Saturday, 31 January 2015

Circumstance Of Angle

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 174-5):
This type of circumstance relates to projection rather than expansion, and specifically to the projecting not the projected component. Hence there is no agnate participant; instead, the Angle corresponds to the process of saying (grammatically, the projecting verbal clause in a ‘locution’ nexus) or the process of sensing (grammatically, the projecting mental clause of an ‘idea’ nexus). Thus according to the newspaper corresponds to the newspaper says; and to her students corresponds to her students think.

Friday, 30 January 2015

Circumstance Of Manner: Comparison

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 174):
This category lies at the borderline of elaborating and extending: compare he spoke like an expert ‘in the manner of’, he spoke as an expert ‘in the rôle of’. The analogous participant is that of Attribute in an ascriptive clause as in he was/seemed an expert, which is construed as elaborating; but the analogous sequence is an enhancing clause complex he spoke as if he was an expert.

Thursday, 29 January 2015

Circumstance Of Accompaniment

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 174):
The circumstance of Accompaniment does not correspond to any one particular participant rôle. Rather, it corresponds to an extending of the participant itself, by addition or variation: John came with Mary is agnate to both John and Mary came; Mary came without John is agnate to Mary but not John came; Mary came instead of John is agnate to not John but Mary came. Grammatically, the analogous type of participant is one represented by a nominal group complex.

Wednesday, 28 January 2015

Circumstances: Logico-Semantic Relations To The Nucleus

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 173):
… cutting across this cline of involvement, we find that — like the participants themselves — the circumstantial elements fall into distinct types according to their relationship to the Process + Medium nucleus. These types correspond to the four transphenomenal categories of the logico-semantic relations that are now familiar: the circumstance is either a circumstance of projection or a circumstance of expansion and, if the latter, then either elaborating, extending or enhancing.

Tuesday, 27 January 2015

Degree Of Involvement As Cline

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 173):
The “degree of involvement” in the sense of how deeply some element is involved in actualising the process that is construed by the figure, can thus be represented as a cline: the difference appears not only between participants and circumstances as a whole, but also within each of these primary categories, so that there is a continuum from one to the other along this scale.

Monday, 26 January 2015

Degree Of Involvement: Circumstance And Subject

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 173):
The difference in degree of involvement is also reflected in the extent to which an element is available for a critical rôle in the interpersonal metafunction. Prototypically, participants can be assigned the status of Subject, being made to carry the burden of the argument, whereas circumstances cannot. This distinction is however being obscured in Modern English, where although the prepositional phrase as a whole cannot function as Subject, the nominal group inside a preposition phrase often can; e.g. the grass shouldn’t be walked on.

Blogger Caveat:

behind the fridge
their favourite place

Sunday, 25 January 2015

The Status Of Macro Circumstances

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 172-3):
They are really reduced or minor figures, functioning as elements inside other figures. The preposition is a kind of mini-verb; the line between circumstances and figures is a very fuzzy one, and we often find agnate expressions where one is a prepositional phrase and the other is a non-finite clause: cf. I washed it using sugar soap, she came accompanied by her children. The entity that occurs inside the macro circumstance is therefore already entering into a relationship with a reduced form of a process; its participation in the main process is thus mediated and oblique. We can thus contrast the different statuses of two entities where one is a direct participant and the other enters in circumstantially; e.g. this dictionary was published in two volumes, where this dictionary is Goal while two volumes enters into the publishing process indirectly in a circumstance of Rôle.

Saturday, 24 January 2015

Macro Circumstance: Preposition + Nominal Group

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 172):
The nominal group construes an entity — something that could function directly as a participant. Here however the entity is functioning only as a circumstantial element in the process: a location, or an instrument, or an accompanying entity, and so on … ; it enters into the clause by courtesy of the preposition, only indirectly so to speak.

Friday, 23 January 2015

Different Degrees Of Involvement: Grammatical Realisations

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 172):
The different degrees of involvement are reflected in the way the figure, and its elements, are realised in the grammar of the clause. A participant is realised as a nominal group, and is typically placed next before or next after the verbal group realising the process. Circumstances typically occur further away from the process, and are of two distinct types. Type 1, simple circumstance, represents a quality; this type is realised by an adverbial group. Type 2, macro circumstance, is realised as a prepositional phrase, which in turn consists of a preposition + nominal group.

Thursday, 22 January 2015

Degree Of Involvement

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 172):
… a figure consists of a process, participants involved in the process, and associated or attendant circumstances. Of these, the process can be seen as the organisational centre — the element that reflects the relative arrangements of the other parts in the configuration. These other parts (participants and circumstances) are more or less closely involved in the actualisation of the process. Broadly speaking, participants are directly involved in the process; circumstances are more peripherally attendant on it.

