Monday, 25 June 2018

Pageviews by Countries

Graph of most popular countries among blog viewers
EntryPageviews
United States
61138
Russia
20136
Australia
14449
France
10633
Indonesia
8276
United Kingdom
7080
Germany
6936
Ukraine
2660
Canada
2118
China
2077

Behavioural Processes: “Senser Doing”

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 301):
The participant who is ‘behaving’, labelled Behaver, is typically a conscious being, like the Senser; the Process is grammatically more like one of ‘doing’.

Sunday, 24 June 2018

Behavioural Processes: Why The Least Distinct Process Type

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 301):
These are processes of (typically human) physiological and psychological behaviour, like breathing, coughing, smiling, dreaming and staring. They are the least distinct of all the six process types because they have no clearly defined characteristics of their own; rather they are partly like the material and partly like the mental.

Saturday, 23 June 2018

Three Subsidiary Process Types

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 300):
We can then go on to recognise three subsidiary process types, located at each of the boundaries: behavioural at the boundary between material and mental, verbal at the boundary between mental and relational, and existential at the boundary between relational and material.

Friday, 22 June 2018

The Three Principal Process Types: Material, Mental, Relational

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 300):
They are the principal types in that they are the cornerstones of the grammar in its guise as a theory of experience, they present three distinct kinds of structural configuration, and they account for the majority of all clauses in a text (‘material’ and ‘relational’ seem to be roughly balanced in frequency over the language as a whole, followed by ‘mental’, although the pattern varies considerably among different registers).

Wednesday, 20 June 2018

Possession As A Circumstantial Relation [Language Typology]

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 297):
In principle, possession can be thought of as another kind of circumstantial relation, which could be embodied in some such expression as ‘at Peter is a piano’, ‘the piano is with  Peter’. Many languages [e.g.Irish] typically indicate possession by circumstantials of this kind. The nearest English is the verb belong; compare the dialectal form is along o’me.

Tuesday, 19 June 2018

Possessive Identifying Clauses: Possession As Process

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 296):
Some verbs combine the feature of possession with other semantic features; for example
  • exclude ‘[negative] + have’,
  • owe ‘have on behalf of another possessor’,
  • deserve ‘ought to have’,
  • lack ‘need to have’. 
(Most verbs meaning ‘come to have’, on the other hand, function as Process in ‘material’ clauses; for example get, receive, acquire — compare the tense forms in You deserve a medal. – I’m getting one.)

Monday, 18 June 2018

Possessive Identifying Clauses: Possession As Process

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 296):
In addition to possession in the usual sense of ‘owning’, this category includes abstract relationships of containment, involvement and the like.  Among the verbs commonly occurring in this function are include, involve, contain, comprise, consist of, provide.

Sunday, 17 June 2018

Possessive Identifying Clauses: Possession As Process

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 246):
Here the possession is encoded as a process, typically realised by the verb own as in Peter owns the piano. (Notice we do not normally say Peter has the piano, in the sense of ownership; have is not used as an identifying verb of possession.) The participants are possessor Peter and possessed the piano; in this case Peter is Token and the piano is Value.

Saturday, 16 June 2018

Possessive Identifying Clauses: Possession As (Both) Participants

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 295-6):
Here the participants embody the notion of possession, one signifying property of the possessor, e.g. Peter’s, the other signifying the thing possessed, e.g. the piano. Thus in the piano is Peter’s, both the piano and Peter’s express ‘that which Peter possesses’, the relationship between them being simply one of identity. Note that here the piano is Token and Peter’s is Value.

Friday, 15 June 2018

Possessive Identifying Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 295):
In the ‘identifying’ mode, the possession takes the form of a relationship between two entities; and again this may be organised in two ways, with the relationship being expressed either
(a) as a feature of the participants, as in the piano is Peter’s, or
(b) as a feature of the process, as in Peter owns the piano.

Thursday, 14 June 2018

Possessive Attributive Clauses: Possession As Process

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 295):
If the relationship of possession is construed as the Process, then two further possibilities arise. 
Either (1) the possessor is the Carrier and the possessed is the Attribute (we will call the thing possessed the ‘possessed’ rather than the ‘possession’, to avoid ambiguity; ‘possession’ refers to the relationship), as in Peter has a piano. Here piano-ownership is an attribute being ascribed to Peter. Verbs other than have combine the sense of possession with other features, e.g. lack ‘need to have’, boast ‘have as a positive feature’. 
Or (2) the possessed is the Carrier and the possessor is the Attribute, as in the piano belongs to Peter. Here Peter-ownership is an attribute being ascribed to the piano. Neither of the two, of course, is reversible; we do not say a piano is had by Peter, or Peter is belonged to by the piano.

