Facts In Cognitive And Verbal Clauses

Halliday (1994: 268):

Beneficiary And Range

 Halliday (1994: 165, 167):

Range Of A Verbal Process

Halliday (1994: 148):

Verbiage

Halliday (1994: 141):

Other Verbal Participants

Halliday (1994: 141):

Figures Of Saying: Semantic Characterisation

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 role is that of 'decoding' what is said. What is said may itself be construed as a 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.

Fact Serving As Range In Cognitive And Verbal Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 544-5):

But even with some cognitive and verbal processes, a projected element may occur which is not projected by that process; for example:

[cognitive]
Just before dress rehearsal, under pressure from the company, he reluctantly accepted [[that such ideas were outmoded]], and dropped them. 

The second category of temple land was particularly important and it was accepted [[that the holders of this land could sub-lease it]]. 

[verbal]
‘That was pretty obvious,’ smiled Sir Cedric, ‘and I admit [[I once had doubts about you]]’. 

With sly winks and discreet sniggering he conveyed [[[that he knew very well || that there was a great deal more than Philip confessed]]]. 

And there will always be ‘borderline cases’, instances where the line is hard to draw.

Range In Verbal Clauses: Verbiage

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 347):

The two kinds of Verbiage, that which refers to the content, as in describe the apartment, and that which specifies the nature of the verbal process, such as tell a story, are analogous respectively to the material ‘entity Scope’ and ‘process Scope’.

Matter: Definition, Realisation & WH– Probe

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 327-8):

Matter is related to verbal processes; it is the circumstantial equivalent of the Verbiage, ‘that which is described, referred to, narrated, etc’.  The interrogative is what about?.  Matter is expressed by [prepositional phrases introduced by] prepositions such as about, concerning, with reference to and sometimes simply of … It is frequent with both ‘verbal’ clauses and ‘mental’ ones (especially of the ‘cognitive’ subtype).

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).

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.

The Two Types Of Verbiage: Indeterminacy

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 306):

The two types of Verbiage are not sharply distinct; in between (a) tell me your experience and (b) tell me a story is something such as tell me the truth, where the truth could be interpreted either as (a) ‘the events as they happened’ or as (b) ‘a narrative that is factual’.

Verbiage As The Name Of The Saying

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 306):

[Verbiage] may be the name of the saying; for example a question in let me ask you a question, another word in now don’t you say another word! This type also occurs with very general verbs like give and make (as in ‘material’ clauses with Process + Scope), e.g. give the order, make a statement. The name of the saying includes speech functional categories such as question, statement, order, command – often with collocational constraints in relation to the lexical verb in the Process (ask + question, make + statement, give + order, issue + command, tell + lie) and generic categories such as story, fable, joke, report, summary. The name of a language can be construed as Verbiage, e.g. they were speaking Arabic; alternatively, this is construed circumstantially as Manner, e.g. they were speaking a few words in Arabic.

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.

Verbiage As The Content Of What Is Said

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 306):

It may be the content of what is said; e.g. your family in But when people describe your family, they don’t talk about your nephews and nieces; … The Verbiage may construe the topic of what is said, as with describe your family above; as the following clause illustrates, this type of Verbiage is close in meaning to a circumstance of Matter (talk about your nephews and nieces). If the verbal process is one that projects goods-&-services rather than information, like order or promise, the Verbiage refers to these: e.g. a steak in I ordered a steak, those earrings in those earrings were promised to another customer.

Verbiage

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 306):

The Verbiage is the function that corresponds to what is said, representing it as a class of thing rather than a report or quote; e.g. what in What did you say?

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.

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.