Another more complex example is the one shown in Figure 7-38, mentioned earlier.
Blogger Comments:
To be clear, this misconstrues and misrepresents the univariate structure of the verbal group. Because there are only five features selected — future, past, future, past, passive — there are only five elements of univariate structure, not six:
will have been going to have been tested
α future β past γ future δ past ε passive
passive past in future in past in future
The most convenient way of naming these tense selections is to start with the last selection and work towards the first. This indicates the context in which a given tense selection has been made; for example, primary: past, secondary: future, tertiary: past — was going to have walked — is called past-in-future-in-present. The following example (taken from Halliday, 1976; 1981) is present-in-future-in-past-in-future:
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, this is merely a typo that should read 'past'. The univariate structure is:
was going to have walked
α past β future γ past
past in future in past
will have been going to be being tested
α future β past γ future δ present ε passive
passive: present in future in past in future.
Secondary tenses are realised by tense auxiliaries followed by the particular verb form they govern:Secondary past is realised by the tense auxiliary have followed by the past participial form (v-en), as in have eaten; have walked; have been eating; have been walking.Secondary present is realised by the tense auxiliary be followed by the present participial form (v-ing), as in be eating; be walking; be being eaten.Secondary future is realised by the tense auxiliary be going + a to infinitival verb form (to v), as in be going to eat, be going to have eaten, be going to be eating. (We can also include forms such as be about to for immediate future and would as a special form for future-in-past, as in He would later regret his rash decision.)
Blogger Comments:
This is misleading because it misrepresents words as the realisation of secondary tense in univariate structure. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 398-9):
… the elements of the logical structure are not the individual words but certain rather more complex elements. … The logical structure of the verbal group realises the system of tense. … The primary tense is that functioning as Head, shown as α. This is the Deictic tense: past, present or future relative to the speech event. The modifying elements, at β and beyond, are secondary tenses; they express past, present or future relative to the time selected in the previous tense. Realisations are shown in Table 6-12.
Matthiessen (1995: 730):
Examples:
positive & finite: temporal: future & unmarked focus & secondary: past: secondary: future: secondary: past & passive
Blogger Comments:
To be clear, this misconstrues and misrepresents the univariate structure of the verbal group. Because there are only five features selected — modal, past, future, past, passive — there are only five elements of univariate structure, not six:
should have been going to have been tested
α modal β past γ future δ past ε passive
Matthiessen (1995: 730):
Examples:
positive & finite: modal & unmarked focus & secondary: past & active
Blogger Comments:
This misconstrues and misrepresents the univariate structure of the verbal group. Because there are only two features selected, modal and past, there are only two elements of univariate structure: the expression of modality and the secondary past tense have + V-en: (with the -en not realised phonologically or graphologically for this irregular verb):
should have become
α modal β past
Matthiessen (1995: 730):
Examples:
positive & finite: modal & unmarked focus & no secondary & active
Blogger Comments:
This misconstrues and misrepresents the univariate structure of these verbal groups. Because there is no secondary tense, there is only one element of univariate structure: the expression of modality:
would live
can see
α modal
Matthiessen (1995: 730):
Examples:
positive & finite: temporal: past & marked focus : polarity (not shown in network) & no secondary & active
Blogger Comments:
This miconstrues and misrepresents the univariate structure of this verbal group. To be clear, the tense of this verbal group is again the simple past (V-ed), and so there is only one structural realisation of tense, not two:
did fall
α past
Examples:positive & finite: temporal: past & unmarked focus & no secondary & active
Blogger Comments:
To be clear, the tense of this verbal group is the simple past, realised structurally by V-ed, which is realised phonologically and graphologically by vowel change in this irregular verb:
fell
α past
Matthiessen (1995: 715):
The verbal group is a group of verbs - one lexical verb and one or more auxiliaries. It is organised both univariately and multivariately. The principles will be discussed below; the univariate structure is a simple hypotactic one, realised progressively — α –> β –> γ –> δ (as in α must β have γ been going δ to leave) and so on.
Blogger Comments:
[1] This is misleading. The elements of the univariate structure of the verbal group are not words. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 398-9):
… the elements of the logical structure are not the individual words but certain rather more complex elements. … The logical structure of the verbal group realises the system of tense. … The primary tense is that functioning as Head, shown as α. This is the Deictic tense: past, present or future relative to the speech event. The modifying elements, at β and beyond, are secondary tenses; they express past, present or future relative to the time selected in the previous tense. Realisations are shown in Table 6-12.
