Monday, 10 December 2018

Pageviews by Countries

Graph of most popular countries among blog viewers
United States
United Kingdom

Receptive Voice [Function]

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 349):
If the clause is effective, since either participant can then become Subject there is a choice between operative and receptive. The reasons for choosing receptive are as follows:
(1) to get the Medium as Subject, and therefore as unmarked Theme … and
(2) to make the Agent either
(i) late news, by putting it last … or
(ii) implicit, by leaving it out.

Sunday, 9 December 2018

Effective Clauses: The Feature ‘Agency’

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 349):
Strictly speaking an effective clause has the feature ‘agency’ rather than the structural function Agent, because this may be left implicit … The presence of an ‘agency’ feature is in fact the difference between a pair of clauses such as the glass broke and the glass was (or got) broken: the latter embodies the feature of agency, so that one can ask the question ‘who by?’, while the former allows for one participant only.

Saturday, 8 December 2018

Middle & Effective Agency; Operative & Receptive Voice

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 349):
The way the voice system works is as follows.  A clause with no feature of ‘agency’ is neither active nor passive but middle. One with agency is non-middle, or effective, in agency. An effective clause is then either operative or receptive in voice. In an operative clause, the Subject is the Agent and the Process is realised by an active verbal group; in a receptive [clause] the Subject is Medium and the Process is realised by a passive verbal group.

Friday, 7 December 2018

Voice: Transitive Pattern

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 349):
In a transitive pattern the participants are obligatory Actor and optional Goal; if there is Actor only, the verb is intransitive and active in voice, while if both are present the verb is transitive and may be either active or passive. This is still the basis of the English system; but there is little trace of transitivity left in the verb, and voice is now more a feature of the clause.

Thursday, 6 December 2018

Complements In Prepositional Phrases

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 349):
the Complement of a preposition can often emerge to function as Subject … This pattern suggests that Complements of prepositions, despite being embedded in an element that has a circumstantial function, are still felt to be participating, even if at a distance, in the process expressed by the clause.

Wednesday, 5 December 2018

Circumstances Without Prepositions: Extent And Location

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 349):
… just as those elements which are treated essentially as participants can sometimes occur with a preposition, so at least some elements which are treated essentially as circumstances can sometimes occur without one. With expressions of Extent and Location there is often no preposition as in they stayed two days, they left last Wednesday.

Tuesday, 4 December 2018

Agent, Beneficiary And Range: The Textual Function Of ± Preposition

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 348):
… the choice of ‘plus or minus preposition’ with Agent, Beneficiary and Range … serves a textual function. … 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 (ie to be construed as ‘indirect’ participant); otherwise it does not. Prominence in the message means functioning either
(i) as marked Theme (ie 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.

Monday, 3 December 2018

Agent, Beneficiary And Range As Mixed Categories

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 348):
Semantically, therefore, Agent, Beneficiary and Range have some features of participants and some of circumstances: they are mixed. And this is reflected in the fact that grammatically also they are mixed: they may enter in to a clause either directly as nominal groups (participant–like) or indirectly in prepositional phrases (circumstance–like).

Sunday, 2 December 2018

Agent, Beneficiary And Range From Transitive And Ergative Perspectives

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 348):
These, seen from a transitive perspective, are circumstantial: Agent is a kind of Manner, Beneficiary is a kind of Cause and Range is a kind of Extent; and they can all be expressed as minor processes. But seen from an ergative point of view they are additional participants in the major process: the nucleus of ‘Process + Medium’ has an inner ring of additional participants as well as an outer ring of circumstances surrounding it …

Saturday, 1 December 2018

Ergative Model As Nuclear

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 347-8):
… the ergative is a nuclear rather than a linear interpretation; and if this component is to the fore, there may be a whole cluster of participant–like functions in the clause: not only Agent but also Beneficiary and Range.

