Examples Of Verbs Serving As Process In Behavioural Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 301, 302):

The boundaries of behavioural processes are indeterminate; but we can recognise the kinds set out in Table 5-24 as typical.

Behavioural Processes: Agency & Range

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 301):

Behavioural processes are almost always middle; the most typical pattern is a clause consisting of Behaver and process only, like Don’t breathe!, No one’s listening, He’s always grumbling. A common variant of these is that where the behaviour is dressed up as if it was a participant, like she sang a song, he gave a great yawn; this structure is typical in the everyday spoken language. The participant is analogous to the Scope of a ‘material’ clause (both being manifestations of the general function of Range); we shall call it Behaviour.

Behavioural Processes: Unmarked Present Tense

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 301):

The usual unmarked present tense for behavioural processes is present in present, like the material (e.g. you’re dreaming!); however, we also find a simple present in its unmarked sense (i.e. not meaning habitual), e.g. why do you laugh?, alongside why are you laughing? (with scarcely any difference between them), which suggests an affiliation with a mental.

Behavioural Processes: “Senser Doing”

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 301):

The participant who is ‘behaving’, labelled Behaver, is typically a conscious being, like the Senser; the Process is grammatically more like one of ‘doing’.

Behavioural Processes: Why The Least Distinct Process Type

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 301):

These are processes of (typically human) physiological and psychological behaviour, like breathing, coughing, smiling, dreaming and staring. They are the least distinct of all the six process types because they have no clearly defined characteristics of their own; rather they are partly like the material and partly like the mental.

Three Subsidiary Process Types

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 300):

We can then go on to recognise three subsidiary process types, located at each of the boundaries: behavioural at the boundary between material and mental, verbal at the boundary between mental and relational, and existential at the boundary between relational and material.

The Three Principal Process Types: Material, Mental, Relational

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 300):

They are the principal types in that they are the cornerstones of the grammar in its guise as a theory of experience, they present three distinct kinds of structural configuration, and they account for the majority of all clauses in a text (‘material’ and ‘relational’ seem to be roughly balanced in frequency over the language as a whole, followed by ‘mental’, although the pattern varies considerably among different registers).

Verbs Serving As 'Possession As Process'

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 297):

Possession As A Circumstantial Relation [Language Typology]

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 297):

In principle, possession can be thought of as another kind of circumstantial relation, which could be embodied in some such expression as ‘at Peter is a piano’, ‘the piano is with  Peter’. Many languages [e.g.Irish] typically indicate possession by circumstantials of this kind. The nearest English is the verb belong; compare the dialectal form is along o’me.

Possessive Identifying Clauses: Possession As Process

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 296):

Some verbs combine the feature of possession with other semantic features; for example

• exclude ‘[negative] + have’,
• owe ‘have on behalf of another possessor’,
• deserve ‘ought to have’,
• lack ‘need to have’. 

(Most verbs meaning ‘come to have’, on the other hand, function as Process in ‘material’ clauses; for example get, receive, acquire — compare the tense forms in You deserve a medal. – I’m getting one.)

Possessive Identifying Clauses: Possession As Process

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 296):

In addition to possession in the usual sense of ‘owning’, this category includes abstract relationships of containment, involvement and the like.  Among the verbs commonly occurring in this function are include, involve, contain, comprise, consist of, provide.

Possessive Identifying Clauses: Possession As Process

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 246):

Here the possession is encoded as a process, typically realised by the verb own as in Peter owns the piano. (Notice we do not normally say Peter has the piano, in the sense of ownership; have is not used as an identifying verb of possession.) The participants are possessor Peter and possessed the piano; in this case Peter is Token and the piano is Value.

Possessive Identifying Clauses: Possession As (Both) Participants

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 295-6):

Here the participants embody the notion of possession, one signifying property of the possessor, e.g. Peter’s, the other signifying the thing possessed, e.g. the piano. Thus in the piano is Peter’s, both the piano and Peter’s express ‘that which Peter possesses’, the relationship between them being simply one of identity. Note that here the piano is Token and Peter’s is Value.

Possessive Identifying Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 295):

In the ‘identifying’ mode, the possession takes the form of a relationship between two entities; and again this may be organised in two ways, with the relationship being expressed either

(a) as a feature of the participants, as in the piano is Peter’s, or

(b) as a feature of the process, as in Peter owns the piano.

Possessive Attributive Clauses: Possession As Process

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 295):

If the relationship of possession is construed as the Process, then two further possibilities arise. 

Either (1) the possessor is the Carrier and the possessed is the Attribute (we will call the thing possessed the ‘possessed’ rather than the ‘possession’, to avoid ambiguity; ‘possession’ refers to the relationship), as in Peter has a piano. Here piano-ownership is an attribute being ascribed to Peter. Verbs other than have combine the sense of possession with other features, e.g. lack ‘need to have’, boast ‘have as a positive feature’. 

Or (2) the possessed is the Carrier and the possessor is the Attribute, as in the piano belongs to Peter. Here Peter-ownership is an attribute being ascribed to the piano. Neither of the two, of course, is reversible; we do not say a piano is had by Peter, or Peter is belonged to by the piano.