And so, importantly, the Event does not figure as an element in the univariate structure. Halliday (1985: 184n):
A major point of difference between the verbal group and the nominal group is that the Event (unlike the Thing) is not the point of departure for the recursive modifying relationship. Hence it does not figure as an element in the notation.
[2] To be clear, this misrepresents the univariate structure of the verbal group. Only three features, not four, are selected in this verbal group: modal, past and future, realised as:
[must] [have + V-en] [be going to + V]
must have been going to leave
α modal β past γ future
Now let us turn to non-identifiable determination. The interpretation given in IFG Section 6.2.1 will be used and elaborated on. Non-identifiable determination is not concerned with how to identify an already established instantiation but with how a class is instantiated — whether it is instantiated completely or only partially, whether it is instantiated selectively or not, and so on. The general distinctions are the same for both singular instantiations and non-singular (i.e., mass or plural) instantiations.
Blogger Comments:
To be clear, this again confuses a genuine nominal group system, DETERMINATION (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 366) with the 'identifiability' of the non-structural cohesive system of REFERENCE (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 623).
The most general system in the DETERMINATION region of systems is concerned with the general recoverability or identifiability status of the discourse referent being presented — is it recoverable or not? If it is, then the issue is how it is to be recovered (as an instance of some general class); if it is not, then the issue is how it is to be presented (as an instance of some general class). (In either case, the system of POSTDETERMINATION may give some further indication of the status of the referents as instances of the general class: the usual three trouble-makers; these famous two stars; the alleged two burglars.)
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, this again confuses a genuine nominal group system, DETERMINATION (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 366) with the 'identifiability' of the non-structural cohesive system of REFERENCE (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 623).
[2] To be clear, this confuses a genuine nominal group system, POSTDETERMINATION (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 373) with the 'identifiability' of the non-structural cohesive system of REFERENCE (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 623).
Non-structural cohesive systems are not systems of the nominal group, since systems of the nominal group specify the structure of the nominal group, relationships between its elements, whereas systems of COHESION do not.
Like THEMATISATION, DETERMINATION depends on a dynamic model of the environment in which the text is unfolding, in particular of the current state of development from the point of view of the addressee. In this dynamic text model, it has to be possible to determine whether a given referent is identifiable or not to the addressee. (Non-identifiable determiners in particular overlap in coverage with the quantifiers of formal logic, but the distinctions are not the same.)
Blogger Comments:
To be clear, this again confuses a genuine nominal group system, DETERMINATION (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 366) with the 'identifiability' of the non-structural cohesive system of REFERENCE (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 623).
Non-structural cohesive systems are not systems of the nominal group, since systems of the nominal group specify the structure of the nominal group, relationships between its elements, whereas systems of COHESION do not.
In the clause, THEMATISATION determines the thematic status of participants and circumstances (thematic vs. rhematic). In the information unit in spoken English, INFORMATION determines their information status (given vs. new). These textual statuses are independent of, but clearly related to, a third textual status, the identifiability status of referents; this status is controlled by DETERMINATION in the nominal group.In the experiential perspective, an object is a general class, possibly with subcategorisations and descriptive attributes. The textual perspective is concerned with the instantiation of the class; with the object as a referent. In the case of objects, both perspectives are integrated in the nominal group. DETERMINATION is the resource for determining whether a referent is identifiable or not; and if it is, how it is to be identified; and if it is not, how it is to be selected as an instance of a class. DETERMINATION is concerned with things as instances, not as experiential classes.
Blogger Comments:
To be clear, this again confuses a genuine nominal group system, DETERMINATION (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 366) with the 'identifiability' of the non-structural cohesive system of REFERENCE (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 623).
Non-structural cohesive systems are not systems of the nominal group, since systems of the nominal group specify the structure of the nominal group, relationships between its elements, whereas systems of COHESION do not.
From a textual point of view, the nominal group provides the resources for presenting and contextualising discourse referents — instances of participants brought into referential space — and for differentiating between continuous and contrastive information. There are two textual sets of systems, DETERMINATION and SUBSTITUTION/ELLIPSIS. Both deal with recoverability of information. DETERMINATION is concerned with the recoverability status of discourse referents (their identifiability), whereas SUBSTITUTION/ELLIPSIS is concerned with the recoverability of words.