Friday, 30 November 2018

Transitive Model As Linear

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 347):
The transitive is a linear interpretation; and since the only function that can be defined by extension in this way is Goal (together with, perhaps, the analogous functions of Target in a verbal process and Phenomenon* in a mental process of the please [‘impinging’] type), systems which are predominantly transitive in character tend to emphasise the distinction between participants (ie direct participants, Actor and Goal only) and circumstances (all other functions).

Blogger Comment:

* It strikes me that this should be Senser, not Phenomenon.

Thursday, 29 November 2018

Range: Common Features Across Process Types [Definition]

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 347):
There may be in each type of clause one element which is not so much an entity participating in the process as a refinement of the process itself. This may be the name of a particular variety of the process, which being a noun can then be modified for quantity and for quality … Since here the kind of action, event, behaviour, sensing or saying is specified by the noun, as a participant function, the verb may be entirely general in meaning … Or, secondly, this element may be an entity, but one that plays a part in the process not by acting, or being acted upon, but by marking its domain … It is characteristic of this second type that they are on the borderline of participants and circumstances; there is often a closely related form of prepositional phrase …

Wednesday, 28 November 2018

Range In Decoding Identifying Relational Clauses: Value

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 347):
… in the identifying, the criteria tend to conflict. For purposes of simplicity, we will interpret the Token as Medium and the Value as Range in all types, although this does ignore some aspects of the patterning of such clauses in text.

Blogger Comment:

To be clear, this only applies to decoding clauses (Identified/Token, Identifier/Value)

In encoding clauses, there is no Range; the Identifier/Token is Agent, and the Identified/Value is Medium.

Tuesday, 27 November 2018

Range In Attributive Relational Clauses: Attribute

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 347):
In the attributive, the Attribute is clearly analogous to a Range.

Monday, 26 November 2018

Range In Verbal Clauses: Verbiage

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 347):
The two kinds of Verbiage, that which refers to the content, as in describe the apartment, and that which specifies the nature of the verbal process, such as tell a story, are analogous respectively to the material ‘entity Scope’ and ‘process Scope’.

Sunday, 25 November 2018

Range In Emanating Mental Clauses: Phenomenon

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 347):
[In the like [‘emanating’] type of mental process] the Phenomenon bears no kind of resemblance to a Goal.  But it does show certain affinities with the Scope.  It figures as Subject, in the ‘receptive’, under similarly restricted conditions; and it appears in expressions, such as enjoy the pleasure, saw the sight, have an understanding of, which are analogous to material Scope expressions of the ‘process’ type, such as play a game, have a game.  So we can interpret the rôle of the Phenomenon in the like type of mental process as a counterpart of that of Scope in the material; it is the element which delimits the boundaries of the sensing.

Saturday, 24 November 2018

Agent In ‘Impinging’ Mental Clauses: Phenomenon

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 346-7):
[The please [impinging’] type of mental process] shares certain features of an effective material process: it occurs freely in the ‘receptive’ (I’m pleased with it), and it can be generalised as a kind of ‘doing to’ (What does it do to you? — It pleases me).  Here the Phenomenon shows some semblance to an Actor: from the ergative point of view, they are both Agent.

Friday, 23 November 2018

Range In Material & Behavioural Clauses: Scope, Behaviour

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 346):
In a ‘material’, the Range is the Scope; in a ‘behavioural’ clause, the Range is the Behaviour.

Thursday, 22 November 2018

The Range [Definition & Distribution]

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 346):
The Range is the element that specifies the range or domain of the process. A Range may occur in ‘material’, ‘behavioural’, ‘mental’, ‘verbal’, and 'relational' clauses — but not in ‘existential’ ones.

Wednesday, 21 November 2018

Beneficiary As Subject

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 345):
The Beneficiary regularly functions as Subject in the clause; in that case the verb is in the ‘receptive’ voice.

Tuesday, 20 November 2018

Beneficiary In Attributive Relational Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 345):
There are also a few ‘relational’ clauses of the ‘attributive’ mode containing a Beneficiary, for example him in she made him a good wife, it cost him a pretty penny. We shall just refer to this as a Beneficiary, without introducing a more specific term, since these hardly constitute a recognisably distinct rôle in the clause.

