Sunday 30 September 2018

Guise: Definition, Realisation & WH– Probe

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 326):
Guise corresponds to the interrogative what as? and construes the meaning of ‘be’ (attribute or identity) in the form of a circumstance … The usual preposition is as; other, complex prepositions with this function are by way of, in the rôle/shape/guise/form

Saturday 29 September 2018

Rôle: Definition & Subtypes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 326):
This category construes the meanings of ‘be’ and ‘become’ circumstantially; the Rôle corresponds to the Attribute or Value of an ‘intensive relational’ clause. Rôle includes the subcategories of Guise (‘be’) and Product (‘become’). … A circumstance of Rôle usually relates to a participant in the clause — more specifically, to the Medium; but we also find circumstances of Rôle that do not.

Friday 28 September 2018

Elaborating Circumstances


Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 325):
Elaborating circumstances augment the configuration of process + participants through the specification of the rôle in which one of the participants participates in the process: this participant is elaborated circumstantially. There is only one type of elaborating circumstance: Rôle.

Thursday 27 September 2018

Accompaniment: Additive

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 325):
The additive represents the process as a two instances; here both entities clearly share the same participant function, but one of them is represented circumstantially for the purpose of contrast. … when one participant is represented circumstantially it can be given the status of [marked] Theme …

Wednesday 26 September 2018

Accompaniment: Comitative

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 324-5):
The comitative represents the process as a single instance of a process, although one in which two entities are involved. It ranges from some cases where the two entities could be conjoined as a single element … to others where they could not … Sometimes the comitative element is actually an accompanying process … [grammatical metaphor]

Tuesday 25 September 2018

Accompaniment: Realisation & WH– Probe

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 324):
Accompaniment … corresponds to the interrogatives and who/what else?, but not who/what?.  It is expressed by prepositional phrases with prepositions such as with, without, besides, instead of.

Monday 24 September 2018

Accompaniment: Definition & Subtypes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 324):
Accompaniment is a form of joint participation in the process and represents the meanings ‘and’, ‘or’, ‘not’ as circumstantials … We can distinguish two subcategories, comitative and additive; each has a positive and negative aspect. … A circumstance of Accompaniment may have an additional sense of cause or contingency — ‘since/if x has/hasn’t’.

Sunday 23 September 2018

Extending Circumstances

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 324):
Extending circumstances augment the configuration of process + participants through the specification of an element that stands in an extending relation to one of the participants in relation to its participation in the process. This element ranges on a scale from a co-participant … to an ‘appendix’ to one of the participants. … There is only one type of extending circumstance: Accompaniment.

Saturday 22 September 2018

Default: Realisation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 323):
Default circumstantials have the sense of negative condition — ‘if not, unless’; they are expressed by prepositional phrases with the complex prepositions in the absence of, in default of

Friday 21 September 2018

Concession: Realisation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 323):
Concession circumstantials construe frustrated cause, with the sense of ‘although’; they are expressed by prepositional phrases with the prepositions despite, notwithstanding, or the complex prepositions in spite of or regardless of

Thursday 20 September 2018

Condition: Realisation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 323):
… the Head/Thing of a nominal group introduced by the preposition tends to be
  • a noun denoting an entity whose existence is conditional …
  • a noun denoting an event that might eventuate … or
  • a nominalisation denoting a reified process or quality …
  • Eventive nouns include those naming meteorological processes …

Wednesday 19 September 2018

Condition: Realisation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 323):
Circumstantials of Condition construe circumstances that have to obtain in order for the process to be actualised; they have the sense of ‘if’.  They are expressed by prepositional phrases with complex prepositions in case of, in the event of, on condition of

Tuesday 18 September 2018

Contingency: Condition, Concession & Default

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 323):
Circumstances of Contingency specify an element on which the actualisation of the process depends. Again, there are three sub-types: Condition, Concession, Default.

Monday 17 September 2018

Behalf (For The Sake Of) Vs Client (For The Use Of) [Diagnostic]

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 322):
This category [Behalf] includes in principle the concept of the Client, the person for whom something is performed. But the Client is treated in the grammar as a kind of participant: it occurs without preposition, except when in a position of prominence, and can become Subject in the passive.

Sunday 16 September 2018

Behalf: Realisation & WH– Probe

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 322):
Expressions of Behalf represent the entity, typically a person, on whose behalf or for whose sake the action is undertaken — who it is for.  They are expressed by a prepositional phrase with for or a complex preposition such as for the sake of, in favour of (negative: against), on behalf of … The usual interrogative is who for?.

Saturday 15 September 2018

Purpose: Congruent & Metaphorical Realisations

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 322):
… the Head/Thing of the nominal group introduced by the purposive preposition tends to be either a noun denoting [an] entity that is to be obtained through the actualisation of the process or a nominalisation representing a reified process. The latter is in fact a metaphorical variant of what would congruently be realised as a clause.

Friday 14 September 2018

Purpose: Realisation & WH– Probe

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 321-2):
Circumstantials of Purpose represent the purpose for which an action takes place – the intention behind it; they have the sense of ‘in order that’. They are typically expressed by a prepositional phrase with for or a complex preposition such as in the hope of, for the purpose of, for the sake of … The interrogative corresponding is what for?.

Thursday 13 September 2018

Reason: Realisation & WH– Probe

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 321):
A circumstantial expression of Reason represents the reason for which a process takes place – what causes it; they have the sense of ‘because’. It is typically expressed by a prepositional phrase with through, from, for or a complex preposition such as because of, as a result of, thanks to, due to; also the negative for want of … 
There is also one class of expressions with of, one of the few places where of functions as a full preposition (ie representing a minor process) as distinct from being merely a structure marker; for example, die of starvation. The corresponding WH– forms are why? or how?.