Wednesday, 13 June 2018

Indeterminacy In Possessive Attributive Clauses: Possession As Attribute

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 295):
These are not, in fact, syntagmatically distinct from ‘identifying’ clauses; the clause the piano is Peter’s could be either ‘attributive’, ‘the piano is a member of the class of Peter’s possessions’ or ‘identifying’, ‘the piano is identified as belonging to Peter’. (Note that the reversed [form] Peter’s is the piano can only be ‘identifying’.)

Tuesday, 12 June 2018

Possessive Attributive Clauses: Possession As Attribute

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 295):
If the relationship is construed as the Attribute, then it takes the form of a possessive nominal group e.g Peter'sthe thing possessed is the Carrier and the possessor is the Attribute.

Monday, 11 June 2018

Possessive Attributive Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 295):
In the ‘attributive’ mode, the possessive relationship may again be construed either as attribute, e.g. Peter’s in the piano is Peter’s, or as process, e.g. has, belongs to in Peter has a piano, the piano belongs to Peter.

Sunday, 10 June 2018

Possessive Relational Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 294-5):
In the ‘possessive’ type, the relationship between the two terms is one of ownership; on entity possesses another … In addition to possession in the narrow sense of ‘owning’, the category of ‘possessive’ clauses also includes possession in a broader, more generalised sense — possession of body parts and other part–whole relations, containment, involvement and the like … Possession thus has to be interpreted quite broadly, in the sense of ‘extension’: one entity is construed as being extended by another. 
Just like ‘circumstantial’ clauses, ‘possessive’ ones are construed in both the ‘attributive’ and ‘identifying’ modes.

Saturday, 9 June 2018

Circumstantial Relational Clauses: Attributive Vs Identifying Mode

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 293):
The line between ‘attributive’ and ‘identifying’ modes is less clear in the ‘circumstantial’ than in the ‘intensive’ type of ‘relational’ clause. This is natural, since it is less obvious whether an expression such as on the mat designates a class (that has members — the class of things on the mat) or an identity (the thing that is identified by being on the mat). Nevertheless there is a distinction …

Friday, 8 June 2018

Circumstantial Identifying Clauses: Circumstance As Process

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 293):
In this type, it is not the participants that are the expression of time, place or other circumstantial features, but the Process. In examples such as the following the verbs take up, span, cross, cause are so to speak ‘circumstantial’ verbs: US bases take up almost one-fifth of the land of the cramped island; more than 50 years span her age and mine; Turtle Ridge would span maybe three blocks; this situation is apparently caused by anomalous low temperatures… Circumstantial verbs encode the circumstance of time, place, accompaniment, manner, etc as a relationship between the participants … This means that in terms of the concept of grammatical metaphor … all clauses of this type are metaphorical.

Thursday, 7 June 2018

Circumstantial Identifying Clauses: Circumstance As (Both) Participants

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 292):
In this type, it is the participants — Identified and Identifier — that are circumstantial elements of time, place and so on. For example, in tomorrow is the tenth, tomorrow and the tenth are both time elements. Similarly in the best way to get there is by train, both the best way and by train express manner; in the real reason is that you’re scared, Identified and Identifier are both expressions of cause. The Token can be quite varied in grammatical class — a nominal group, an adverbial group, a prepositional phrase or an embedded clause, whereas the Value is often a nominal group with the name of a class of circumstance as Thing.

Wednesday, 6 June 2018

Circumstantial Identifying Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 292):
In the ‘identifying’ mode, the circumstance takes the form of a relationship between two entities; one entity being related to another by a feature of time or place or manner etc. As with the circumstantial attributive, this pattern may be organised semantically in one of two ways. The relationship is expressed either
(a) a feature of the participants, as in tomorrow is the tenth, or
(b) as a feature of the process, as in the fair takes up the whole day.

Tuesday, 5 June 2018

Circumstantial Attributive Process Vs Material Process [Diagnostic: Unmarked Tense & Participant Mobility]

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 292):
Verbs serving in clauses with a circumstantial process are often derived from a basic use in ‘material’ clauses of motion … The unmarked present tense is the simple present … rather than the present in present of ‘material’ clauses … The Carrier is typically some immobile physical feature, whereas the Actor of a ‘material’ clause of motion is typically an animate being or a mobile entity. Because of the overlap of a large set of verbs, there will of course be cases that are indeterminate …

Monday, 4 June 2018

Process As Circumstantial vs Attribute As Circumstantial


Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 291):
In (b), therefore, the Process is circumstantial; whereas in (a) it is the Attribute that is circumstantial, the Process being the same as in the ‘intensive’ type.

