Omissions In The Major Options In Transitivity

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 153-4):

The major options in TRANSITIVITY as they are presented in IFG are summarised in the system network in Figure 4.7, with references to sections in IFG2 followed by references to IFG3 if different.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the problems with this network are largely minor, and are perhaps merely simplifications to accommodate the newcomer. For example, in terms of the system itself:

1. the network wiring cross-classifies middle vs effective with happening and doing and with 'like type' and 'please type', even though happening and 'like type' can only be middle, and doing and 'please type' can only be effective; 
2. the system of mental processes omits desiderative and labels emotive as affective, and 
3. the relational system omits the system of ASSIGNMENT, despite it being central to the discussion.

In terms of the participants listed according to ergative function:

1. the Range of material processes, Scope, is omitted;
2. the Medium and Range of behavioural processes, Behaver and Behaviour, are omitted;
3. the Agent of 'like type' mental processes, Inducer' is omitted;
4. the Target of verbal processes is omitted;
5. the Attributor and Assigner of relational clauses are omitted; and
6. the Token (Medium) and Value (Range) of decoding identifying clauses are omitted.

However, of these, the omissions of Scope, Behaver, Behaviour and Target are motivated, and so misleading, since the authors reinterpret material Scope and verbal Target as behavioural participants, and do not address the question of the ergative roles in the targeted verbal clauses that they reinterpret as behavioural.

Very Serious Problems With Exercise 9: Identifying Participants (Behavioural Clauses)

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 140)

Analyse the following clauses for Behaver, Scope (or Behaviour) and Target as required. See Section 3.8 (iii). 

1. She has described the problem clearly.

2. He insulted his audience.

3. He was talking rubbish.

4. She flattered her teacher.

5. They uttered a cry of joy.

6. He slandered his rival.

7. She blamed the judges.

8. She gave a speech.

9. He smiled a most compelling smile.

10. He pondered the problem.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Exercise 9 is highly problematic, because it requires the reader to analyse clauses that are not behavioural (1,2,3,4,6,7,8,10) as behavioural, and to identify material (Scope) and verbal (Target) participants as behavioural participants. See further below.

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the example clause They praised Cæsar is a targeted verbal clause, not a behavioural clause:

[3] To be clear, clause 1 is not a behavioural clause. As previously explained, in such instances the clause is verbal (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 306, 347), not least because it construes the Medium as a symbol source and the Range as the content of what is said (Verbiage):

Likewise, clause 3 is not a behavioural clause, but a verbal clause:

The Range rubbish is not a behaviour, but an assessment of what was said.

And again, clause 8 is not a behavioural clause, but a verbal clause:

The Range a speech is not a behaviour, but a name for what was said.

[4] To be clear, clauses 2,4,6 & 7 are not behavioural clauses. As Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 307) explain, these are targeted verbal clauses. Importantly, these clauses are effective in voice, and so operative or receptive, whereas behavioural clauses — apart from those like you make me laugh — are middle:

[5] To be clear, clause 10 is not a behavioural clause, but a mental clause: 

The verb ponder can serve as a projecting mental Process, as in she pondered whether it was true: 

It might be argued that the lexical choice adds a behavioural feature to the mental Process.

∞

In sum, of the 10 clauses presented for analysis as behavioural clauses, only 2 (5 & 9) are genuine behavioural clauses on the criteria of SFL Theory.

Problems With Exercise 8: Differentiating Behavioural From Verbal Processes

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 139):

Identify the process in the following examples as behavioural or verbal by checking whether or not the process can report another clause. (If yes, verbal)

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the ability to report is not a reliable criterion for distinguishing verbal from behavioural processes, since targeting verbal processes do not easily project. This exercise includes one instance of a targeting verbal Process:

6. Everyone praised him

which would be falsely identified as behavioural on the basis of its inability to project.

An important distinction between targeting verbal clauses and behavioural clauses is voice. Unlike behavioural clauses, targeting verbal clauses are effective, and so operative or receptive, and the first participant is Agent, not Medium:

[2] Also problematic in this exercise, from a pedagogical point of view, is the unnecessary and confusing inclusion of the idiomatic expression in:

5. The baby was screaming its head off

where a nominal and adverbial group its head off together serve the same function as a single adverbial group very loudly (Manner circumstance).

Misrepresenting Targeted Verbal Processes As Behavioural

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 124):

We can also include on the behavioural borderline such ‘judgmental’ verbal processes as flatter, insult, praise, malign, slander, abuse which have the peculiarity of allowing for an additional participant role, the Target. These are analysed in IFG2: 141, IFG3: 256 as follows:

But as noted in IFG, they cannot project reported speech and are towards the material end of a cline. Because they cannot project, these too could be taken as behavioural and analysed in the following way:

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, once again the authors are proposing that a subset of verbal clauses should be reclassified as behavioural merely because they cannot report. There are several factors that invalidate this proposal, any of which would be sufficient on its own.

[1] The blanket statement that targeted verbal processes cannot report is invalidated by the following unremarkable example:

[2] Reclassifying targeted verbal clauses as behavioural clauses creates inconsistencies in terms of ergativity. Compare:

with the authors' proposed analysis:

To be clear, conflating Behaver with Agent in this instance complicates the description without adding any explanatory power not already provided by Halliday's original interpretation.

[3] Target and Receiver are participants of verbal clauses, and do not occur in genuine behavioural clauses: *They grumbled her to her parents.

[4] Unlike genuine behavioural processes, targeted verbal processes do not accept a Behaviour as a Range participant: *They insulted an insult.

Misrepresenting Target And Scope As Behavioural Participants

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 101):

Table 4.3 shows the central, or 'nuclear', participants involved in each process type together with an example clause. Additionally, each process type has further participants less centrally involved in the process, often being closer to circumstances. … These additional roles are also shown in Table 4.3 in the final column and will be introduced in Section 2 below.

 

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, Table 4.3 wrongly identifies Target and Scope as participants in behavioural processes. Theses errors arise from mistaking targeted verbal clauses for behavioural clauses (p106, 108, 124, 126), and from confusing the Range of material clauses (Scope) with the Range of behavioural clauses (Behaviour) (p125). These will be examined as they appear in the text.