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, these are non-structural cohesive systems, not systems of the nominal group. Systems of the nominal group specify the structure of the nominal group, relationships between its elements, whereas systems of COHESION do not.
[2] To be clear, this confuses a genuine nominal group system, DETERMINATION (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 366) with the non-structural cohesive system of REFERENCE (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 623).
The adjectives that regularly serve as Classifiers - adjectives of provenance (Chinese, Burmese, Australian), of material (wooden, metallic, plastic), for example - are closer to the domain of nouns on the scale from prototypical adjectives to prototypical nouns. For instance, they are not scalar and intensifiable but form n-nary taxonomic oppositions (instead of binary scalar oppositions such as tall - short ). Thus we would not expect to get very metamorphic rocks. ¹²⁹
¹²⁹ But we do find examples such as a thoroughly modern woman, a very post-modern discourse, a very French attitude; more French than the French. Here the intensification seems to be concerned either with degree of (proto)typicality rather than value on a single scale or with some particular aspect that is characteristic of the quality.
Blogger Comments:
To be clear, the fact that intensification is possible in such instances suggests that the words are serving as Epithets, rather than Classifiers. Moreover, they can be seen to serve as interpersonal Epithets, since they express the speaker's attitude toward the Thing in question (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 376).
Deictic, Postdeictic and Numerative are concerned with various aspects of the selection of instantial representatives of the general experiential category construed by the nominal group - whether they are recoverable/ identifiable to the addressee or not, how they are selected (as typical, usual, possible, etc. representatives), how many are selected, and so on.
Blogger Comments:
To be clear, this confuses the function of the Deictic as an element of nominal group structure, realising the system of DETERMINATION (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 365), with its non-structural cohesive function (recoverability, identifiability), realising the system of REFERENCE (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 623).
In previous editions the Postmodifier also was brought into the scope of the logical representation. But this appears to complicate the description without adding further to its explanatory power.
With elaborating selection, the Facet construes the order of abstraction (picture, symbol, etc.) or delicacy (type, example, etc.) of the participant being represented whereas with extending selection, the Facet construes the size (collection, cup, part, etc.). The more delicate types are set out in Table 7-10 below together with nouns that can serve as the Head of the nominal group realising Facet.
Blogger Comments:
As previously explained, the symbolisation category does not satisfy the requirements of a Facet, because the Head always conflates with Thing in such nominal groups. That is, words like picture, photograph, painting, drawing, sketch, symbol, sign always function as Thing — not Facet — because such words serve as the participant in the transitivity structure of the clause. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 394):
… the Thing is the entity that is functioning as participant in the transitivity structure of the clause … .
The more weight the nominal group with the potential for serving as Facet is given, in particular through specific determination, the less likely it is to be interpreted as Facet and the more likely its Head is to be interpreted as the Thing of the whole nominal group, as in I haven't seen this beautiful expensive picture of Dorian Grey before. Here the Postmodifier is unlikely to serve as Theme — that is, we would hardly get Dorian Grey I haven't seen this beautiful expensive picture of before; and this indicates that the multivariate and univariate structures are congruent with picture as Head/ Thing.
Blogger Comments:
To be clear, the thematic potential of the Postmodifier is irrelevant to whether Head and Thing are conflated. The Thing is the experiential element of the nominal group that serves as the participant in the experiential structure of the clause. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 394):
What all these have in common is that, while the Thing is the entity that is functioning as participant in the transitivity structure of the clause … . It is the Head that determines the value of the entity in the mood system, and therefore as a potential Subject.
In this instance, picture serves as Thing because it is this that I haven't seen, not Dorian Grey.
Matthiessen (1995: 656):
Blogger Comments:
What all these have in common is that, while the Thing is the entity that is functioning as participant in the transitivity structure of the clause, the logical Head of the construction is something that constrains the entity in terms of the two variables mentioned above. It is the Head that determines the value of the entity in the mood system, and therefore as a potential Subject.
On this basis, the Thing in this nominal group is picture, as demonstrated by the clause
a picture of Dorian Grey was thrown in the bin
where it is clearly a picture that was thrown in the bin, not Dorian Grey. Thus:
Matthiessen (1995: 652):
What all these have in common is that, while the Thing is the entity that is functioning as participant in the transitivity structure of the clause, the logical Head of the construction is something that constrains the entity in terms of the two variables mentioned above. It is the Head that determines the value of the entity in the mood system, and therefore as a potential Subject.
