Abstract Space

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 317-8):

Space includes not only concrete space, but also abstract space. Abstract space covers a range of experiential domains that are construed on the model of space; … the construal of abstract space often involves a ‘material’ process of motion through space like come, go, bring, take. 

The abstractness is a feature of the clause as a whole, not just a single element; but the ‘clue’ to the abstract interpretation may be a single element or a combination of elements. 

• The Location itself may be an abstract one, as with … this brings us back to the purpose of this symposium …  

• the participant placed in relation to the Location may be an abstraction, as with … a great sadness came over him … or 

• the participant causing this participant to be placed in relation to the Location may be an abstraction as in where is all this taking us?

Location: Rest vs Motion

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 317):

Absolute vs Relative Location

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 317):

Definite vs Indefinite Extent And Location

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 317):

Parallels Between Temporal & Spatial Expressions

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 316-7):

There are close parallels between temporal and spatial expressions, the most significant ones being the following.

(i) … both incorporate the notions of extent and location … 

(ii) In both time and space, extent is measurable in standard units … 

(iii) In both time and space, both extent and location may be either definite or indefinite … 

(iv) In both temporal and spatial location, the location may be either absolute, or relative to the ‘here–and–now’; and if relative, may be either near or remote … 

(v) In both spatial and temporal location there is a distinction between rest and motion; and within motion, between motion towards and motion away from …

However, this spatio-temporal parallelism is far from complete; and in recent centuries the language seems to have been moving away from it.

Location: Structural Realisation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 316):

The typical structure is an adverbial group or prepositional phrase … Note adverbial group/prepositional phrase complexes expressing spatial and temporal paths … Under certain conditions a temporal preposition may be left out …

Location: Source, Path & Destination

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 316):

Place includes not only static location in space, but also the source, path and destination of movement. Similarly, time includes not only static location in time, but also the temporal analogues of source, path and destination.

Location: Spatial Or Temporal [Diagnostic: Interrogative Probe]

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 316):

Location construes the location of the unfolding of the process in space-time: the place where it unfolds or the time when it unfolds.  The general interrogatives of Location are where?, when?.

Extent Vs Scope [Diagnostics: Measure & Subject]

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 316):

There is no very sharp line separating (circumstantial) expressions of Extent from (participant) expressions of Scope of the enhancing type; but there is a distinction between them: Extent is expressed in terms of some unit of measurement, like yards, laps, rounds, years, whereas Scope in terms other than measure units (contrast they walked five miles with they walked the streets); and being a participant, the Scope has the potential of being able to serve as Subject.

Extent: Frequency Vs Usuality [Diagnostic]

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 315-6):

In the temporals there is an additional category of ‘frequency’, how many times?. This is related to the interpersonal category of usuality, but it is not identical to it; usuality is a modal assessment referring to position on a scale between positive and negative (always/never), whereas frequency is the extent of the repetition of the process. The categories of extent and usuality may, however, work together, as in a narrative where habitude is established.

Extent: Interval

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 315):

The category of Extent includes ‘interval’, which has the corresponding question form how often?, in the sense of ‘at what intervals?’.

Extent: Structural Realisation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 315):

The typical structure is a nominal group with quantifier, either definite,  e.g. five days, or indefinite, e.g. many miles, a long way; this occurs either with or without a preposition, the most usual preposition being for

Extent: Spatial Or Temporal [Diagnostic: Interrogative Probe]

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 315):

Extent construes the extent of the unfolding of the process in space-time: the distance in space over which the process unfolds or the duration in time during which the process unfolds.  The interrogative forms for Extent are how far?, how long?, how many [measure units]?, how many times?.

Extent And Location

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 315):

The circumstantials of Extent and Location construe the unfolding of the process in space and time. They form a four-term set as shown in Table 5-29.

