so on; the relational interpretation relates it to He is very scared, he seems scared, he became scared, and so on.

c.   Phenomenon or projected idea? It is not always to judge whether a clause is embedded into the Phenomenon role or whether it is 'projected' as a separate clause by the mental process (see the next chapter). The first thing to consider is what category of mental clause is involved, since perception clause do not project, such as enjoy, like. See Table 6:

Table 6: Mental Process Types

When a mental process is involved, it may be necessary to distinguish an embedded clause functioning as Phenomenon from a projected clause. One test is to see whether the element in question can function as Subject in the passive counterpart. If it can, it is a participant (Phenomenon). Consider the following examples:

The supervisor wanted them to leave.

Jane thought the idea was great.

Did you discover who did it?

He accepted that he was wrong.

They understood that there would be cancellation fee.

If we try to find the passive counterparts, we see that this is possible only for the final two examples:

* (For) them to leave was wanted by the supervisor.

* (That) the idea was great was thought by Jane.

* Was who did it discovered by you?

(The fact) that he was wrong was accepted by him.

(The fact) that there would be a cancellation fee was understood by them.

We can conclude that only them to leave and that the idea was great are projected clauses, not participants.

Another test that can be applied in doubtful cases is that of Theme predication (see the previous chapter). As a participant, a Phenomenon is available for a Theme predicated clause regardless a projected clause or not. Thus,

* It was (for) them to leave that was wanted by them.

* It was (that) the idea was great was thought by Jane.

* Was it who did it discovered by you?

* It was (the fact) that he was wrong that was accepted by him.

* It was (the fact) that there would be a cancellation fee that was understood by them.

Relational clauses

Halliday's category of relational clauses is a generalization of the traditional notion of 'copula' constructions. Relational clauses construe being, and do this in two different modes - attribution and identification. There are two principal relational clause types, with different sets of participant roles:

(i)      attributive clauses with Carrier + Attribute

Mary   is energetic.

Mary   is an energetic type.

Carrier Attribute

(ii)    identifying clauses with Token + Value

This man was king Richard.

Token Value

King Richard was this man.

Value    Token.

The fundamental difference between attributive and identifying is the difference between membership (attributive) and symbolization (identifying). Carrier and attribute are of the same order of abstraction, but differ in generality as member to class, subtype to type (e.g. Elephants are mammals; Elephants are huge animals). Token and Value are of different orders of abstraction, they are related symbolically (e.g. Elephants are my favourite animals; Mary is our leader). Typical kinds of meaning relations which occur between Token and Value in an identifying clause are given in Table 7.

Table 7: Examples of meanings of Token and Value roles

Table 8 shows some examples of attributive and identifying clauses:

Subcategories of Relational Clauses

All the examples given above are of intensive relational clauses. It is also possible for relational clauses to involve an additional meaning feature, making them either possessive or circumstantial. In such a case two participant roles may be 'conflated' in the only clause element. Examples:

Max has lots of energy.

Carrier/Possessor Process: attributive Attribute/Possession

and possessive

Max owns the property.

Token/Possessor Process: identifying Value/Possession

and possessive

The trees are around the house.

Carrier Process: attributive Attributive/Location

The threes surround the house.

Token  Process: identifying Value

and circumstantial

As in the two previous cases analysed above (material and mental clauses), some problems can appear while trying to identify a certain type of clause.

a.    how can we distinguish between relational and material clauses as long as certain verbs can serve in both relational and material clauses. In particular semantic domain of location, possession and change of state can be construed either from a relational or a material point of view.

Location

A number of locative verbs occur either in relational clauses, simply denoting relation in space, or in material clauses, denoting movement in space (verbs of motion). The following example is relational even though the verb is go:

The idea of relativity goes back, certainly, a principle to Newton and Galileo.

If you consider what the unmarked present tense is, the analytic decision is usually easy: here it would not be possible to use the present continuous , which is the unmarked choice in a material clause. So, we can not say:

The idea of relativity is going back, certainly, as a principle to Newton and Galileo.