Indeterminacy In Possessive Attributive Clauses: Possession As Attribute

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 295):

These are not, in fact, syntagmatically distinct from ‘identifying’ clauses; the clause the piano is Peter’s could be either ‘attributive’, ‘the piano is a member of the class of Peter’s possessions’ or ‘identifying’, ‘the piano is identified as belonging to Peter’. (Note that the reversed [form] Peter’s is the piano can only be ‘identifying’.)

Possessive Attributive Clauses: Possession As Attribute

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 295):

If the relationship is construed as the Attribute, then it takes the form of a possessive nominal group e.g Peter's; the thing possessed is the Carrier and the possessor is the Attribute.

Possessive Attributive Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 295):

In the ‘attributive’ mode, the possessive relationship may again be construed either as attribute, e.g. Peter’s in the piano is Peter’s, or as process, e.g. has, belongs to in Peter has a piano, the piano belongs to Peter.

Possessive Relational Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 294-5):

In the ‘possessive’ type, the relationship between the two terms is one of ownership; on entity possesses another … In addition to possession in the narrow sense of ‘owning’, the category of ‘possessive’ clauses also includes possession in a broader, more generalised sense — possession of body parts and other part–whole relations, containment, involvement and the like … Possession thus has to be interpreted quite broadly, in the sense of ‘extension’: one entity is construed as being extended by another. 

Just like ‘circumstantial’ clauses, ‘possessive’ ones are construed in both the ‘attributive’ and ‘identifying’ modes.

Circumstantial Relational Clauses: Attributive Vs Identifying Mode

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 293):

The line between ‘attributive’ and ‘identifying’ modes is less clear in the ‘circumstantial’ than in the ‘intensive’ type of ‘relational’ clause. This is natural, since it is less obvious whether an expression such as on the mat designates a class (that has members — the class of things on the mat) or an identity (the thing that is identified by being on the mat). Nevertheless there is a distinction …

Circumstantial Identifying Clauses: Circumstance As Process

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 293):

In this type, it is not the participants that are the expression of time, place or other circumstantial features, but the Process. In examples such as the following the verbs take up, span, cross, cause are so to speak ‘circumstantial’ verbs: US bases take up almost one-fifth of the land of the cramped island; more than 50 years span her age and mine; Turtle Ridge would span maybe three blocks; this situation is apparently caused by anomalous low temperatures; … Circumstantial verbs encode the circumstance of time, place, accompaniment, manner, etc as a relationship between the participants … This means that in terms of the concept of grammatical metaphor … all clauses of this type are metaphorical.

Circumstantial Identifying Clauses: Circumstance As (Both) Participants

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 292):

In this type, it is the participants — Identified and Identifier — that are circumstantial elements of time, place and so on. For example, in tomorrow is the tenth, tomorrow and the tenth are both time elements. Similarly in the best way to get there is by train, both the best way and by train express manner; in the real reason is that you’re scared, Identified and Identifier are both expressions of cause. The Token can be quite varied in grammatical class — a nominal group, an adverbial group, a prepositional phrase or an embedded clause, whereas the Value is often a nominal group with the name of a class of circumstance as Thing.

Circumstantial Identifying Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 292):

In the ‘identifying’ mode, the circumstance takes the form of a relationship between two entities; one entity being related to another by a feature of time or place or manner etc. As with the circumstantial attributive, this pattern may be organised semantically in one of two ways. The relationship is expressed either

(a) a feature of the participants, as in tomorrow is the tenth, or

(b) as a feature of the process, as in the fair takes up the whole day.

Circumstantial Attributive Process Vs Material Process [Diagnostic: Unmarked Tense & Participant Mobility]

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 292):

Verbs serving in clauses with a circumstantial process are often derived from a basic use in ‘material’ clauses of motion … The unmarked present tense is the simple present … rather than the present in present of ‘material’ clauses … The Carrier is typically some immobile physical feature, whereas the Actor of a ‘material’ clause of motion is typically an animate being or a mobile entity. Because of the overlap of a large set of verbs, there will of course be cases that are indeterminate …

Process As Circumstantial vs Attribute As Circumstantial

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 291):

In (b), therefore, the Process is circumstantial; whereas in (a) it is the Attribute that is circumstantial, the Process being the same as in the ‘intensive’ type.

Circumstance As Attributive Process: Realisation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 291):

Here the Attribute is realised by a nominal group and the circumstantial relation is expressed by the lexical verb in the verbal group serving as Process … The verb expresses a circumstantial relation such as ‘be + matter’, ‘be + extent in time’, ‘be + extent in space’. Being attributive, these are non-reversible; there are no ‘receptive’ equivalents …

Circumstantial Attributive Vs Existential [Diagnostic: Mood Tag]

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 291):

However, note that clauses such as on the north wall …  hangs a Union Jack … are not ‘attributive’ but ‘existential’.  The thematically unmarked form of these clauses is that beginning with existential there: there is (hangs) a Union Jack on the north wall.  The prepositional phrase then appears initially as a marked Theme; in that case the existential feature may be left implicit, although the there may still be present and will appear in any case in the mood tag: on the north wall (there) is a Union Jack, isn’t there?.  In contrast, in a ‘circumstantial attributive’ clause, the Subject/Carrier is picked up in the mood tag: the sounds and smells of the ocean hang in the air — don’t they? …