On this basis, the Thing in this nominal group is picture, as demonstrated by the clause
a picture of these famous first two marvellous brick houses with gardens was thrown in the bin
where it is clearly a picture that was thrown in the bin, not houses. Thus:
In contrast, in verbal groups, the Head is not the main experiential function, the Event, but rather the Finite, i.e., the function that relates to the now of the communicative exchange — the interpersonal reference point created in the speech interaction. Consequently, expansion within the verbal group of the Head does not start as a construal of the event; rather, it construes a (stepwise) move away from the interpersonal reference point of the Finite to the experiential Event through time and/or modality.
However, the structural labelling of the words that make up the verbal group is of limited value, not only because the meaning can be fully represented in terms of grammatical features (of tense, voice, polarity and modality), but also because it is the logical structure that embodies the single most important semantic feature of the English verb, its recursive tense system, and the elements of the logical structure are not the individual words but certain rather more complex elements. …
The logical structure of the verbal group realises the system of tense. … Thus tense in English is a recursive system. The primary tense is that functioning as Head, shown as α. This is the Deictic tense: past, present or future relative to the speech event. The modifying elements, at β and beyond, are secondary tenses; they express past, present or future relative to the time selected in the previous tense. Realisations are shown in Table 6-12.
Matthiessen (1995: 640):
As the examples above show, the Head (⍺) of each type of group is a different multivariate function, viz. Thing (nominal group), Circumstance (adverbial group of ideational type), and Finite (verbal group).
Blogger Comments:
In previous editions the Postmodifier also was brought into the scope of the logical representation. But this appears to complicate the description without adding further to its explanatory power.
However, more importantly, here Matthiessen seriously misrepresents the the logical structure of the verbal group. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 398-9):
… the elements of the logical structure are not the individual words but certain rather more complex elements. … The logical structure of the verbal group realises the system of tense. … The primary tense is that functioning as Head, shown as α. This is the Deictic tense: past, present or future relative to the speech event. The modifying elements, at β and beyond, are secondary tenses; they express past, present or future relative to the time selected in the previous tense. Realisations are shown in Table 6-12.
As can be seen, the elements of logical structure of the verbal group are not words, and it is the realisation of primary tense, not the word serving as the Finite element, that functions as the Head (⍺) of the verbal group. Halliday (1985: 177):
Importantly, the Finite element realises not just primary tense, but also modality and polarity (Halliday 1985: 75), but it is only the realisation of primary tense that functions as the Head (⍺) of the verbal group.
Finally, the Event has never featured in the logical structure of the verbal group. Halliday (1985: 184n):
A major point of difference between the verbal group and the nominal group is that the Event (unlike the Thing) is not the point of departure for the recursive modifying relationship. Hence it does not figure as an element in the notation.
Matthiessen (1995: 638):
Verbal groups are groups of verbs, nominal groups are groups of nominals, and adverbial groups are groups of adverbials.
Blogger Comments:
To be clear, there are exceptions to this generalisation, such as verbs serving as Epithets and Classifiers in nominal groups, adverbs serving as Submodifiers in nominal groups, and adjectives (nominals) serving as the Event in verbal groups. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 427n):
Certain adjectives can serve as Event in a verbal group in a hypotactic verbal group complex, e.g. (conation: potentiality:) be able/apt/prone/likely → to do; (modulation: time: frequency:) be wont → to do; (modulation: manner: quality:) be wise/right/wrong → to do; (projection:) be willing/keen/eager → to do; be afraid/scared → to do.
Matthiessen (1995: 637):
The textual option in the prepositional phrase has just been illustrated for wh-phrases. That is, the prepositional phrase may be thematic as a whole, or its Complement/Range may alternatively be thematic on its own:What's it | like_ | out today?✝ That house I'll never set my foot | in_ | again.From the point of view of the prepositional phrase, the Complement/ Range conflates with a function that is external to the prepositional phrase (shown as Theme ↑). If the nominal group serving as Complement/ Range has an elaborating or extending Facet (Selector) and its structure is ambivalent, it is even possible to thematise only the non-Facet part of the nominal group (cf. Matthiessen, 1991):✝ That peak I've never talked about [a picture of _].
Blogger Comments:
[1] Again, this misconstrues what is thematic at clause rank — the prepositional phrase or its Complement/Range — as thematic at phrase rank.
[2] To be clear, the clause That peak I've never talked about a picture of is extremely unlikely.