As usually, we can also probe by exploring agnate verbs. Here we would have The idea of relativity dates from Newton and Galileo, which is clearly relational as it is impossible to say The idea is dating from Newton and Galileo. But we can not relate the example to The idea of relativity moves back to Newton and Galileo, which would be material; not can a circumstance of Manner be added to represent the rate of Motion: we can not say : The idea of relativity is going back quickly to Newton and Galileo.

Other examples:

The road runs along the river. (relational)

The jogger is running along the river. (material)

The fence surrounds the White House. (relational)

The protesters are surrounding the White House. (material)

Possession

Although have, in its meaning of possess, is a relational process, the meaning of possession may be construed from a material point of view where it involves some dynamic aspect such as getting, taking, obtaining, giving, receiving.

The man has the right qualifications.

Carrier Process Attribute

The man is obtaining the right qualifications.

Actor Process Range

Another use of have from a material point of view should be noticed in the following example:

The man is having dinner/ a good time/ a shower.

Change of State

A state of being is typically represented in a Carrier + Process + Attribute structure such as in The dinner was cold. In addition, a change of state can be represented from a relational point of view, as in The dinner became/ got/ turned cold. This latter set of attributes is distinctive in selecting the continuous present tense as the unmarked choice for present tense: It's getting late; It's turning cold, and so on. In this case they reflect a greater semantic proximity to the material process type. In fact, a change of state can also be construed as a material process with no Attribute element, as in She paled; The sky brightened; The water boiled.

b.       Sometimes it is difficult to draw a difference between Attributive or Identifying clauses. The most important test that must be run is the test of reversibility. Compare:

John is short. : *Short is John. (attributive)

John is the captain. : The captain is John. (identifying)

Attributive clauses have really have only one participant that can serve as Subject - the Carrier. Consequently, these clauses have no pasive counterparts and are not reversible

The reversibility test distinguishes easily between 'quality' type attributive clauses and identifying ones, but it is not successful if the clause is a nominal type attributive. Compare:

John is short. : *Short is John. (attributive)

John is a good captain. : A good captain is John. (?)

This last example is tricky because its reversal still makes sense. The clause needs to be considered in context; for example:

A: Tell me something about John.

B: John is a good captain.

In this case, B's answer is an attributive clause (and B could not reply A good captain is John). However, the following dialogue shows the clause in a different context:

A: Tell me the name of a good captain.

B: Captain is a good captain/ A good captain is John.

B's reply is an identifying clause and therefore reversible. The question is whether the clause assigns class- membership or gives an example of something. If it assigns class membership, it is attributive; if it exemplifies, it is identifying.

In general, it is best to replace the unmarked intensive verb be with another verb, a more specific one when we run the test of reversibility in order to distinguish between attributive and identifying clauses.If the reversal makes sense in the context then the clause can be taken as identifying. This can be done with John is a good captain:

John exemplifies a good captain : A good captain is exemplified by John.

c.   There are cases in which it is difficult to make a correct distinction between Token or Value. They differ in meaning as we said above. If we have difficulty in a particular case in determining which participant is Token and which Value, we can apply the following rule: if the clause is active, as in John exemplifies a good captain, then the Subject is a Token. If the clause is passive, as in A good captain is exemplified by John, then the Subject is the Value. To apply the test when the relational verb is be simply replace be with another relational verb and see whether the clause is active or passive. For example:

This piece of work is our best effort.

Subject: Token

This piece of work represents our best effort.

Subject: Value

d.   Relational clauses aren't sometimes recognized. There are some relational clause types that differ from the typical Carrier + Process + Attributive or Token + Process + Value structure in some respect:

(i). They have an Agent

(ii). They have a Beneficiary

(iii). The process itself has the Attributive role.

These types are sometimes not recognized in analysis so we are drawing attention to them. Note the following examples for each case:

(i). Causative Relational Clauses

- identifying:

She calls him uncle.

They    elected him President.

This proves my point.

Agent Process: identifying Token Value

- attributive:

She made him a good citizen.

This     proves him wrong.

Agent Process: attributive Carrier Attribute

Note that these should not be confused with material processes which include a 'resultative' Attribute. See above material clauses for details.

