Beneficiary And Range

 Halliday (1994: 165, 167):

Beneficiary As Subject

  Halliday (1994: 146):

Receiver

Halliday (1994: 145-6):

Receiver

Halliday (1994: 141):

Other Verbal Participants

Halliday (1994: 141):

Grammatical Reactances For Figure Types: Projection

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 135):

Projection: Mental and verbal clauses are distinct from material and relational clauses in that the former can project ideas and locutions (quote or report). These represent the 'content' of sensing and saying, as in David thought —> the moon was a balloon, where the relation of projection is represented by an arrow. Verbal clauses are distinct from mental clauses in that the Sayer is not necessarily an entity endowed with consciousness; and in verbal clauses there may be a further participant, the Receiver, which is not found in a mental clause.

Sensing vs Saying: Constituency Boundaries

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 130-1, 131n):

Figures of saying construe the addressee of exterior symbolic processing in the form of a participant, the Receiver, as in She told/asked/commanded him…; She said to him/ asked of him… . In contrast, interior symbolic processing cannot be addressed; figures of sensing cannot be configured with a Receiver.

Here there is a subtle difference between sensing and saying in their grammatical realisation by verbal and mental clauses that project reports. In the verbal case, the Receiver is a grammatical constituent of the verbal clause, as in she told him —> to leave. Being a constituent participant, it can serve as Subject in the verbal clause: he was told (by her) —> to leave. However, although the mental case, e.g. she wanted him to leave, looks similar, it is not, since mental clauses do not have a Receiver. The element him is a constituent of the reported clause: she wanted —> him to leave. Consequently, it cannot serve as Subject in the reporting mental clause; we cannot get He was wanted (by her) to leave. The difference also shows up clearly when the projected clause is in the passive voice; contrast the incongruence of she told the car to be washed with the acceptability of she wanted the car to be washed. The analysis shows the difference: she told the car —> to be washed (where the car gets interpreted as Receiver) : she wanted —> the car to be washed.¹

∞ 

¹ As always, there are departures from the general principle. For instance, while 

she asked/told/persuaded/implored/encouraged/promised/threatened the car to be washed 

is incongruent, 

she ordered the car to be washed 

is perfectly fine, which suggests the mental model of the constituency boundary between the projecting and the projected clause — he ordered —> the car to be washed. This gets support from the fact that the car was ordered to be washed is odd.

Subtypes Of Figures And Participant Role Value Restrictions

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 57-8):

As already mentioned, there is a typology of figures based largely on the nature of the particular types of the process, participant, and circumstance roles; the most general part of this is shown in Figure 2-6.

 

Each type of figure has its own set of more delicately specified roles with particular value restrictions. For example, figures of doing have an Actor, which in turn is a participant (rather than some other kind of phenomenon). (Notice that the specification of the filler of the Phenomenon role in a sensing figure is more general than 'participant' — any type of phenomenon can be sensed.)

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.

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.

Targeting Verbal Processes And Projected Quotes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 307n):

When verbs that serve in targeted verbal clauses occur in verbal clauses together with quotations, the participant construed as being addressed by the Sayer functions as Receiver rather than as Target: ‘Those are fine letters,’ I praised her.

Verbal Processes That Project Proposals: Beneficiary

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 306n):

Order, promise and other such processes can be construed with a Beneficiary.  With promise this Beneficiary is the Receiver of a ‘verbal’ clause, but with order this Beneficiary is more like the Client of a ‘material’ clause denoting the creation of goods or the performance of a service; for example: You felt alright on Friday ’cause you ordered yourself a nice big pizza (cf. you ordered a nice big pizza for yourself). Here the ‘Receiver’ would be represented like a circumstance: you ordered yourself a nice big pizza from the waiter.

Receiver: Realisation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 306):

The Receiver is the one to whom the saying is directed … The Receiver may be Subject in a clause that is ‘receptive’ … The Receiver is realised by a nominal group typically denoting a conscious being (a potential speaker), a collective or an institution; the nominal group either occurs on its own or is marked by a preposition — almost always to but sometimes of.  The range of realisational possibilities depends on the lexical verb of the verbal group realising the Process …

Verbal Clauses: Distinctive Patterns

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 306):

[Unlike ‘behavioural’ process clauses] ‘verbal’ process clauses do display distinctive patterns of their own. Besides being able to project … they accommodate three further participant functions in addition to the Sayer: (1) Receiver, (2) Verbiage, (3) Target. The first two of these are ‘oblique’ participants.

Degree Of Involvement As Domains Within A Semantic Space

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 175):

What this brings out is that there are a small number of very general domains within this overall semantic space, which may be construed in different ways according to the status they are assigned within the figure. For example, there is one area that is concerned with the spatial orientation of the process. Construed as an outer circumstance, this appears as the position within which the process unfolds; construed as an inner circumstance, it means the direction towards which the process is oriented; construed as a participant, it shows up as the receiver or recipient of the process. Thus this general motif is manifested in a form which corresponds to its ecological niche at that location.

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).

Figures Of Saying: Forms Of Participation Involved

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 151):

Here one participant, the Sayer, is involved as the originator of a process of symbolic (semiotic) activity, or “saying”. There may be another participant, the Receiver, whose rôle is that of ‘decoding’ what is said. What is said may itself be construed as further participant, the Verbiage; or else it may be projected as another figure [locution] within the same sequence. Finally, there may be a participant functioning as Target of the saying process.

Grammatical Reactances Of Figures: Projection

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 135):

Mental and verbal clauses are distinct from material and relational clauses in that the former can project ideas and locutions (quote or report). These represent the ‘content’ of sensing and saying, as in David thought —> the moon was a balloon, where the relation of projection is represented by an arrow. Verbal clauses are distinct from mental clauses in that the Sayer is not necessarily an entity endowed with consciousness; and in verbal clauses there may be a further participant, the Receiver, which is not found in a mental clause.*

* Except, of course, where sensing is construed as interior saying: he thought to himself.

Interior Vs Exterior Symbolic Processing: Directionality

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 131):

Saying is construed as proceeding from Sayer to Receiver (she asked/told/commanded him — ‘she addressed him’). In contrast, sensing embodies two complementary perspectives: either the Senser’s involvement in the sensing ranges over the Phenomenon or the Phenomenon is construed as impacting on the Senser’s consciousness (she likes the design : the design pleases her).

Interior Vs Exterior Symbolic Processing: Addressee

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 130):

Figures of saying construe the addressee of exterior symbolic processing in the form of a participant, the Receiver, as in She told/asked/commanded him…; She said to him / asked of him…. In contrast, interior symbolic processing cannot be addressed; figures of sensing cannot be configured with a Receiver.