Circumstantial Vs Intensive Attributes: Thematicity & Definiteness

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 291):

Unlike the Attribute of an ‘intensive’ clause, the Attribute of a ‘circumstantial’ one is frequently Theme in registers where the thematic status is rhetorically motivated … And unlike intensive Attributes, such circumstantial Attributes frequently have a ‘definite’ nominal group …

Attributive Clauses: Circumstantial Or Intensive [Diagnostic: Constituent Structure]

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 290n):

Ascriptive verbs of marked phase such as turn and look, were treated as ‘intensive’ even when they had a preposition after them: for example, caterpillars turn into butterflies, Penelope looked like an angel.  This reflects their constituent structure; cf what they turn into are butterflies (not what they turn is into butterflies), Penelope looked angelic.  But there is an overlap at this point, and these could also be interpreted as circumstantial.

Circumstance As Attribute: Realisation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 290):

Here the Attribute is realised (1) by a prepositional phrase, in which case the circumstantial relation is expressed by the preposition … and/or (2) by an adverbial group …

Circumstantial Attributive Clauses: Process Or Minor Process

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 290):

In the ‘attributive’ mode, the circumstantial element is an attribute that is being ascribed to some entity … These take two forms:

(a) one in which the circumstance is construed in the form of the Attribute …

(b) the other in which the circumstantial relation is construed in the form of the Process …

In the first case, the circumstantial relation is construed as a minor process realised by a preposition; in the second, it is construed as a process realised by a verb …

Circumstantial Relational Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 290):

In the ‘circumstantial’ type, the relationship between the two terms is one of time, place, manner, cause, accompaniment, role, matter or angle. These are also manifested as circumstantial elements in the English clause.

Blogger Comment:

As manifestations of the 'fractal types', the relationship is one of 

• expansion

• enhancement (time, place, manner, cause),

• extension (accompaniment),

• elaboration (role), or

• projection (matter, angle).

The ‘As Participant’ Or ‘As Process’ Contrast In Intensive Relational Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 290):

The contrast between ‘as participant’ and ‘as process’ is, as we have just noted, a grammatical one and in a sense it applies also to ‘intensive’ clauses. Thus we have for example:

the meaning of ‘kita:bun’ is ‘book’/ ‘kita:bun’ means ‘book’,
the name of his mother is Anna/ his mother is called Anna,
examples of amphibians are frogs, toads and salamanders/ amphibians are exemplified by frogs, toads and salamanders

But a special feature of the ‘intensive’ type is that the sense of ‘meaning’, ‘name’, ‘example’ and the like may be left implicit in the participant (for the reason, see Matthiessen, 1991a): ‘kita:bun’ is ‘book’, his mother is Anna.

Possession & Circumstantiation As Participant vs Process

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 289-90):

With ‘possessive’ and ‘circumstantial’ clauses, there is thus a systemic contrast between ‘possession/circumstantiation as participant’ and ‘possession/circumstantiation as process’. The contrast is a general one, construed in the grammatical zone of lexicogrammar rather than the lexical one; and just as with the ‘like’/‘please’ contrast in the grammar of ‘mental’ clauses, we often find lexical pairs manifesting the contrast such as be x’s/be owned, be like/resemble, be with/accompany, be in/inhabit, be around/surround, be opposite of/face, be about/concern – but just as in the mental case there may be gaps in the lexical paradigm.

The Rationâle For 'Possessive' And 'Circumstantial'

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 289):

If all ‘possessive’ and ‘circumstantial’ clauses had the intensive verb be as the Process, we could perhaps interpret them as subtypes of ‘intensive’ clauses – subtypes where possessor and possessed are related to one another and where circumstances are related to one another. Here the piano is Emily’s would be like our earlier example her name is Alice, where naming is construed as an aspect of one of the participants (cf. also the owner of the Piano is Emily). Under this interpretation a clause such as Emily has a piano would be the odd one out because here the sense of possession is construed in the process in the first instance (the verb have), not in (one of) the participants. 

However, Emily has a piano is not the odd one out; it exemplifies a regular option throughout for all ‘possessive’ and ‘circumstantial’ clauses. This is the option of construing possession or circumstantiation as process. Thus alongside the piano is Emily’s, we have the piano is owned by Emily; and alongside Emily is like her mother, we have Emily resembles her mother. Here own means ‘be + possession’ and resemble means ‘be + like’.

Possessive And Circumstantial Relational Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 289):

The verb be can be used in all categories set out in Section 5.4.2 although have is the unmarked verb in ‘attributive’ clauses of possession (in standard English we say Emily has a piano rather than with Emily is a piano).  The variants of ‘possessive’ and ‘circumstantial’ clauses with be (and have) are analogous to ‘intensive’ clauses.  Thus Emily has a piano can be interpreted as ‘Emily is a member of the class of piano–owners’ and the meeting is on Friday as ‘the meeting is a member of the class of the class of events on Friday’.  Similarly, the piano is Emily’s can be interpreted as ‘the piano is identified as the one belonging to Emily’ and Friday is the best time as ‘Friday is identified as the best time’.

