Angle

 Halliday (1994: 158):

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 in an 'idea' nexus). Thus according to the newspaper corresponds to the newspaper says; and to her students corresponds to her students think.

Ideational vs Interpersonal Manifestations Of Projection

Halliday And Matthiessen (2014: 676-8):

When the need arises in discourse to attribute information to some source, this can be done logically by means of clause nexus of projection; but it can also be done experientially by means of a circumstance of Angle. …

Projection can also be manifested interpersonally in the form of a modal Adjunct … Unlike the logical and experiential manifestations, the interpersonal manifestation does not represent the Sayer or Senser; rather it enacts the speaker’s opinion – an enactment of his or her degree of commitment to the proposition: the proposition is assessed as being projected by somebody other than the speaker. This type of assessment is known as ‘evidentiality’: the modal Adjunct is used to indicate the evidential status of the proposition. The nearest logical equivalent would be ‘people say/they say that ...’, or ‘I hear that’: evidentiality is related to ‘verbal’ clauses and ‘mental’ clauses of perception.

In Chapter 4, we called this kind of modal assessment presumption; the comment Adjunct is realised by adverbial groups with adverbs as Head such as evidently, supposedly, reportedly, allegedly; arguably; presumably and they may have cognate verbs such as report, allege, argue serving as Process in a ‘verbal’ clause or suppose, presume serving as Process in a ‘mental’ clause. …

Projection is thus manifested interpersonally as modal assessment of the presumption type; but it extends beyond presumption to cover quite a few other types of modal assessment as well.

Viewpoint: Realisation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 328):

This type is expressed by [prepositional phrases introduced by] the simple preposition to or by complex prepositions such as in the view/opinion of, from the standpoint of … This type of Angle occurs in ‘relational’ clauses that are agnate with Senser in ‘mental’ clauses: that’s very interesting to me (cf. that interests me).

Source: Realisation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 328):

It is expressed by [prepositional phrases introduced by] complex prepositions such as according to, in the words of.  (Note that according to can also mark a circumstance of Manner …).

Angle: Source (Sayer) Vs Viewpoint (Senser)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 328):

Angle is related either to

(i) the Sayer of a ‘verbal’ clause, with the sense of ‘as … says’ or

(ii) to the Senser of a ‘mental’ clause, with the sense of ‘as … thinks’.

We can call type (i) ‘source’ since it is used to represent the source information …

We can call type (ii) ‘viewpoint’ since it is used to represent the information given by the clause from somebody’s viewpoint …

Circumstances Of Projection: Agnation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 327):

Although circumstances of expansion relate to ‘relational’ clauses, circumstances of projection relate to projecting ‘mental’ and ‘verbal’ clauses — either to the Senser or Sayer of that clause (Angle) or to the [Phenomenon or] Verbiage (Matter).

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

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.

Common Circumstance Types With Mental Qualitative Attributes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 271):

Certain circumstances are common with particular types of attribution. For example, circumstances of Cause, Matter and Angle are common with ‘mental’ qualities as Attribute

• [Cause:] I did get angry with him;
• [Matter:] so I think we have to be a bit sensible about what we are doing;
• [Angle:] it’s all Greek to me;

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.

Projection: Logical And Experiential Manifestations

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 604):

When the need arises in discourse to attribute information to some source, this can be done logically by means of a nexus of projection; but it can also be done experientially by means of a circumstance of Angle. … the projecting feature has thus been incorporated into the clause as one element of a transitivity configuration.

Fact Clause As Carrier: Realisation Of Attribute

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 474, 474n):

In an ‘attributive’ clause, the Attribute ascribed to the fact clause serving as Carrier is realised by a nominal group with an adjective or noun as Head belonging to one of a small number of classes. … Several of the types are similar to classes of interpersonal Adjunct and two of them can also be related to types of sensing in ‘mental’ clauses. …

The ‘attributive’ clause may have an agnate ‘mental’ clause of the ‘please’ type: it is surprising that… ~ it surprises me that…; the equivalent of the Senser in the ‘mental’ clause is a circumstance of Angle.