Wednesday, 21 January 2015

From Degree Of Participanthood To Degree Of Involvement

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 171-2):
We have summarised the features of two participant rôles, Goal and Range, which vary considerably in their degree of participanthood, lying as it were at two ends of this continuum. We saw earlier that the Medium is the element that is most closely bonded to the Process, the two together forming the nucleus of the figure. Thus the highest degree of participanthood is that of whichever element, in each particular type of figure, is conflated with the generalised function of Medium; in the case of a figure of doing, this is the Goal, the element that is impacted (moved, changed, created or destroyed) by the Process. 
At the other end of the cline are those elements whose status as participant is highly precarious, those which conflate with the generalised function of Range. These, as we have seen, are closely agnate to other types of figure, either those consisting of Process alone or those with Process + circumstantial element. We can thus extend the continuum further, outside the status of participant altogether, into the realm of circumstances […] circumstantial rôles and […] their degree of involvement in the process.

Tuesday, 20 January 2015

Range: Interpersonal Potential

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 171):
The Range element is not very likely to function as Subject in the clause: that is, to be entrusted with the interpersonal function of carrying the burden of the argument. This means that passive clauses with Range as Subject are very much rarer than those where Subject is Goal; and where they do occur, the participant that is functioning as Medium (Actor, Senser or Sayer) also tends to be of a generalised kind. Thus tennis is played by everyone is not uncommon, whereas tennis is played by Sharon is a highly marked construction. Again, the category of Range/Attribute provides the limiting case. An Attribute can never serve as Subject in the clause.

Blogger Note: Range occurs in identifying clauses as Value/Identifier; i.e. 'decoding' clauses only.

e.g. Who was (played by) Michael Gambon?

The Singing Detective
was (played by)
Michael Gambon
Process: relational: identifying

Monday, 19 January 2015

Range: Degree Of Individuation & Cohesion

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 171):
… when some element that has functioned as Range is carried through the discourse, being picked up either by a lexical repetition or by a pronominal reference, it is more likely to be picked up as a class, rather than as individuated:
Sharon plays tennis at the same time every day. … Tennis is a wonderful game, but tennis players tend to be obsessive.
Peter spends a lot of time at the piano. … It is a difficult instrument.

Sunday, 18 January 2015

Range: Degree Of Individuation

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 170-1):
… participants are located at some point along a scale of individuation, ranging from the most generalised (e.g. diamonds are forever) to the most individuated (e.g. Elizabeth’s diamonds were stolen). The Range element tends towards the generalised end of the scale. This is especially the case with those of the elaborating type, where the Range usually represents a general class; and it is always the case if the figure is one of being, with Range as Attribute. For example:
Peter plays tennis (cf. is a tennis-player)
Peter plays the piano (cf. is a pianist)
His opinion is not important (cf. does not matter)

Saturday, 17 January 2015

Circumstantial Elements Agnate With Enhancing And Projected Ranges

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 170):
… in both types the agnate expression takes the form of a circumstantial element (grammatically, a prepositional phrase). But in the projected type the circumstance is one of Matter, whereas in the enhancing type it is typically one of Extent or Location. This corresponds in process types to the distinction between saying and sensing on the one hand and doing and being on the other.

Friday, 16 January 2015

Range: Projection Relationship To The Process

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 170):
Where the relation is one of projection, the Range represents the subject matter (either as a general term, eg issue, matter, or as the specific domain of the Process, eg politics, your holiday). As with enhancement, there is often an agnate circumstantial form.

Process + Range
Process + circumstantial element
discuss the issue
talk politics
describe your holiday
talk about the issue
talk about politics
write about your holiday
ponder the problem
investigate the crime
think about the problem
find out about the crime 

Thursday, 15 January 2015

Range: Enhancing Relationship To The Process

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 170):
…where the relation is enhancing, the Range specifies some entity that delimits the scope of the Process; here, therefore, there is often an agnate form where the scope is construed as a circumstantial element. For example:

Process + Range
Process + circumstantial element
cross the street
climb the mountain
enter an agreement
cross over the street
climb up the the mountain
enter into an agreement
be a witness
become a prince
act as a witness
turn into a prince

Wednesday, 14 January 2015

Range/Attribute: Elaborating Relationship To The Process

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 169-70):
This construction, Process + Range/Attribute, is much more common [than] the agnate form with Process only (that is, ‘be + important’ is the preferred model rather than ‘matter’). The Process just embodies the category meaning of ascriptive being — ‘be a member of’ — and the range carries the specific information about the experiential class. It is interesting to note that the ranged construction sorts out the ambiguity of the present tense between habitual (doing) and occupational (being): she dances/does a dance every night, she dances/is a dancer (by profession).

Tuesday, 13 January 2015

Range: Elaborating Relationship To The Process

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 169):
…where the relation is elaborating, the Range simply restates the Process or else further specifies it in terms of its class, quality or quantity. Here we often find related pairs of ‘Process : Process + Range’; the latter may involve nominalising the process (a form of grammatical metaphor).

Monday, 12 January 2015

Range Vs Rôle: Elaboration

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 169n):
The Range elaborates the Process, whereas the circumstantial element Rôle elaborates a participant in its particular participation in the process.