‘Circumstantial’ and ‘Possessive’ Relational Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 289):

These two types also come in two modes of being, ‘attributive’ and ‘identifying’. We can thus recognise the following series of proportions:

intensive            Emily is a poet :                            attributive
                          Emily is the poet ::                       identifying 

possessive          Emily has a piano :                        attributive
                          the piano is Emily’s ::                   identifying 

circumstantial    the meeting is on Friday :              attributive
                         the time of the meeting is Friday   identifying

Assigned Attributive Clauses vs Creative Material Clauses [Diagnostics]

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 288-9):

We may note that there is a type of clause that is agnate to those with verbs of appearance in which the Carrier is construed on the model of a circumstance of Means (of the subtype ‘material’) marked by of or out of; for example:

‘It makes a mockery of the slogan which many of them use, “To Protect and Serve”,’ he said.

I mean, I think she’s made an absolute fool of herself. 

No one’s gonna make a fool out of me

These relational clauses resemble creative material ones with a circumstance of Means such as you could make fortune out of any one of your loves. However, in such material clauses the circumstance of Means can be left out: you could make a fortune, whereas the Carrier/Means cannot be left out of an assigned relational clause: we cannot say she’s made an absolute fool without of herself. Creative verbs other than make can serve as the Process, e.g. create, produce, develop. Further, there is a receptive option with such material clauses, e.g. a fortune could be made (by you) out of any of your loves, but there is no receptive version of assigned relational clauses of this type: an absolute fool has been made (by her) of herself is odd.

Assignment

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 288):

Both ‘identifying’ and ‘attributive’ clauses of the ‘intensive’ kind have the option of assignment: they may be configured with a third participant representing the entity assigning the relationship of identity [or] attribution … In the case of ‘identifying’ clauses, this is the Assigner; in the case of ‘attributing’, this is the Attributor.  In a ‘receptive’ clause, this participant may be left implicit …

Identifying Mode: Naming & Defining Vs Calling

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 287-8):

Most problematic of all are clauses of naming and defining, which lie exactly at the crossover point between the the two types of ‘identifying’ clause … Naming and defining are linguistic exercises, in which the word is Token and its meaning is Value. In calling, on the other hand, it is the name that is the Value.

Adjectival Attribute <-> Nominal Attribute <-> Value

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 287):

Nominal Attributes are closer to Values than adjectival ones; and these, in turn, are very close to the ‘is an example of’ type of ‘identifying’ clause, like those missiles constitute a threat to our security.

Attribute As An Instance Of A Class

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 287):

And on the other hand we often interpret an Attribute not just as an instance of a class but in some sense the value of the entity it carries, e.g. Pat is a millionaire.

Blogger Comment:

The incoherence here arises from Matthiessen's mistaken rewording of Halliday (1994: 129):

And on the other hand we often interpret an Attribute not just as an instance of a class but in some sense the value of the entity that carries it, e.g. Pat is a millionaire.

The Continuity From Attribution To Decoding Identity

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 287):

The continuity becomes clearer when we set up as Value/Identifier something that is explicitly worded as membership of a class, using the expression ‘one of ...’

Pat                             is            one of the richest people I know
Identified/Token                       Identifier/Value

Blogger Comment:

Note that, viewed 'from above', an attributive relation obtains between the Head (Carrier) — one — and the Postmodifier (Attribute) — the richest people I know — of the nominal group serving as Identifier/Value.

Attributive <–> Decoding <–> Encoding

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 286):

… the [decoding] type of ‘identifying’ clause where the Identifier is the Value (that is, the identity is given by function) is intermediate between the attributive and the other [encoding] type of ‘identifying’, the one where the Identifier is the Token (identity is given by form):

Pat is rich                      Attribute               attributive
Pat is the richest           Identifier/Value     decoding
the richest is Pat           Identifier/Token    encoding

Classifying vs Identifying

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 286):

So for example

my brother                 is       tall
Carrier = member                Attribute = class

means ‘my brother belongs to the class of people who are tall’. This specifies one of his attributes; but it does not serve to identify him – there are other tall people besides. The only means of identifying something by assigning it to a class is to make that a class of one. But if the one-member class is at the same level of abstraction as its member, we have a tautology: my brother is my brother.

Carrier & Attribute Differ In Generality Not Abstraction

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 286):

In attribution, some entity is being said to have an attribute. This means that it is being assigned to a class, and the two elements that enter into this relation, the attribute and the entity that ‘carries’ it, thus differ in generality (the one includes the other) but are at the same level of abstraction [unlike Token and Value].

Blogger Comments:

Note that this also, therefore, characterises the difference between instantiation (attribution/generality) and stratification (identity/abstraction).  Language is more general than register; context is more abstract than language.  This is the fundamental theoretical reason why register ≠ context.

Thematic Equatives

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 285):

Note that in a thematic equative, the nominalisation is always the Value.

Intensive Identifying Clauses: Sub-Types

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 284-5):

Equation … Equivalence … Rôle–play … Naming … Definition … Symbolisation (including glossing and translation) … Exemplification … Demonstration …

Encoding vs Decoding Clauses In Logogenesis

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 283-4):

Identifying clauses of different coding orientations make distinct and complementary contributions in the development of text. Thus ‘encoding’ clauses serve as a resource for presenting the steps in the organisation of a text …  In contrast, ‘decoding’ clauses can be used as a strategy for interpreting phenomena that have been observed …

Token Vs Value [Diagnostic: Voice & Subject]

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 282-3):

With a verb other than be it is clear which is Token and which is Value, since … this can be determined by the voice: if the clause is ‘operative’, the Subject is Token, whereas if the clause is ‘receptive’, the Subject is Value. … With the verb be one cannot tell whether the clause is ‘operative’ or ‘receptive’; the best strategy for analysing these is to substitute some other verb, such as represent, and see which voice is chosen.