As already noted above, prepositional phrases can be interpreted as mini-clauses (IFG, p. 180; 212-3). Experientially, they offer the system MINOR TRANSITIVITY — a system of relational process types; interpersonally, they offer MINOR MOOD, where the distinction is simply between wh- and non-wh-; and textually they offer MINOR THEME which is the choice between having an externally thematic participant or not. These systems are set out in Figure 7-3. (The symbol ↑ indicates that the Complement of the prepositional phrase is conflated with a function external to the domain of the prepositional phrase, viz. the Theme of the clause in which the prepositional phrase serves: See Section 7.1.2.3 below.)
This system network thus defines a three-dimensional paradigm; examples are given in Table 7-5.
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, Halliday proposes no thematic structure for the prepositional phrase. Here Matthiessen misconstrues what is thematic at clause rank — the Range/Complement of prepositional phrase — as thematic at phrase rank. A structure is the relation between functions, so a thematic structure for a prepositional phrase would be a relation between the minor Process/Predicator and the minor Range/Complement.
[2] To be clear, neither the two examples of 'externally thematic projection' are likely instances of English:
Matthiessen (1995: 627):
As already noted, a prepositional phrase is like a mini-clause — more specifically, it is like a mini relational clause. For example, corresponding to the relational clause The fence surrounds the property, we have the prepositional phrase around the property. While the finite clause represents both participants entering into the relation (Token + Value, or Carrier+ Attribute), the phrase only represents one of them (the one construed in the clause as Value or Attribute).
Blogger Comments:
To be clear, since, for Halliday (1994: 151-2), a prepositional phrase is like a relational or verbal clause, the minor Range of a prepositional phrase may also correspond to the Verbiage or Sayer of a verbal clause — the former when the phrase serves as Matter, the latter when it serves as Angle.
To sum up, groups differ from phrases in that(i) they are groups of words of the same primary class (nominals, verbs, or adverbials), so their functional potential is related to the Head word;
Blogger Comments:
To be clear, there are exceptions to this generalisation, as when a verb serves as the Epithet or Classifier of a nominal group, or an adverb serves as Sub-Modifier; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 427).
Matthiessen (1995: 626):
In contrast, prepositional phrases are mini-clauses, more specifically mini relational clauses — shrunken clauses (see IFG Ch. 6).
Blogger Comments:
To be clear, for Halliday (1994: 151-2), a prepositional phrase is like a relational or verbal clause:
For the present discussion, what is important is the notion of ‘circumstance’ as a kind of additional minor process, subsidiary to the main one, but embodying some of the features of a relational or verbal process, and so introducing a further entity as an indirect participant in the clause.
Note that adverbial group is treated quite broadly here; it includes conjunctions and continuatives as well as adverbs at Head. In IFG, adverbial groups and conjunction groups are distinguished. Here they are just taken as more delicate types of adverbial group. IFG also recognises a prepositional group. Here groups of prepositions are simply treated as complexes of prepositions at word rank (paratactic - e.g., extending: above —> and below the surface; enhancing: from —> beyond the mountains).
Blogger Comments:
To be clear, this treatment has the advantage of acknowledging the hybrid nature of the prepositional phrase, with one element realised by a unit (complex) at word rank, and the other element realised by a unit (complex) at group rank, and also of economising the rank scale, since it proposes just a single class of form at group/phrase rank for the word class 'preposition'.
Certain verbs of behaviour (including verbal behaviour) are "reciprocal" and can serve either in clauses with a participant realised by a plural nominal group or coordinated nominal groups or with a circumstance of Accompaniment. For instance, fight can serve in either Anne and Henry fought or in Anne fought with Henry.Similarly: chat, discuss, speak, talk, dance, fight, kiss, play, waltz. Outside the behavioural domain …
Blogger Comments:
To be clear, fight patterns like a material Process, not a behavioural Process, since it allows a co-participant to be construed as Goal in an effective clause:
Henry fought Anne
whereas a behavioural Process does not:
*Henry sneezed Anne
*Henry laughed Anne
Matthiessen (1995: 344):
Certain examples of circumstances are not really catered for in the IFG typology presented above. They include For us, this is a boon; it was a sad day for most of us (but cf. Angle above).
Blogger Comments:
To be clear, on the IFG model, these are participants — Beneficiaries — not circumstances.