The Cline Of Enhancing Circumstances And Patterns Of Agnation

Halliday & Matthiesen (2014: 315):

The location of circumstances on this cline will determine patterns of agnation. For example, around (1), Process with lexically incorporated feature of manner: sway can be glossed as Process + Manner, ‘move slowly or rhythmically’, and wobble as ‘move unsteadily from side to side’; but around (2), Cause: because of his asthma is agnate with either a participant, e.g. asthma prevented Cam from sleeping or to an enhancing clause of cause, e.g. Cam could not sleep because he had asthma.

The Cline Of Enhancing Circumstances

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 314-5):

These enhancing circumstances range on a cline

(1) from circumstances that are like a feature of the process construed circumstantially, e.g. unsteadily (Manner: quality) in … He paced forward unsteadily …

(2) to circumstances that are like indirect participants, e.g. because of his asthma (Cause: reason) in Cam could not sleep because of his asthma.

Enhancing Circumstances

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 314):

Enhancing circumstances augment the configuration of process + participants through the specification of extent or location in time or space of the unfolding of the process, the manner of the unfolding of the process, the cause of the unfolding of the process, or the contingency of the unfolding of the process.

Circumstance As Minor Relational Or Verbal Process

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 314):

For the present discussion, what is important is the notion of ‘circumstance’ as a kind of additional minor process, subsidiary to the main one, but embodying some of the features of a relational or verbal process, and so introducing a further entity as an indirect participant in the clause.

Relating Circumstance Types To Process (& Logical) Types

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 312, 314):

We could illustrate the principles as follows:

(a) relational: circumstantial Jack was building a house ...

1. when? (‘it was during’) throughout the year Extent: duration
2. where? (‘it was at’) near the river Location: place
3. how? (‘it was by’) out of brick Manner: means
4. why? (‘it was for’) for his retirement Cause: purpose
5. under what conditions? despite his illness Contingency: concession

(b) relational: possessive Jack was building a house ...

6. who with? (‘he had’) with his daughters Accompaniment: comitation

(c) relational: intensive Jack was building a house ...

7. what as? (‘it was’) as a vacation home Rôle: guise 

The other two, Matter and Angle, can be related to verbal processes:

(d) verbal: Verbiage Jack told his friends

8. what about? (‘said ...’) about the sale Matter

(e) verbal: Sayer the price was good

9. says who? (‘... said’) according to Jack Angle: source

Relating Circumstance Types To Process Types

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 312):

But if we think of ‘circumstantiation’ as a general concept, in the context of the overall interpretation of transitivity as the grammar of experience, we can get a sense of the semantic space that is being constructed by these circumstantial elements. One way of doing this is to relate them to the various types of process that have been described above.

We are able to do this because a circumstantial element is itself, from this point of view, a process that has become parasitic on another process. Instead of standing on its own, it serves as an expansion of something else. Most circumstantials can be derived from the three types of relational process [i.e. intensive, possessive, circumstantial]; the largest group, not surprisingly, from that type of relational process for which we use the label ‘circumstantial’.

The Set Of Functions Construed As Circumstantial

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 312-4):

What, then, is the set of functions that is construed as circumstantial in the grammar of the clause as representation? We can start from time, place, cause and manner; but we need to realign them somewhat, to add to them, and to interpret them in relation to the process types as a whole. The list of circumstantial elements will then be as in Table 5-28.

Circumstantial Indirect Participants

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 312):

We can make a contrast, then, between direct and indirect participants, using ‘indirect participant’ to refer to the status of a nominal group that is inside a prepositional phrase.  We have already seen that the participant rôles of (1) Client, Recipient and Receiver [i.e. Beneficiary] and (2) Scope, Behaviour and Verbiage [i.e. Range] are sometimes expressed ‘indirectly’ in this sense, as in gave money to the cashier, plays beautifully on the piano. The elements we are treating as ‘circumstantial’ are those in which the participant typically — and in many cases obligatorily — is indirect, being linked into the process via some preposition or other.