Receptive Voice: Purpose

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 282):

The reason for choosing the ‘receptive’ in English is to get the desired texture, in terms of Theme–Rheme and Given–New; in particular it avoids marked information focus (which carries an additional semantic feature of contrast).

Identifying Mode: Operative Vs Receptive Voice

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 280):

It is this directionality that determines the voice of the clause – whether it is ‘operative’ or ‘receptive’; and in order to explain this we need to operate with Token and Value as structural functions. … In other words, ‘identifying’ clauses select for voice; they have an ‘operative’ and a ‘receptive’ variant. The difference is entirely systematic, once we recognise the structure of Token and Value: the ‘operative’ voice is the one in which the Subject is also the Token (just as, in a ‘material’ clause, the ‘operative’ is the variant in which the Subject is also the Actor).

Identifying Mode: Decoding Vs Encoding

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 279-80):

… either the Token is ‘decoded’

or else the Value is ‘encoded’.

If the Token is construed as Identified and the Value as Identifier, the clause is a decoding one …

if the Value is construed as Identified and the Token as Identifier, the clause is an encoding one …

In other words, the identity either decodes the Token by reference to the Value

or it encodes the Value by reference to the Token.

Identifying Mode: Direction Of Coding

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 279):

Every ‘identifying’ clause faces either one way or the other: the structure is either Identified/Token ^ Identifier/Value [decoding] … or Identified/Value ^ Identifier/Token [encoding].

Token & Value

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 279):

In any ‘identifying’ clause, the two halves refer to the same thing; but the clause is not a tautology, so there must be some difference between them. This difference can be characterised as a stratal one of ‘expression’ and ‘content’; or, in terms of their generalised labels in the grammar, of Token and Value — and either can be used to identify the other.

Identifier & New [Contra Fawcett]

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 279):

For the present discussion, we shall take it that the Identifier always carries the tonic prominence. This is not, in fact, true; it is the typical pattern, since it is the identity that is likely to be new information, but there is a marked option whereby the Identified is construed as the New. (Note therefore that Identified–Identifier cannot simply be explained as Given–New in an ‘identifying’ clause [as Fawcett maintains]; not surprisingly, since the former are experiential functions whereas the latter are textual.)

Identifying Vs Attributive Mode [Diagnostic: Reversibility]

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 278):

These [‘identifying’] clauses are reversible. All verbs except the neutral be and the phased become, remain (and those with following prepositions like as in act as) have passive forms … Clauses with be reverse without change in the form of the verb and without marking the non-Subject participant …

Attributive Vs Identifying Mode: Interrogative Probe

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 278):

The interrogative probe for such [‘identifying’] clauses is which?, who?, which/who…as? (or what? if the choice is open–ended) …

Identifying Mode: Lexical Verb

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 278):

The lexical verb of the verbal group realising the [identifying] Process is one from the ‘equative’ classes.

Identifying Mode: In/Definiteness

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 277-8):

The nominal group realising the function of Identifier is typically definite: it has a common noun as Head, with the or other specific determiner as Deictic, or else a proper noun or pronoun. The only form with adjective as head is the superlative ….

Identifying Vs Attributive Mode

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 277):

Class membership [attribution] does not serve to identify … One way of looking at the ‘identifying’ clause would be to say that here we are narrowing down the class in question to a class of one … only one member in the class, a single instance.

Some Of The Uses Of Identifying Clauses In The Construction Of Knowledge

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 277):

… establishing uniqueness, glossing (technical) names, and interpreting evidence. …

Such clauses are important because they represent a strategy for expanding the naming resources of a language, in both everyday discourse and technical or scientific discourse. They underpin dictionary definitions, where the Process is often absent from the structure …

Identified And Identifier

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 276):

In the ‘identifying’ mode, some thing has an identity assigned to it. What this means is that one entity is being used to identify another: ‘x is identified by a’, or ‘a serves to define the identity of x’. Structurally we label the x–element, that which is to be identified, as the Identified, and the a–element, that which serves as identity, as the Identifier.

Material Attributive Clauses & Material Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 276):

Within the other major domain of attribution, the ‘material’ domain, we find an analogous situation where Attribute denotes a material quality equivalent to the Process of a ‘material’ clause, and may be formed as a participle from a material process verb; for example, 

they said that our disk was corrupted when it arrived … 

In addition, while ‘material’ clauses are typically construed with the present-in-present, ‘relational’ ones are construed with the simple present. Thus [sic] has to be interpreted as ‘material’ – market research is being conducted this week; and our disk was being corrupted (when it arrived) would be ‘material’ rather than ‘relational’.

