The Textual Choice Between Benefactive and Goal Culmination

Matthiessen (1995: 243):

Dispositive effective material clauses that express some kind of transfer of goods may be benefactive and have a Recipient: Please send us a contribution. The realisation of the Recipient depends on the textual choice between BENEFACTIVE CULMINATION and GOAL CULMINATION

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, Halliday explains this choice of CULMINATION more broadly as a choice between non-prominence and prominence as late news. Halliday (1985: 149-50):

But the choice of ‘plus or minus preposition’ with Agent, Beneficiary and Range is not just random variation; it serves a textual function. This is, in fact, another instance of the importance attached to the message structure in modern English. The principle is as follows. If a participant other than the Medium is in a place of prominence in the message, it tends to take a preposition (i.e. to be construed as ‘indirect’ participant); otherwise it does not. Prominence in the message means functioning either (i) as marked Theme (i.e. Theme but not Subject) or (ii) as ‘late news’ – that is, occurring after some other participant, or circumstance, that already follows the Process. In other words, prominence comes from occurring either earlier or later than expected in the clause; and it is this that is being reinforced by the presence of the preposition. The preposition has become a signal of special status in the message. Examples in Table 5(19).

Attribute In Effective Material Clauses

Matthiessen (1995: 243):

Effective material clauses may have an Attribute, either expressing the result of the occurrence of the process or a condition for its occurrence: They painted the house green; he was shot dead; cut the potatoes into cubes; serve the dish hot.

Blogger Comments:

Trivially, into cubes is a circumstance of Role: product (Halliday 1994: 157), not a resultative Attribute.

'Phenomenon-Like' Ranges In Behavioural Clauses

Matthiessen (1995: 239):

Ranges in behavioural clauses are comparable to the Phenomenon of a middle mental clause:

(Phenomenon-like in behavioural type)

He was following his father II as [Actor:] he [Process:] read [Range:] the bible.

If [Actor:] you [Process:] listen [Range:] to Herman Kahn, || Germany will be eclipsed by France in the not very distant future.

Blogger Comments:

[1]  To be clear, this is seriously inconsistent with Halliday ± Matthiessen (1985, 1994, 2004, 2014).  For Halliday, the Range of a behavioural Process is a Behaviour (Halliday 1985: 148; Halliday 1994: 149, 166; Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 251, 260, 291, 294, 295; Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 301, 311, 312, 344, 346, 347). For example, Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 301):

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; this structure is typical in the everyday spoken language. The participant is analogous to the Scope of a ‘material’ clause (both being manifestations of the general function of Range); we shall call it Behaviour.

[2] To be clear, the clause he read the bible satisfies all criteria for mental clauses, except unmarked present tense, which aligns it with material clauses. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 354):

That is, viewed 'from above', read serves as a mental Process (with the bible as Phenomenon), but 'from below', it serves as a material Process. In SFL Theory, priority is given to the view 'from above' (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 49).

Moreover, a behavioural interpretation is ruled out by the simple fact that the bible is not a behaviour, so can not be the Range of a behavioural clause. 

This case is interesting theoretically because it demonstrates that the mere overlap of mental and material features is insufficient grounds, in itself, for interpreting a clause as behavioural.

[3] To be clear, the prepositional phrase to Herman Kahn does not serve as the Range of a behavioural Process, most obviously because it is not a Behaviour. For Halliday, it serves as a circumstance of Place that expresses orientation. Halliday (1994: 139):

Certain types of circumstance are associated with behaviour processes … Some of those in groups (i)–(iii) also regularly feature a prepositional phrase in it with to, at or on: I’m talking to you, don’t look at me, fortune is smiling on us. These are, in origin, circumstances of Place; in the behavioural context they express orientation but we may continue to use that label.

'Dance' And 'Sing' As Material Processes

Matthiessen (1995: 238):

The different types of Range are shown in Table 4-16 — with the exception of behavioural Ranges. This classification will be used later as a basis for listing verbs serving in material clauses. 