Prepositional Phrase: A Hybrid Construction

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 311-2):

But a prepositional phrase is an odd sort of hybrid construction. It has a nominal group inside it, as a constituent, so it looks bigger than a group; and yet it is still not quite a clause. In English, this nominal group inside a prepositional phrase is no different from a nominal group functioning directly as a participant in a clause, and in principle every nominal group can occur in either context; e.g. the mighty ocean, participant in little drops of water make the mighty ocean, circumstance in I’ll sail across the mighty ocean. And if we focus attention on the nominal group in its relation to the overall process, it still seems to be some kind of participant: even in the sailing, the mighty ocean does play some part. But it is allowed in, as it were, only indirectly — through the intermediary of a preposition …

Circumstances Viewed ‘From Below’

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 311):

Thirdly, looked at from below, they [circumstances] are typically expressed not as nominal groups but as either adverbial groups or prepositional phrases — mostly the latter, since adverbial groups are largely confined to one type, those of Manner.

Circumstances Viewed ‘From Round About’

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 311):

… the second perspective, that from the clause itself: whereas participants function in the mood grammar as Subject or Complement, circumstances map onto Adjuncts; in other words, they have not got the potential of becoming Subjects, of taking over the modal responsibility for the clause as exchange.

Circumstances Viewed ‘From Above’

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 311):

As far as meaning is concerned, we used the expression ‘circumstances associated with’ or ‘attendant on the process’, referring to examples such as the location of an event in time or space, its manner, or its cause; and these notions of ‘when, where, how and why’ the thing happens provided the traditional explanation, by linking circumstances to the four WH– forms that were adverbs rather than nouns.

Continuity Between The Categories Of Participant And Circumstance

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 311):

There is thus a continuity between the categories of participant and circumstance; and the same continuity can be seen in the forms by which the two are realised. The distinction between participant and circumstance is probably relevant in all languages; but in some it is drawn relatively sharply, while in others it is shaded and blurred. We shall see … that it has become blurred in English, and for an interesting reason: it has been superseded by something else.

Circumstances & Clause Types

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 310-1):

… typically, they [circumstances] occur freely in all types of process, with essentially the same significance wherever they occur. There are, of course, some combinations which are less likely, and some special interpretations. For example, circumstances of Matter are fairly common with ‘mental’ and ‘verbal’ clauses but quite rare with other process types, except for certain ‘behavioural’ clauses. And in an ‘attributive’ clause, Manner circumstances are fairly unusual, and circumstances of Place often carry a feature of time as well, e.g. I get hungry on the beach ‘when I am on the beach’.

Summary Of Process Types

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 310, 311):

Table 5-27 gives a summary of the types of process that we have identified in the grammar of English, together with their general category meaning and the participants that are associated with each.

Meteorological Processes: Material Clauses Without Participants

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 310):

This last type [construed as it + a verb in the ‘present in present’ tense] is unique in English, in that it has no participant in it.  The it serves the interpersonal function of Subject, like the there in an ‘existential’ clause, but has no function in transitivity — if you are told that it’s raining, you cannot ask What is? and the it cannot be theme–predicated (we cannot say it’s it that’s raining) or serve as an identified Theme or Rheme (we cannot say it is what’s raining/what’s raining is it). On the other hand the tense is clearly that of a ‘material’ process.  These clauses can be analysed as consisting of a single element, the Process; they are the limiting case of a ‘material’ process clause.

Meteorological Processes: Existential, Material & Relational

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 309-10):

On this borderline between the ‘existential’ and the ‘material’ there is a special category of processes to do with the weather: meteorological processes like it’s raining, the wind’s blowing, there’s going to be a storm. Some are construed existentially, e.g. there was a storm/hurricane/breeze/gale/shower/blizzard. Some are construed as material events, e.g. the wind’s blowing, the sun’s shining, the clouds are coming down. Some are construed as relational attributives: it’s foggy/cloudy/misty/hot/humid/sunny/frosty; here the it can be interpreted as a Carrier, since it is possible to substitute the weather, the sky or the (time of) day. Finally, some are construed as it + a verb in the ‘present in present’ tense: it’s raining/hailing/snowing/freezing/pouring/drizzling/lightning/thundering.