Fact As Cause In Attributive Clause

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 275-6):

No doubt because of this overlap, the situation regarding the status of ‘facts’ is also blurred. In principle, if a second figure comes into the picture representing the source or origin of the mental condition, it appears as ‘fact’ with a ‘mental’ clause but as ‘cause’ with a ‘relational’ one; for example:

(mental) it distresses me/I regret + that you failed
It distresses him that women ask him, to this day, to remove his dark glasses so that they can witness the marvel of his magical peepers.
(relational) I’m very distressed + because you failed
Well, I’m still afraid of him ’cause he’s bitten me.

But ‘relational attributive’ clauses with Attributes of this kind, agnate to the Process of a ‘mental’ clause, are regularly construed with ‘fact’ clauses:

(relational) I’m very distressed/it’s a great pity + that you failed
I am extremely distressed that these unfounded allegations should then have been leaked to newspapers.

The Attribute has become, in effect, a metaphorical expression of the Process of a ‘mental’ clause, and can be accompanied by a clause that is projected.

Distinguishing Mental And Attributive Clauses: Indeterminacy

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 275, 275n): 

But these four criteria do not always coincide, and not every instance can be clearly assigned to one category or the other. ¹ … 

¹ Thus we find clauses where the participial form of the mental process verb is submodified but where the Phenomenon is also present in the form it takes in a ‘receptive’ clause; for example: she was very intrigued by alternative ideas; I was very depressed by some feedback I was getting.

Distinguishing Mental And Attributive Clauses: Clause Structure

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 275):

In clause structure, a ‘mental’ clause typically has (and always can have) both Senser and Phenomenon; whereas in the ‘attributive’, such other entities can only appear circumstantially as Cause or Matter (agnate to Phenomenon) or Angle (agnate to Senser).

Distinguishing Mental And Attributive Clauses: Tense

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 275):

As far as tense is concerned, since a quality is typically the outcome of a preceding event, the same phenomenon will appear in present tense if represented as an Attribute but in past tense if represented as a Process in a ‘mental’ clause: for example, he’s frightened (present) is likely to be ‘relational attributive’, with the agnate ‘mental’ clause being (past in present) he’s been frightened.

Distinguishing Mental And Attributive Clauses: Marked Phase

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 275):

As noted above, attributive verbs other than be, namely those of marked phase, occur in ‘attributive’ clauses; e.g. it seems encouraging, you look pleased. These would not occur in this way in a ‘mental’ clause; we could not say you look enjoying (it), it seems delighting (you).

Distinguishing Mental And Attributive Clauses: Submodifiers

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 275):

Submodifiers like so, very, too go with nominal groups but not with verbal groups: we can say I was very afraid of it but not I very feared it; you’re not too keen on it but not you don’t too want it. All the words listed in Sensing as Attribute and as Process as ‘adjective/participle’, glad, sorry, worrying, frightening, etc., readily accept these submodifying items; hence a clause featuring be + worrying, frightening etc. is likely to be ‘relational’ rather than ‘mental’.

4 Criteria For Distinguishing Mental And Attributive Clauses

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 274, 275, 275n):

There is overlap here between ‘mental’ and ‘relational’ clauses, and some clauses such as I was scared, could be interpreted either way. There are four main indicators: (1) submodification; (2) marked phase; (3) tense; and (4) clause structure. …

But these four criteria do not always coincide, and not every instance can be clearly assigned to one category or the other.¹

¹ Thus we find clauses where the participial form of the mental process verb is submodified but where the Phenomenon is also present in the form it takes in a ‘receptive’ clause; for example: she was very intrigued by alternative ideas; I was very depressed by some feedback I was getting.

Semiotic Domain Of Attribution: Qualities Of Sensing

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 273-4):

Within the semiotic domain of attribution, there is one variety of ‘attributive’ clause in which the Attribute denotes a quality of sensing equivalent to the Process of a ‘mental’ clause. … ‘Relational’ clauses with a quality of sensing fall into two types: those which match the like [‘emanating’] type of ‘mental’ clause, with Carrier equivalent to Senser; and those which match the please [‘impinging’] type of ‘mental’ clause, with Carrier equivalent to Phenomenon. … many of the Attributes are evaluative in nature; this type of clause is an important grammatical strategy in the enactment of appraisal.

Blogger Comment:

For example, from Yes, Minister

Jim Hacker:                      I'm a curious person.               [Carrier equivalent to Senser]
Sir Humphrey Appleby:     You certainly are, Minister.     [Carrier equivalent to Phenomenon]

Michæl Alexander Kirkwood Halliday (1925-2018)

When you read a book, you hold another's mind in your hands.
 — James Burke

Attribute Types In The Semiotic Domain

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 273):

Domain Of Attribution: Material Or Semiotic

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 272-3):

… ‘relational’ clauses may construe both ‘outer experience’ [material] and inner experience [mental]. So both these modes of experience are included within the domains of attribution of an ‘attributive’ clause; but these domains transcend the two modes. In particular, ‘inner experience’ is generalised to include not only subjective sensations but also attributes that are construed as objective properties of macrothings [acts] and metathings [facts] … The general contrast in domains of attribution is thus not that of material vs mental but rather ‘material’ vs ‘semiotic’. The attributes assigned to the carrier in an ‘attributive’ clause are either material ones or semiotic ones, and the ‘thing’ serving as carrier has to be of the same order as the attribute.   Thus with true as Attribute, the Carrier has to be a metathing – represented by a fact clause … or by it, that, this referring to a fact …