Sunday, 11 January 2015

Range: Expands Or Projected By The Process

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 168-70):
The Range is not some entity that is impacted by the Process; it either
  • (i) expands the Process, or
  • (ii) is projected by it.
Where the relationship is one of expansion, this take[s] one of two forms: the Range either
  • (a) elaborates the Process in an objectified form, or
  • (b) enhances it by delimiting its scope. …
Where the relation is one of projection, the Range represents the subject matter

Saturday, 10 January 2015

Range: Not A Prototypical Participant

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 168):
There are three respects in which the Range is not a prototypical participant: (I) its relationship to the Process, (II) its degree of individuation, (III) its interpersonal potential.

Friday, 9 January 2015

Range: Realisation & Participation

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 168):
Like other participants Range is realised grammatically by a nominal group, but it does not participate in the process operationally: it does not bring about or act out the process, nor is it affected by it materially or mentally. It specifies the domain over which the process is actualised.

Thursday, 8 January 2015

Generalised Goal Incorporated Into The Process

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 168):
In some special cases, the generalisation of the Goal across a class of entities is shown by treating it as a mass, dispensing with the plural marker;
They often shoot duck during the winter months.
Such a Goal may even be incorporated into the Process, as in he is baby-sitting (and even who’s baby-sitting me this evening?); this is a restricted option with figures realised as ranking clauses, but not uncommon where the figure is used to qualify an element and is realised by a pre-modifying clause, e.g. a fun-loving colleague, a wood-burning stove.

Wednesday, 7 January 2015

Degree Of Participanthood: Goal Vs Range: Individuation

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 167-8):
There is a further contrast between Goal and Range in the degree of individuation that is typical of each. [In the typical case of Goal], what is impacted is a specific representative of a class, or a specific set of representatives; and this is typical of the degree of individuation of the Goal. […] Representatives of a class can be impacted (regardless of whether they are specific or non-specific at the point in the discourse in which they occur); but it is harder to impact the general class itself [cf Range: he plays piano]. Consequently, if the Goal is a general class rather than a set of specifiable representatives, it has a lower degree of participanthood. This appears iconically in the grammar in the limiting case of a clause where the Goal is simply that class of phenomenon that can serve as Goal of that particular type of figure: the grammar allows us to select ‘goal-intransitive’, which means that the Goal is simply not specified — for example:
he drinks _ heavily [alcohol]

Tuesday, 6 January 2015

Degree Of Participanthood: Goal Vs Range: Impact

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 167):
The Goal is impacted in some way by its participation in the Process; the “impact” either (i) brings a participant into existence or else (ii) manipulates one that already exists. If the Goal is something that already exists, the result of the Process is to bring about some change — in its location, make-up, temperature, shape, &c.; and the result may be construed as a separate element, with the function Attribute or Rôle. […] There is no such impacting in the case of the Range.

Monday, 5 January 2015

Degree Of Participanthood

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 166-7):
We shall take the notion of degree of participanthood as an example of the general principle that the phenomena of experience may be construed as having more, or less, independent status within the semantic system. We are using the term participanthood to suggest that the status of a participant in the grammar is not absolute, but rather a matter of degree. Among the various functional rôles that the grammar construes as participants, we will discuss here two that are at opposite ends of the scale: Goal, which has a clear status as prototypical participant, and Range, whose status as a participant is much less clearly established.

Sunday, 4 January 2015

Guiding Principles In the Semanticisation Of Experience

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 166):
The semantic system embodies certain general principles which guide the choice of one or other pattern of construal. These include: 
(a) whether the process is non-actualised (‘irrealis’) or actualised (‘realis’);
(b) how the process unfolds in time (its eventuation profile);
participants and circumstances:
(a) whether they are
(i) general class,
(ii) non-specific representatives of a class or
(iii) specific representatives;
(b) how far, and in what ways, they are involved in the process.

Saturday, 3 January 2015

Figure As Analysis & Synthesis

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 165): 

A figure embodies both analysis and synthesis of our experience of the world: an analysis into component parts, and a synthesis of these parts into a configuration.  That is, process, participants and circumstances are separated out analytically and are thus given independent phenomenal statuses.  This is a creative act of construal.  The world is not seamless and amorphous; it is highly variable in the way it presents itself to us as experience — in its perceptual salience, physical impact and material and psychological benefit.  But it is not “given” to us as an established order; we have to construe it.

Friday, 2 January 2015

The Particularistic & Generalised Models Of Participation-In-Process

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 158):
The two models of participation that we have described in this section thus differ in degree of generality. The particularistic model construes figures into a small number of distinct types, sensing, saying, doing and being, with different participants in each; while the generalised model construes figures as all being alike, having a Process that is actualised through a Medium. These two models embody complementary perspectives on participation, the one transitive, the other ergative. Note that there is no necessary tie-up between the switch of perspective and the degree of generality: it is a feature of English that the generalised model is construed in ergative terms.

Thursday, 1 January 2015

The Beneficiary

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 158):
The Beneficiary rôle is more restricted: it occurs in certain subtypes of figures of doing as Recipient […] or Client […], in figures of saying as Receiver […] and in a couple of subtypes of figures of being (e.g. he made her a good husband).