Wednesday 12 September 2018

Cause: Reason, Purpose & Behalf

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 320-1, 322):
The circumstantial element of Cause construes the reason why the process is actualised. It includes not only Reason in the narrow sense of existing conditions leading to the actualisation of the process, but also Purpose in the sense of intended conditions for which the process is actualised (what has been called ‘final cause’). Both Reason and Purpose tend to be eventive (and are therefore commonly construed as clauses in a clause nexus); but there is another type of Cause that tends to denote a person — the circumstance of Behalf. …
The semantic relations of reason and purpose tend to be realised as separate clauses rather than as phrases within the clause;

Tuesday 11 September 2018

Circumstance of Degree Vs Mood Adjunct Of Intensity [Diagnostic]

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 320):
Circumstances of Degree shade into mood Adjuncts of intensity. The difference between them can be seen in an example such as it almost destroyed the house:
(Degree) ‘it destroyed the house to a large extent’,
(Mood Ajunct) ‘it didn’t destroy the house’.
Circumstances of Degree construe the extent to which the process is actualised, and are thus agnate with lexical grading, as is seen particularly clearly in the lexicogrammar of emotion (cf. adore ‘love deeply’; detest ‘dislike intensely’). In contrast, Adjuncts of intensity assess the proposition – how close it comes to being actualised, and are thus agnate with other types of assessment and related to polarity.

Monday 10 September 2018

Degree: Realisation & WH– Probe

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 320):
Degree is typically expressed by an adverbial group with a general indication of degree … or with a collocationally more restricted adverb of degree … The collocationally restricted adverbs collocate with verbs serving as Process … Less commonly Degree may be expressed by a prepositional phrase, usually with to plus a nominal group with extent, degree as Thing and an intensifying adjective … as Epithet.  Degree expressions characterise the extent of the actualisation of the process and they often occur immediately before or immediately after the Process … [The interrogative is how much?.]

Sunday 9 September 2018

Comparison: Realisation & WH– Probe

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 319-20):
Comparison is typically expressed by a prepositional phrase with like or unlike, or an adverbial group of similarity or difference … The interrogative is what … like?.

Saturday 8 September 2018

Quality: Interpersonal & Textual Functions

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 319):
… circumstances of Quality may also embody positive or negative interpersonal evaluations (e.g. the positively evaluated eloquently), and they may include comparative reference, as with that way, similarly, thus, thus contributing to cohesion in the text.

Friday 7 September 2018

Quality: Realisation & WH– Probe

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 319):
Quality is typically expressed by an adverbial group with an -ly adverb as Head; the interrogative forms is how? or how … ? plus an appropriate adverb.  Less commonly, Quality is realised by a prepositional phrase.  The general type is one where the preposition is in or with and the Head/Thing of the nominal group is the name of ‘manner’, either manner or way, or of a qualitative dimension such as speed, tone, skill, ease, difficulty, term; but phrasal expressions of Quality also include more specific types, such as specifications of the manner of movement.

Thursday 6 September 2018

Agent Vs Instrument [Diagnostic: Voice]

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 319):
The line between agent and instrument is not always very sharp. … Nevertheless, there is a significant distinction in the grammar between manner and agency, so that a passive by phrase, if it could not remain unchanged in the corresponding active clause, is interpreted as a participant, not as a circumstance of Manner. This reflects the fact that semantically, whereas the instrument is not usually an inherent element in the process, the agent typically is — although less clearly so when the process is expressed in the passive.

Wednesday 5 September 2018

Means: The Concepts Of Agency & Instrumentality

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 318-9):
… the category includes, in principle, the concepts of both agency and instrumentality. The instrument is not a distinct category in English grammar; it is simply a kind of means [as shown by voice agnates]. … The agent, however, although it is expressed as a prepositional phrase, typically functions as a participant in the clause [as shown by voice agnates].

Tuesday 4 September 2018

Means: Realisation & WH– Probe

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 318):
Means refers to the means whereby a process takes place; it is typically expressed by a prepositional phrase with the preposition by or with.  The interrogative forms are how? and what with?.

Monday 3 September 2018

Manner: Means & Comparison Vs Quality & Degree

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 318):
Means is close to the participant rôle of Agent and Comparison is like a participant in a clause with the same type of process, whereas Quality and Degree are like features of the process itself. These differences in status are reflected in realisational tendencies: Means and Comparison tend to be realised by prepositional phrases, whereas Quality and [Degree] tend to be realised by adverbial groups.

Sunday 2 September 2018

Manner

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 318):
The circumstantial element of Manner construes the way in which the process is actualised. Manner comprises four subcategories: Means, Quality, Comparison, Degree …

Saturday 1 September 2018

Abstract Location Vs Other Circumstances [Diagnostic: WH– Probe]

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 318):
Abstract space is the source of various expressions that serve as realisations of other types of circumstance such as Manner (e.g. walk on one’s legs, make wine out of grapes), Rôle (e.g. cut into cubes, translate from Spanish into English). It can be difficult to determine whether such an expression serves as an abstract Location or as a circumstance of another type. But probes involving Wh– items usually help us draw the line. For example, using the spatial where, we can say where the dollar rose was to its highest point in the past year, which indicates that to its highest point in the past year is a Location in abstract space rather than a circumstance of some other kind. In contrast, we cannot say where she talked was on the meaning of life, which indicates that on the meaning of life is not a Location in abstract space but rather a circumstance of another kind.