Sunday, 3 June 2018

Circumstance As Attributive Process: Realisation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 291):
Here the Attribute is realised by a nominal group and the circumstantial relation is expressed by the lexical verb in the verbal group serving as Process … The verb expresses a circumstantial relation such as ‘be + matter’, ‘be + extent in time’, ‘be + extent in space’. Being attributive, these are non-reversible; there are no ‘receptive’ equivalents …

Saturday, 2 June 2018

Circumstantial Attributive Vs Existential [Diagnostic: Mood Tag]

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 291):
However, note that clauses such as on the north wall  hangs a Union Jack … are not ‘attributive’ but ‘existential’.  The thematically unmarked form of these clauses is that beginning with existential there: there is (hangs) a Union Jack on the north wall.  The prepositional phrase then appears initially as a marked Theme; in that case the existential feature may be left implicit, although the there may still be present and will appear in any case in the mood tag: on the north wall (there) is a Union Jack, isn’t there?.  In contrast, in a ‘circumstantial attributive’ clause, the Subject/Carrier is picked up in the mood tag: the sounds and smells of the ocean hang in the air — don’t they?

Friday, 1 June 2018

Circumstantial Vs Intensive Attributes: Thematicity & Definiteness

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 291):
Unlike the Attribute of an ‘intensive’ clause, the Attribute of a ‘circumstantial’ one is frequently Theme in registers where the thematic status is rhetorically motivated … And unlike intensive Attributes, such circumstantial Attributes frequently have a ‘definite’ nominal group …

Thursday, 31 May 2018

Attributive Clauses: Circumstantial Or Intensive [Diagnostic: Constituent Structure]

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 290n):
Ascriptive verbs of marked phase such as turn and look, were treated as ‘intensive’ even when they had a preposition after them: for example, caterpillars turn into butterflies, Penelope looked like an angel.  This reflects their constituent structure; cf what they turn into are butterflies (not what they turn is into butterflies), Penelope looked angelic.  But there is an overlap at this point, and these could also be interpreted as circumstantial.

Wednesday, 30 May 2018

Circumstance As Attribute: Realisation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 290):
Here the Attribute is realised (1) by a prepositional phrase, in which case the circumstantial relation is expressed by the preposition … and/or (2) by an adverbial group …

Tuesday, 29 May 2018

Circumstantial Attributive Clauses: Process Or Minor Process

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 290):
In the ‘attributive’ mode, the circumstantial element is an attribute that is being ascribed to some entity … These take two forms:
(a) one in which the circumstance is construed in the form of the Attribute
(b) the other in which the circumstantial relation is construed in the form of the Process
In the first case, the circumstantial relation is construed as a minor process realised by a preposition; in the second, it is construed as a process realised by a verb

Monday, 28 May 2018

Circumstantial Relational Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 290):
In the ‘circumstantial’ type, the relationship between the two terms is one of time, place, manner, cause, accompaniment, role, matter or angle. These are also manifested as circumstantial elements in the English clause.

Blogger Comment:

As manifestations of the 'fractal types', the relationship is one of 
  • expansion
  • enhancement (time, place, manner, cause),
  • extension (accompaniment),
  • elaboration (role), or
  • projection (matter, angle).

Sunday, 27 May 2018

The ‘As Participant’ Or ‘As Process’ Contrast In Intensive Relational Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 290):
The contrast between ‘as participant’ and ‘as process’ is, as we have just noted, a grammatical one and in a sense it applies also to ‘intensive’ clauses. Thus we have for example:
the meaning of ‘kita:bun’ is ‘book’/ ‘kita:bun’ means ‘book’,
the name of his mother is Anna/ his mother is called Anna,
examples of amphibians are frogs, toads and salamanders/ amphibians are exemplified by frogs, toads and salamanders
But a special feature of the ‘intensive’ type is that the sense of ‘meaning’, ‘name’, ‘example’ and the like may be left implicit in the participant (for the reason, see Matthiessen, 1991a): ‘kita:bun’ is ‘book’, his mother is Anna.

Saturday, 26 May 2018

Possession & Circumstantiation As Participant vs Process

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 289-90):
With ‘possessive’ and ‘circumstantial’ clauses, there is thus a systemic contrast between ‘possession/circumstantiation as participant’ and ‘possession/circumstantiation as process’. The contrast is a general one, construed in the grammatical zone of lexicogrammar rather than the lexical one; and just as with the ‘like’/‘please’ contrast in the grammar of ‘mental’ clauses, we often find lexical pairs manifesting the contrast such as be x’s/be owned, be like/resemble, be with/accompany, be in/inhabit, be around/surround, be opposite of/face, be about/concern – but just as in the mental case there may be gaps in the lexical paradigm.