Intensive clauses play an important role in linguistic theory because they allow us to construe various relationships that are fundamental in semiotic systems. For instance, identifying intensive clauses can construe realisation — the relationship between SIGNIFIED (Value) and SIGNIFIER (Token). See Figure 4-29 and note that the direction is from the signifier to the signified — the interpretive direction in linguistic theorising.
Matthiessen (1995: 305):
The system RELATION TYPE is simultaneous with RELATIONAL ABSTRACTION. There are three terms — intensive/possessive/circumstantial. These three types are manifestations in the environment of relational processes of the highly generalised types of expansion that permeate the lexicogrammatical system: elaborating — intensive, extending — possessive, and enhancing — circumstantial.
Blogger Comments:
To be clear, the exception here is a circumstantial relational clause of matter — such as This story concerns a lost dog — where the relation is one of projection, not enhancement.
Identifying clauses are interpreted as invariably effective here ⁵⁸
⁵⁸ This is a simplification: Identifying can also combine with middle — see Halliday (1967/8).
Blogger Comments:
To be clear, identifying clauses are only effective in agency if encoding or assigned. The least marked variant, unassigned decoding, is middle in agency.
Matthiessen (1995: 300):
Existential clauses are treated as a subtype of relational clauses here. They are invariably middle. They are the limiting case, since there is only one participant, the Existent, and thus the process is no true relation — no true expansion linking two participants.
Blogger Comments:
To be clear, this is inconsistent with Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 157), where effective existential clauses with two participants are proposed:
Relational clauses are either EXISTENTIAL or EXPANDING. Existential clauses constitute the limiting case of being — a mode of being with only one participant, the Existent. In contrast, expanding clauses always involve a relation between two participants — they are true relational clauses in this respect. (A restricted exceptional subtype will be noted below where one of the two participants is fused with the Process.) They are called expanding relational clauses because the relation covers the same semantic space as expansion elsewhere in the grammar, e.g., in the clause complex and in conjunction.
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, Halliday ± Matthiessen (1985, 1994, 2004, 2014) distinguish existential clauses from relational clauses.
[2] To be clear, the exception here is a circumstantial relational clause of matter — such as This story concerns a lost dog — where the relation is one of projection, not expansion.
Processes of verbal impact are also on the borderline between the verbal domain and the material domain. Like verbal processes, they have a Sayer, which can be a speaker as well as some other symbol source; but the participant addressed is not construed as a Beneficiary that may be marked by to, but rather as a Goal-like Target of verbal impact. Verbs occurring in this type of clause include:accuse, blame, congratulate, criticise.praise, rebuke
Blogger Comments:
To be clear, the 'Goal-like' Target (Medium) of such verbal clauses demonstrates that they are effective, not middle, in agency, contrary to Matthiessen (1995: 283).
Matthiessen (1995: 284):
Processes of verbal behaviour are on the borderline between verbal and behavioural; they can alternatively be interpreted as behavioural processes. They include:speak, talk, argue, converse, confer, chat, chatter, gossip, yak
Blogger Comments:
To be clear, Halliday ± Matthiessen (1985, 1994, 2004, 2014) interpret these as behavioural, not verbal.
Table 4-30: Characteristic Properties of Verbal Clauses
Blogger Comments:
To be clear, this is inconsistent with Halliday (1994: 165-6), where targeted verbal clauses are interpreted as effective:
.png)
Process + Medium. There is a set of features of material process type in the context of which we find Process + Medium pairs. These general features include
- change in quantity (fall + temperature),
- change in quality,
- growth & improvement (repair + [mechanical device such as] car, heal + wound, ripen + fruit, mature + child, age + wine) or
- deterioration (decay + teeth, rot + meat, wilt + flower),
- phase: beginning (break out + war),
- preparation for use (make + bed, lay + table, prime + gun, pump);
- behaviour: typical sound (neigh + horse, bark + dog),
- behaviour: typical movement (waddle + duck, trot + horse, canter + horse, flap + wing, crawl + snake),
- behaviour: ingesting (breathe + air, inhale + smoke, drink + liquid, take + medicine).
Some verbs are less likely with the circumstantial option — for example Anne hugged with Henry is unlikely - and the potential coparticipant is construed alternatively as a Goal instead — hug, embrace, kiss, marry, divorce:
Anne and Henry hugged/embraced/kissed/married/divorced:Anne hugged/embraced/kissed/married/divorced Henry
Blogger Comments:
Again, the fact that a co-participant is construed as a Goal is evidence that the Process is effective material, not middle behavioural.