(ii). Benefactive Relational Clauses (i.e. with Beneficiary role)

He owes her some money.

He makes her a good husband.

The room cost me fifteen dollars.

Beneficiary

Note the ambiguity of the following example:

She made him a good friend.

Agent Process Carrier Attribute

Carrier Process Beneficiary Attribute

Actor Process Beneficiary Goal.

1 means 'she caused him to be a good friend'

2 means 'she was a good friend to him'

3 means 'she made (produced) a good frind for him'. The third case is material and it is not very representative, but it is perfectly viable with something like She made (baked) him a cake.

(iii). Clauses with Process/ Attribute (i.e. quality normally represented as an Attribute is inherent in the Process). Examples:

It doesn't matter ('It's not important)

That stinks.

Doctors are treatments differ the world over. ('they are different')

e.    There are certain adjectives such as eager, keen, willing, unwilling, happy, loath, able, unable, afraid, scared, ready, quick, slow which can occur as Attributes in attributive clauses:

Maxine    is afraid.

Roger  is slow.

Carrier Attribute

They can also, however, function to modify the meaning expressed by the verb in examples where the process is not relational:

Maxine is afraid to play against that player.

Doctors are quick to prescribe antibiotics.

Compare: Doctors are quick to prescibe antibiotics : doctors prescribe antibiotics quickly. In both cases the process is the behavioural prescribe. But, in the second case, an additional meaning feature has been added to create a 'verbal group complex' (see Introduction in Functional Grammar by Halliday). The additional meaning is modal in character, showing inclination or ability. Compare:

Jane   is eager to please her professors.

Phenomenon   Process: mental Senser

Professor Greene is easy [to please].

Carrier  Process: attributive Attributive

Verbal clauses

Verbal clauses represent processes of 'saying', but this category includes not only the different modes of saying (asking, commanding, offering, stating), but also semiotic processes that are not necessarily verbal (showing, indicating). The central participant is the Sayer - the participant saying, telling, stating, informing, asking, demanding, commanding, offering, threatening, suggesting, and so on. It can be a human or human-like speaker, but it can also be a symbolic source. For example:

She told me a strange story.

He asked too many questions.

They asked me - whether I could leave at once.

They told me - to leave at once.

The paper says - there'll be further election.

The sign indicates - that Gates 40-42 are to the right.

The form asks - what other funding sources you have.

In addition, a verbal clause may also represent the addressee of a speech interaction, as the Receiver. The Receiver is like a verbal Beneficiary, and can often, but not always, be marked by to:

They told me - to leave at once.

They said to me - to leave at once.

The 'content' of saying may be represented as a separate clause (a locution) quoting or reporting what was said (she said - that she'd return in the morning; they told me - to leave at once; she asked - whether it was too late). This quoted or reported clause is called projected clause in Introduction to Functional Grammar , and it is not a constituent part of the verbal clause, but is a separate clause in a projecting clause complex. This is proved by the unusual passive construction which can be obtained ( to leave at once was said to me by them)

However, in addition to being constituted in a projected clause, the content of saying may also be construed as a participant:

They told me a story.

She asked him a question.

They said a few words.

This is a kind of verbal range, indicating the scope of saying in terms of a generic category (e.g. story, tale), a speech functional category (e.g. lie, question) or a lexico-grammatical one (e.g. word, phrase).

As we mentioned before, it is sometimes difficult to classify a certain clause exactly if we take into account that some of them can function as two different types. Verbal clauses are no exception.

(i). Is a clause verbal or behavioural? Note that there are a number of processes representing verbal behaviour like talk, chatter, gossip, speak, lie that are behavioural rather than verbal if we think that they can not project. For example, we can not say They gossiped that their neighbours had a wild party.

Note that while behavioural process can, in a written narrative project by quoting: 'I totally enjoyed it', he lied, a true verbal process can project both in direct and indirect speech in all contexts.

Included in this behavioural group are processes which concern the creation of a symbolic representation. Verbs such as characterize, outline, describe, portray are used here, but again projection is not possible: They outlined the plot is normal, but They outlined that the heroine was kidnapped is not possible. These verbs are behavioural rather than verbal.