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, for Halliday, the clauses he did/began a dance and he sang an Elizabethan folk song are behavioural, and so a dance and an Elizabethan folk song are the Ranges of behavioural Processes. Halliday (1994: 139):

Halliday (1994: 162):

Range In Relational Clauses

Matthiessen (1995: 230):

For instance, relational clauses in principle always have a Range — the relation is construed between Medium & Range;

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, this overstates the case, since it applies only to attributive and decoding identifying clauses. An encoding identifying clause construes a relation between Medium (Value/Identified) and Agent (Token/Identifier). There is no Range.

Effective Verbal Clauses

Matthiessen (1995: 230):

(Following IFG (p. 155), the grammar presented here specifies only middle verbal clauses. If one posited a combination of verbal and effective, it might include causative mental examples such as x convinced y 'x caused y to believe'.)

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, this is true only of the first edition of IFG (Halliday 1985). Subsequent editions interpret targeted verbal clauses as effective. For example, Halliday (1994: 166):

Middle Material Clauses

Matthiessen (1995: 215, 218):

middle

(i) non-Ranged

[Actor:] I [Process:] appear [Location:] on the scene [Location:] at very rare intervals.

[Actor:] I [Process:] was <still> looking [Location:] at Farnham actually.

[Actor:] The wind [Process:] was blowing [Location:] from the west.

[Actor:] He [Process:] tried not to cry II but [Actor:] some little tears [Process:] dropped [Location:] on to his teddy.

(ii) ranged

[Actor:] They [Process:] surrounded [Range:] the field.

[Actor:] Mr. Smith [Process:] is representing [Range:] Washington.

[Actor:] They don't [Process:] frequent [Range:] Kennedy.

… 

A good many verbs can serve in more than one clause type. For instance, represent can be either relational (as in, up represents happiness) or material (as in, Jones is representing the City).

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, for Halliday (1985, 1994) and Halliday & Matthiessen (2004, 2014), these are behavioural Processes mediated by Behavers.

[2] To be clear, the Process of this clause is circumstantial relational: identifying, with they as Token/Medium and the field as Value/Range. See, for example, Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 294).

[3] To be clear, the Process of such clauses is intensive relational: identifying, with Mr. Smith/Jones as Token/Medium, and Washington/the City as Value/Range. See, for example, Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 277-86). The (marked) use of 'present in present' tense is not criterial of process type (e.g. he is being an idiot, she is playing the fool, etc.)

Behavioural, Verbal And Existential Clauses As Middle Only

Matthiessen (1995: 211):

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: See Figure 4-8.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, this overstates the case. Effective behavioural clauses are exemplified by she burped the baby and you make me laugh. Effective verbal clauses include all those that take a Target (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 344). And Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 157) analyse the cold front brought heavy showers as an effective existential clause.

Encoding Identifying Clauses

Matthiessen (1995: 210):

Blogger Comments:

The final row of Table 4-6 contains two unfortunate typos. In an encoding clause, Value (Medium) conflates with Identified, and Token (Agent) conflates with Identifier.

This typo may be the source of the error in Key Terms In Systemic Functional Linguistics (Matthiessen, Teruya & Lam 2010: 116):

identifying                   descriptive 

Term in the experiential clause system contrasting with ‘ascriptive’. In the identifying mode, one entity is used to identify another. Identifying clauses are realised by the presence of the Token and Value and/or the Identifier and Identified in the transitivity structure of clause. Combinations of these two sets of variables determine coding direction between decoding and encoding, for example, if the Token is construed as Identified and the Value as Identifier the clause is an encoding one, as in the Mint Museum houses a collection of Australian decorative arts. Identifying relations manifest in the environment of ‘intensive’, for example, the new president is Obama, ‘possessive’, for example, (see above), and ‘circumstantial’ relational processes, for example, many mansions line the harbour.

Process As Theme In Indicative Clauses

Matthiessen (1995: 199):

In principle, only participants and circumstances can serve as Theme in English (outside of imperative clauses) so if the process is to have thematic status it has to be represented metaphorically as a participant (or circumstance): The investigation started in 1992.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, this overstates the case. Although the Process is the least likely element to be thematised in indicative clauses, there are common instances of the type:

They said it would rain, and rain it did.