If MATERIAL, MENTAL, and RELATIONAL are taken as major types, as they are in IFG, it is interesting to note that the other minor types, BEHAVIOURAL, VERBAL and EXISTENTIAL are all more restricted in AGENCY - they are middle only.
Interactive (reciprocal) behavioural material processes have the special property that coparticipation can be construed either as one participant which is internally complex (e.g., Henry and Anne), in which case a reciprocal pronoun as Accompaniment may be added (e.g., Henry and Anne ... with each other), or as one participant configured with a circumstance of Accompaniment (e.g., Henry ... with Anne), as in
Henry and Anne danced/fought/chatted :Henry and Anne danced/fought/chatted with each other:Henry danced/fought/chatted with Anne.
In other words, a participant may be extended paratactically or circumstantially; verbs serving in this type of clause include:
dance, waltz, chat, gossip, talk, converse, negotiate, discuss, argue, sing, collaborate, meet, play, fight, box
To be clear, fought patterns here like an effective material Process, not a middle behavioural ('material') Process, since it allows a co-participant to be construed as Goal:
Henry fought Anne
whereas a behavioural Process does not:
*Henry danced Anne
*Henry chatted Anne
The same holds true for meet and box:
Henry met Anne
Henry boxed Anne
If MATERIAL, MENTAL, and RELATIONAL are taken as major types, as they are in IFG, it is interesting to note that the other minor types, BEHAVIOURAL, VERBAL and EXISTENTIAL are all more restricted in AGENCY - they are middle only.
Matthiessen (1995: 252):
(1) Certain behavioural processes that are confined to the self may occur with or without a reflexive pronoun; these include processes of grooming — behave (oneself), clean (oneself), comb (oneself), [un]dress (oneself), hide (oneself), prepare (oneself) for, shave (oneself), stretch (oneself), wash (oneself):
Blogger Comments:
To be clear, the possibility of a reflexive pronoun in such clauses rules out these verbs as serving as behavioural Processes, because, if the pronoun is interpreted as the Range of the Process, it is not a Behaviour, as it must be for behavioural clauses, and if it is interpreted as the Medium of the Process it is not a Behaver, as it must be for behavioural clauses.
Cf this impossibility for genuine behaviourals: *stare oneself, *grumble oneself, *frown oneself, *sneeze oneself, *stand oneself
Note that instances like he laughed himself sick are material clauses, as demonstrated by the inclusion of the resultative Attribute sick.
Behavioural processes can tentatively be divided into intro-active and inter-active ones. Intro-active processes cover active equivalents of inert sensing (realised by mental clauses) — perception, cognition, and affect — and a few others. Some of these may quote. Interactive behaviour may involve extension - within the Behaver (x and y danced) or as a separate circumstance of Accompaniment (x danced with y )'., See Table 4-19.
As noted earlier, in IFG Section 5.5.1 (pp. 138-40), behavioural processes are separate from material ones; in the current grammar, they are treated as a subtype of material processes. In some earlier treatments, such as Halliday (1976: Ch. 11), those behavioural processes concerned with mental processing as an activity (smiling, laughing, listening, looking, watching, pondering, etc.) were treated as a type of mental process. The different treatments reflect the fact that behavioural processes, in some respects, fall between material processes and mental ones. For instance, like mental processes their Medium is normally conscious; but unlike mental processes (as a class) they cannot project or have a metaphenomenal Range (Phenomenon). (They can, however, have a macrophenomenal Range: Little Bobby's parents watched him recite Ode to a Grecian Urn with tears in their eyes.)
Blogger Comments:
To be clear, for Halliday, behavioural processes cannot project, and when such verbs serve in a quoting nexus, they add a behavioural feature to verbal Process. Halliday (1994: 139):
Ranged middle material clauses that can be interpreted as a service may be benefactive in the sense of cliency and thus have a Client: He sang us an old folk song : He sang an old folk song for us.
Blogger Comments:
To be clear, for Halliday ± Matthiessen (1985, 1994, 2004, 2014), these are behavioural clauses. For example, Halliday (1994: 139):
Behavioural processes are almost always middle; the most typical pattern is a clause consisting of Behaver and Process only, like Don’t breathe!, No one’s listening, He’s always grumbling. A common variant of these is that where the behaviour is dressed up as if it was a participant, like she sang a song, he gave a great yawn;