We can also include on the behavioural class such verbal process such as flatter, insult, praise, slander, abuse which have the peculiarity of allowing for an additional participant role, the Target. They are analysed in Halliday's book as follows:

They    praised her to her parents.

Sayer Process: verbal Target Receiver

But, as Halliday noticed, they can not project reported speech and they behave more materially. Because they can not project, these could be taken as behavioural and analysed in the following way:

They    praised her to her parents.

Behaver Process: behavioural Range Receiver

One final case is when a sound is 'quoted', usually with go realizing the process. For example:

The tyres went 'screech'!

The car went 'bang'!

It is not possible to have a Receiver in these clauses because the sound is simply a sound, not a piece of language being addressed to anyone. They are therefore moving towards the material edge of a verb, but treated as behavioural.

(ii). We dealt with the problem of mental or verbal clauses above, but we must add that a small set of 'verbal' verbs expressing judgements, such as criticize, excuse, applaud may also occur with an embedded clause: The press applauded that no violence occurred. In this context, no Receiver is possible and such verbs are functioning as mental processes of affection: reaction.

(iii). Another problem is raised by some verbs: show, indicate, suggest that can serve either in verbal clauses or in identifying relational ones. Notice the difference:

She showed/ told/ convinced us that the substance was potassium. (verbal)

The result showed/ meant/ was that the substance was potassium. (relational)

They emphasized/ highlighted/ said clearly to us that they'd come.(verbal)

The stripes emphasized/ highlighted the width of the material. (relational).

Note that the verbs emphasize, highlight can also be used in material clauses:

He took the pen and highlighted the main points of the chapter.

One difference between the two process types illustrated by theses examples is that a verbal clause will usually admit a Receiver while a relational one will not.

Conclusions

When considering the clause from the perspective of the experiential metafunction, the relevant systems are known as TRANSITIVITY and the clause itself is interpreted as process configuration. Notice in particular the three types of component in this configuration:

the process itself;

participants involved in the process

circumstances associated with the process.

The key to the difference between participants and circumstnaces lies in the degree of involvement in the process: participants are actually centrally involved in the process by causing it, being affected by it, benefiting from it and so on; circumstances are less involved in the process.

The major options in TRANSITIVITY as they are clasiified by Halliday, are presented in the table below:

Transitivity Options and Examples

Ergative perspective

In addition to the participant roles associated with each clause type, the table above shows how these various participant roles can be generalized as Agent, Medium and Range when any clause is viewed from an ergative perspective:

She  enjoyed the chocolates.

Senser Process: mental Phenomenon

Medium    Range.

The chocolates    pleased her.

Phenomenon  Process: mental Senser

Agent Medium

The sugar dissolved.

Actor Process: material

Medium

She dissolved the sugar.

Actor Process: material Goal

Agent  Medium

Viewed from this perspective, the core of the clause is the Process together with the Medium participant. Where the process is something external to this, there will also be an Agent present in the structure.

4.3. Relation to Other Metafunctions

The transitivity structure of the clause combine the textual and interpersonal functions described in the previous chapters. Thus, the example Madam, you'll look like a flower, in addition to its textual and interpersonal meanings, is a representation with a process of attribution (will look) and two participants, an Attribute (like a flower) and the Carrier of this Attribute (you). See Table 13.

Multifunctional Analysis of a Clause

Madam, you' ll look like a flower.

This example shows that not every element that enters into a textual or interpersonal structure will be part of transitivity structure. Here the Vocative Madam plays no role in the representation of the process. We can see this easily enough if we probe the clause textually with the help of Theme predication: we can get Madam, it is you who'll look like a flower (focus on Carrier), Madam, it is a flower that you'll look like (focus on Attribute), but not It is Madam that you'll look like a flower ( wrong focus on Vocative). This difference is explained by the interpretation of the Vocative as a purely interpersonal element.

