Behaviourals also include more material-like subtypes. The border area (see Section 3.1) between material processes and behavioural ones is covered by two main types, physiological processes – twitch, shiver, tremble, sweat, etc. – and social processes – kiss, hug, embrace, dance, play, etc. Both of these shade into the verbal type, from different angles; physiologically: cough, gasp, stutter, etc. and socially: chat, talk, gossip etc.
Blogger Comments:
To be clear, the verbs kiss, hug, and embrace typically serve in clauses that are effective (operative vs receptive) in voice, in contradistinction to behavioural clauses, which are, almost always, middle in voice, and the first participant in such clauses is the Agent of the Process, rather than the Medium of the Process, as in behavioural clauses. Given the unmarked present tense, present-in-present, in SFL Theory, such clauses are material, not behavioural:
The behavioural interpretation can be found in the work of Matthiessen, where behavioural clauses are interpreted as a subtype of middle material clauses (1995: 43, 201, 235, 245, 252). Despite this, Matthiessen (1995: 252) interprets clauses like these as behavioural and effective (with a material Goal):
Interactive (reciprocal) behavioural material processes have the special property that co-participation can be construed either as one participant which is internally complex (e.g., Henry and Anne), in which case a reciprocal pronoun as Accompaniment may be added (e.g., Henry and Anne ... with each other), or as one participant configured with a circumstance of Accompaniment (e.g., Henry ... with Anne)…
Some verbs are less likely with the circumstantial option - for example Anne hugged with Henry is unlikely - and the potential co-participant is construed alternatively as a Goal instead - hug, embrace, kiss, marry, divorce…
No comments:
Post a Comment