Blogger Comment:

Note also identifying clauses of benefaction, such as this affords us many possibilities (p297).

Monday, 19 November 2018

Beneficiary In Material Clauses: Realisation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 345):
The Beneficiary is realised by (to +) nominal group (Recipient) or (for +) nominal group (Client); the presence of the preposition is determined by textual factors.

Sunday, 18 November 2018

Beneficiary In Material & Verbal Clauses: Recipient, Client, Receiver

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 345):
In a ‘material’ clause, the Beneficiary is either the Recipient or the Client. … In a ‘verbal’ clause, the Beneficiary is the Receiver.

Saturday, 17 November 2018

The Beneficiary [Definition & Distribution]

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 345):
The Beneficiary is the one to whom or for whom the process is said to take place. It appears in ‘material’ and ‘verbal’ clauses, and occasionally in ‘relational’ ones. (In other words, there are no Beneficiaries in ‘mental’, ‘behavioural’ or ‘existential’ clauses.)

Friday, 16 November 2018

Transitive And Ergative In Identifying Relational Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 345):

⁵⁰ Note: Those in the top row are decoding clauses; the receptive is a medio-receptive and hence rare. Those below are encoding; the receptive is a ‘true’ receptive.

Thursday, 15 November 2018

Agent In Encoding Identifying Relational Clauses: Assigner

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 343):
By contrast, in an encoding identifying clause, passive is more or less as frequent as active, e.g. (‘which is the leader?’—) active Tom is the leader, passive the leader is Tom; but only the active will accommodate a further* agency – we do not say they elected the leader Tom. Hence in an active/passive pair such as (‘who are now the main suppliers?’—) active our company are now the main suppliers, passive the main suppliers are now our company, the agentive form is this decision leaves our company the main suppliers; the passive does not readily expand to this decision leaves the main suppliers our company.

Blogger Comments:

• Note that the active/passive distinction at clause rank is now termed 'operative/receptive'.

* Note that in an encoding clause, the Identifier/Token is the Agent.

Wednesday, 14 November 2018

Agent In Decoding Identifying Relational Clauses: Assigner

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 343):
In the identifying type, it is normally possible to add a feature of agency (an Assigner) provided the clause is operative (Token as Subject): thus, to (‘which is Tom?’—) Tom is (serves as) the leader corresponds an agentive such as they elected Tom the leader; and, with second order Agent, they got Tom elected the leader. We have seen that, with such decoding clauses (those where Token = Identified) the receptive is in any case rather rare.

Tuesday, 13 November 2018

Agent In Attributive Relational Clauses: Attributor

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 343):
In the attributive type, this is a distinct function analogous to the material Initiator: the one that brings about the attribution, e.g. the heat in the heat turned the milk sour. This is the Attributor.

Monday, 12 November 2018

Agent In Mental Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 343):
In a mental process, it is the Phenomenonprovided the process is encoded in one direction, from phenomenon to consciousness ['impinging'] and not the other way round ['emanating'].

Sunday, 11 November 2018

Agent In Material Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 343):
The Agent is the external agency where there is one.  In a material process, it is the Actor — provided the process is one that has a Goal; otherwise it may be present as the Initiator of the process.

Saturday, 10 November 2018

Transitive And Ergative Equivalents

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: ):
By using the ergative standpoint to complement the transitive one in our interpretation of English, we can match up the functions in the various process types. The table of equivalents is given as Table 5-41.

Blogger Comment:

Note that, in the case of identifying clauses, for simplicity, this table presents the transitive equivalents only for decoding clauses, where Token conflates with Identified, and Value with Identifier.  In encoding clauses, it is the Identified Value that corresponds to the Medium, whereas the Identifier Token corresponds to the Agent.

In other words, it is actually the Identified that always corresponds to the Medium, whether Token or Value, and the Identifier varies according to whether the clause is decoding or encoding, corresponding to Range (decoding: Value) or Agent (encoding Token).

Note also that identifying relationals can also afford a Beneficiary (in possessive benefactive clauses).