The general correspondences between the experiential and interpersonal functions are shown in Table 14:

Table 14: Correspondences Between Experiential and Interpersonal Functions

The general principle is that participants have the potential for being given the interpersonal status of modal responsibility; thus they serve as a Subject or as a Complement. For example, all three participants in our earlier example He gave my aunt these flowers out of pity can serve as a Subject. See tables 15, 16, 17:

Participant Roles and Interpersonal Roles:

(i). Active clause: He gave my aunt these flowers out of pity.

Participant Roles and Interpersonal Roles

(ii). passive clause: 1. My aunt was given these flowers (by him) out of pity.

Participant Roles and Interpersonal Roles

(ii). passive clause: 2. These flowers were given my aunt (by him) out of pity.

Note that in the passive clauses the Agent does not in fact serve as a Complement although it is a Participant. We can make a simple powerful generalization about the hierarchy of participants in relation to the interpersonal functions Subject, Complement and Adjunct. In the active, unmarked voice, the Agent is Subject and the other participants are Complements; in the passive, marked voice, either of the other participants can be Subject and the one that is not serves as Complement. All of these are simply nominal groups. The passive Agent is marked and its marked status is indicated by the preposition by. It serves neither as Subject nor as Complement, but as Adjunct. It has the characteristics of a circumstantial Adjunct: (i) it is realized by a prepositional phrase, not by nominal group; (ii) it is optional, not obligatory (in fact, the majority of passive clauses have no Agent).

We can take one step further in our generalization about the relation of participants to interpersonal roles. There is a variant of our three- participant clause where the Beneficiary (but not the Medium) is realized by a prepositional phrase rather than by a nominal group; for example: He gave these flowers to my aunt. Here the Beneficiary is an Adjunct rather than a Complement (there is no passive clause To my aunt was given these flowers (by him)).

Thus, we can revise the table of correspondences between transitivity functions and interpersonal functions. See table 18. The interesting result is that the participant function we have called the Medium stands out among the participant functions: it is the only one that serves as Subject or Complement, but not as Adjunct. Agent, Beneficiary and Range are closer to circumstances.

Correspondences Between Transitivity Functions And Interpersonal Functions

Evaluation test

I. Label the following clauses appropriately as material or mental:

1. The thieves robbed him.

2. The farmer saw the battle.

3. The man wanted the car for himself.

4. The king was amused of his own jukes.

5. Nothing could please me more.

II. Label the following clauses appropriately as mental or verbal:

1. James wanted his uncle's car.

2. They agreed on that matter.

3. James asked a question.

4. They heard a scream.

5. He likes ice-cream.

III. Label the following clauses appropriately as material or relational:

1. He must be wrong.

2. He had a crown on his head.

3. My name is Jane.

4. He was content with the results.

5. This promise was kept.

IV. Label the following clauses appropriately as attributive or identifying attributive clauses:

1. His mother was the headmaster.

2. The lion represents courage.

3. He was both wise and good.

4. His name was Willie.

5. Who are you?

Final evaluation test

I. Answer the following theoretical questions:

1. What is functional grammar? Describe the three types of analysing a text according to Halliday's principles.

2. How do we divide a sentence into constituents?

3. The characteristics of the ideational (topical) Theme. Classification and examples.

4. Interpersonal and Textual Themes.

5. The Structure of Mood Element.

6. The Structure of the Residue.

7. Which are the systems of transitivity?

8. Describe the material clauses according to functional grammar.

9. Describe the mental clauses according to functional grammar.

10. Describe the relational clauses according to functional grammar.

11. Describe the verbal clauses according to functional grammar.

II. Recognize long Themes in the following clauses:

1. What I have been thinking is this.

2. What people see on the screen is me.

3. What he did for a living

4. What he did for living was the best he could.

5. What you see is what you get.

III. Analyse Mood and Residue in the following clauses, taking care to exclude textual and interpersonal elements which are outside the Mood and the Residue:

1. Fortunately, we have already had dinner.

2. And then he would leave for work.

3. I don't think so, dear.

4. The team has lost surprisingly.

5. Personally, I do not like him.

IV. Label the Token and the Value functions in the following sentences:

1. The last thing we want is something to go wrong.

2. What was the last item on the programme?

3. Now was the time for everyone to join in.

4. She is the one.

5. The exercise doesn't involve composing a written response.