For a text that makes much use of Process as Theme, see Alan Bennett's The Uncommon Reader.

Projecting Clause As Culminative Or Thematic

Matthiessen (1995: 155-6):

When the projecting clause follows, the Sayer/Subject or Senser/Subject can be given the status of Culminative (... "The paper gave fair coverage in those days," says Zani Ahmad, a prominent political exile now living in Kuala Lumpur ). When the projecting clause precedes, it can be interpreted as having thematic status;

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, this is the application of Matthiessen's clause element 'Culminative' to the clause complex. With regard to the thematic status of a clause in a clause complex, Halliday (1994: 55-6) limits this to an initiating dependent expanding clause.

Projecting Behavioural Clauses

Matthiessen (1995: 138, 145):

On the other hand, since content is projected more directly as a quote in paratactic projection, the projecting clause can also be a behavioural one — typically representing a facial reflection of saying such as frowning, smiling, grimacing but also representing some other accompanying feature coughing, hissing. These cannot project content indirectly as a report. …

Locutions are projected by verbal clauses - and also, more restrictedly, by certain behavioural clauses. Verbal projection may be either paratactic (quoting) or hypotactic (reporting), although paratactic locution is more likely; behavioural projection can only be paratactic (quoting).

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the notion of behavioural projection complicates the model without gaining any explanatory power. Moreover, it gives priority to the choice of word over the choice of grammatical structure (verbal projection).

For Halliday, the use of a 'behavioural' verb in a projecting clause adds a behavioural feature to the verbal Process. Halliday (1994: 139):

Verbal Processes And Projection

Matthiessen (1995: 116):

Any feature we assign to the example will have some location in the system network, in the paradigmatic organisation of the lexicogrammar, and we can then use the system network to find agnate examples. Thus, if it is verbal, it should be able to project.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, not all verbal processes are able to project. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 307):

Verbs that accept a Target do not easily project reported speech.

This will become an important issue later when Matthiessen's classification of verbal and behavioural processes is examined.

Matthiessen's Clause System Of Culmination

Matthiessen (1995: 105):

Consequently, these strategies bring the information within the domain of those textual systems that operate within the clause — THEME and CULMINATION (see further, Chapter 6 below); and the information can be given a textual status as (part of) Theme or as (part of) Culminative.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the system of CULMINATION is the work of Matthiessen, not Halliday, and it is proposed as the writing counterpart to the system of INFORMATION in speech, except that, unlike INFORMATION, it is a system of the clause, and its informational prominence is always located in the Rheme. Matthiessen (1995: 600):

CULMINATION is the resource for assigning informational prominence in writing in terms of newsworthiness to constituents in the clause. Culminative status is realised by the relative ordering of elements towards the end of the clause. In speech, the corresponding system is INFORMATION, which assigns the information unit a Given+ New structure; the New is realised phonologically, more specifically by intonational prominence (the location of the major pitch movement of a tone group). CULMINATION complements the thematic status assigned by Theme. Once the local context has been established, the issue is what the main point of information is.

The Logical Structure Of Nominal And Verbal Groups

Matthiessen (1995: 92):

Simple groups and words are organised partly in the same way as complexes; they can partly be seen as word and morpheme complexes, respectively. Examples are given in Table 2-5.

Blogger Comments:

Less importantly, the Postmodifier of the nominal group (from the conservatory in Table 2-5) is no longer analysed as a β element. Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 332n):

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, most importantly, the logical structure of the verbal group is not a word complex. 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.

Moreover, the verb serving as the Event (shoot in Table 2-5) 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.

Consequently, the verbal group don't shoot in Table 2-5, like all verbal groups with no secondary tense, has no logical structure, since it consists only of a single element. Halliday (1985: 177):

The System Of Transitivity

Matthiessen (1995: 89):

In the clause, the experiential resource is that of TRANSITIVITY — the system for construing the world of goings-on as configurations of processes, participants and circumstances.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, in the view of meaning as immanent, which informs SFL Theory, the 'world of goings-on' is meaning construed of experience. The system of TRANSITIVITY is the organisation of this meaning into configurations of processes, participants and circumstances.