Inceptive Attribution: Collocation Patterns

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 272):

Clauses of ‘inceptive’ attribution are subject to collocational patterns between Process: verb and Attribute: adjective; for example go + mad, run + dry, turn + sour, fall + ill. And the collocational pattern may also involve the Head noun of the nominal group serving as Carrier, as with Process: run + Attribute: dry, where the Carrier includes a noun such as well, lake, river, sea, water supply, tap; blood bank; mouth

Time Phased Attribution: Tense

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 272):

In the case of ‘time phase’, in particular ‘inceptive’, the tense may be like that of ‘material’ clauses rather than like that of ‘relational’ ones; … That is, coming into being is construed on the same model as activities as far as time is concerned; but it is still construed as a configuration of being, with Carrier (the scope of European trade) + Process (was becoming) + Attribute (oceanic and worldwide). If the Attribute is an ‘entity’ rather than a ‘quality’, the nominal group realising it may be marked by the preposition into; alongside ‘become’ + nominal group, we thus have ‘turn’, ‘grow’ + into + nominal group…

Phase Of Attribution: Neutral Or Phased

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 271-2):

Like other processes, processes of attribution unfold through time. In the unmarked case, the phase of the unfolding is left unspecified (‘neutral’); alternatively, the phase is marked as either (1) ‘time phase’ – ‘inceptive’ (e.g. become, go, grow, turn) or ‘durative’ (e.g. keep, remain) or (2) ‘reality phase’ – ‘apparent’ (e.g. seem, appear), ‘perceptive’ (e.g. look, sound, taste) or realised (e.g. prove, turn out)…

Qualitative Process With Attribute

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 271n):

The verbs reek, drip and ooze are used in the sense of ‘be [over-]ful’ or ‘have [too] much of’ (shading into the ‘possessive’ area); but they always seem to be configured with a nominal group, introduced by a preposition in the case of drip and reek, and this element can be interpreted as Attribute: it certainly reeks to me of sexual exploitation; … It drips with press agentry; Greenoak’s book drips with bird lore like no other; she oozes self-confidence; … it lacks substance and oozes mediocrity.

Quality Attribution: Qualitative Verbs

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 271):

Verbs of this kind include  

• matter, count ‘be important’ … 
• suffice ‘be enough’, 
• abound ‘be plentiful; 
• figure ‘make sense’; 
• differ, vary ‘be different, varied’; 
• hurt, ache ‘be painful’; 
• dominate ‘be dominant’, 
• apply ‘be relevant’ … 
• do ‘be acceptable, enough’ … 
• remain ‘be + still’, 
• stink, smell, reek … ‘be smelly’ … 

and a number of verbs of negative appraisal, some of them abstract versions of ‘be + smelly’, for example stink, suck …

Quality Attribution: Qualitative Process

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 271):

Within ‘quality’ attribution, there is a further option: a small number of qualities may be construed as a qualitative Process rather than as a qualitative Attribute. Thus, alongside will it be enough? we have will it suffice?. (Alternatively, we can interpret such clauses as having a conflation of Process and Attribute.)

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;

Qualifier Of Epithet/Head vs Circumstance [Diagnostic]

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 270-1):

These may be difficult to differentiate from circumstantial elements in the transitivity structure of the clause. To differentiate them in analysis, we can apply textual probes: in principle, being an element of the clause, a circumstance is subject to all the different textual statuses brought about by theme, theme predication and theme identification.

Thus with it in so you have to be beautiful with it is a circumstance (of Accompaniment), if we interpret the clause to mean ‘so you and it [silver] have to be beautiful together’, since it can be Theme (so with it you have to be beautiful rather than so it you have to be beautiful with) and predicated Theme (so it is with it that you have to be beautiful rather than so it is it that you have to be beautiful with). 

In contrast, a Qualifier cannot on its own be given a textual status in the clause since it is a constituent of a nominal group, not of the clause; so it can only be thematic together with the rest of the nominal group that it is part of. …

However, there is a considerable degree of indeterminacy in this area …

Adjectives In Verbal Group Complexes

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 270n):

Note that sequences of ‘verb: be + adjective + verb’ such as be eager to do, be keen to do, be willing to do are interpreted as verbal group complexes, as in she was terribly keen to get out of London. Note that unlike adjectives serving as Epithet/Head in nominal groups functioning as Attribute, these adjectives cannot be expanded with nouns serving as Thing/Head; contrast he is keen : he is a keen fellow, which is fine, with he is keen to finish the job : he is a keen fellow to finish the job, which does not seem possible. Note also the pattern of ellipsis: he is keen to do it, but he isn’t able to [Ø: do it].

Qualitative Attributes Realised By Epithets Submodified By Degree: Comparative

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 270):

Qualitative Attributes are, as noted, realised by nominal groups with Epithet as Head. The Epithet is realised by an adjective (or participial verb form), which is frequently submodified by adverbs of degree such as very, extremely, greatly, including the comparative adverbs as; more, most; less, least; too. The comparatives may be expanded by a standard of comparison introduced by as, than; for. These are either phrases or clauses and are placed after the Head/Thing, in the same position as post-modifying Qualifiers; for example:

I think mum’s more upset than he is.
Nothing gets past those kids. They’re as sharp as old razor blades.
That’s just tiny, too tiny for words.

Structurally such expressions are Submodifiers within the Epithet rather than Qualifiers; but nominal groups with Epithet as Head may also be constructed with Qualifiers:

She’s not very interested in the food.

Qualitative Characterisation Through Entity Attribution

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 270):

Attribution of the ‘entity’ kind approaches qualitative attribution when the Thing in the nominal group is a very general one such as thing, person or fellow.  Thus in I started it in Paris in late ‘51 with a guy called Harold Humes, who was an absolutely brilliant fellow but rather erratic, the attributive nominal groups an absolutely brilliant fellow (Thing/Head) and rather erratic (Epithet/Head) are both qualitative characterisations;

Metaphorical Variant Of Quality Attribution

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 268n):

There is a metaphorical variant, where the Attribute is realised by of + a nominal group with a nominalisation as Thing/Head; for example, of crucial importance in: In India now, the question of the minorities and how to satisfy their aspirations is of crucial importance. The congruent version is ... is crucially important.

Entity vs Quality Attribution [Diagnostic: Realisation]

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 268):

The two kinds of Attribute differ in how they are realised: entity Attributes are realised by nominal groups with Thing as Head, e.g. architect in an architect; quality Attributes are realised by nominal groups with Epithet as Head, e.g. very generous. With the latter, the Thing is thus implicit; the general sense is ‘one’ – that is, the class of the Thing is presumed from the context.

Membership Specification: Entity Or Quality

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 268):

The class is specified either

• by naming the class itself by reference to the entity that constitutes the class, as in What did your father do? – He was an architect, or 
• by naming a criterion for class-membership by reference to a quality or qualities of the entity that constitutes the class, as in The New Yorker is very generous.

Types Of Intensive Attribution

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 268):

Within clauses of intensive attribution, we can distinguish three simultaneous contrasts:

(i) the class denoted by the Attribute may be defined by reference to an entity or to a quality;

(ii) the process of attribution may be neutral or phased; and

(iii) the domain of attribution may be either material or semiotic.

Distinguishing ‘Attributive’ Clauses From ‘Identifying’ Clauses: Reversibility

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 268)

The ['attributive'] clauses are not reversible: there are no ‘receptive’ forms, such as complete nonsense is sounded by your story; while clauses such as a poet is Paula, wise is Sarah, are archaic or literary variants, not systemically agnate forms.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Note that, in the case of ASSIGNMENT, there are ‘receptive’ forms in attributive mode:

the crocodiles	thought	the tourists	edible
Attributor	Process: attributive	Carrier	Attribute

the tourists	were thought	edible	by the crocodiles
Carrier	Process: attributive	Attribute	Attributor

[2] Note the 'Hamlet Factor' of such thematically motivated agnates as:

Blessed	are	the cheesemakers
Attribute	Process: attributive	Carrier

Distinguishing ‘Attributive’ Clauses From ‘Identifying’ Clauses: Interrogative Probe

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 268):

The interrogative probe for such [‘attributive’] clauses is what? how? or what…like?, e.g. what is Paula?, how did the minister seem?, what will today’s weather be like?

Distinguishing ‘Attributive’ Clauses From ‘Identifying’ Clauses: Lexical Verb

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 268, 269):

The lexical verb in the verbal group realising the [attributive] Process is one of the ‘ascriptive’ classes: see Table 5-14. If the Attribute is realised by a nominal group with a common noun as Head without a pre-modifying adjective, it is usually expressed as if it was a circumstance (with a preposition following the verb, as indicated in the table; for example: he grew old but he grew into a man); Attributes with noun Head are rare with the verbs keep, go and get, where they would be highly ambiguous.

Distinguishing ‘Attributive’ Clauses From ‘Identifying’ Clauses: Indefiniteness

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 268):

The nominal group functioning as Attribute construes a class of thing and is typically indefinite: it has either an adjective or a common noun as Head and, if appropriate, an indefinite article … It cannot be a proper noun or a pronoun since these do not construe classes.  (Thus he is Charles Darwin would be interpreted as ‘identifying’; but if we say he is another Charles Darwin, the clause is ‘attributive’ and the proper name Charles Darwin has been re-construed as the common noun – the name of a class of people that are like Charles Darwin.)

Attributive Mode: Carrier & Attribute

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 267):

In the ‘attributive’ mode, an entity has some class ascribed or attributed to it. Structurally, we label this class the Attribute, and the entity to which it is ascribed is the Carrier — the ‘carrier’ of the ‘attribute’. … This type of clause is a resource for characterising entities serving as Carrier; and it is also a central grammatical strategy for assessing by assigning an evaluative Attribute to a Carrier.

Attributive Vs Identifying Mode: Reversibility

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 265):

The ‘identifying’ ones are reversible … The ‘attributive’ ones are not reversible …

Blogger Comment:

Note that, in the case of ASSIGNMENT, there is a distinction in VOICE in attributive mode:

the tourists	thought	the crocodiles	approachable
Attributor	Process: attributive	Carrier	Attribute

the crocodiles	were thought	approachable	by the tourists
Carrier	Process: attributive	Attribute	Attributor