Problems With Transitivity Options And Examples

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 155):

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, consistent with their own views, but inconsistent with SFL Theory and reasoned argument, the authors here misrepresent an effective verbal clause they criticised IFG as an effective behavioural clause; see previous posts. Moreover, the authors have nowhere addressed the ergative roles of these clause types — e.g. "Behaver" as Agent — that they misconstrue as behavioural.

[2] To be clear, the example of an effective perceptive mental clause the kite caught her attention is metaphorical. A more congruent example would be she was assailed by the flashing lights and thumping dance music.

[3] To be clear, emotive mental clauses are labelled 'affective', and desiderative mental clauses are omitted altogether (as in IFG1&2, but not IFG3&4).

[4] To be clear, the examples of effective relational (identifying) clauses are only effective if they are encoding, and this is only if they have marked information focus, such that Token conflates with New. With unmarked information focus, Value conflates with New, and the clauses are all middle, not effective.

(a) effective identifying: encoding (marked information focus)

(b) middle identifying: decoding (unmarked information focus)

On the other hand, all assigned relational clauses, both identifying and attributive, are effective.

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.

Seriously Misleading Misrepresentations In Exercise 8: Discriminating Verbal And Agentive Identifying Clauses

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 149):

Analyse the following clauses as verbal or relational identifying, assigning Assigner + Value (+Token) or Sayer roles as appropriate. See Section 3.6 (vi) for agentive identifying clauses. For example:

 

1. She demonstrated that that was the case.

2. She asserted that it was obvious.

3. She proved her point.

4. The map indicates that this is the way.

5. Her actions confirmed their suspicions.

6. He confirmed he’d be there by six.

7. The report proves that the best solution.

8. Their reply shows that to be the point.

9. Their efforts ensured a quick result.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, this exercise on discriminating verbal and agentive identifying clauses includes three clauses that are neither. The genuine verbal clauses are 1, 2, 4 & 6, and the genuine assigned identifying clauses are 7 & 8. However, clauses 3, 5 & 9 are attributive clauses in which the Process conflates with the Attribute (see Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 269):

This problem is compounded by the fact that the clause intended to exemplify an assigned identifying clause is also actually an assigned attributive clause:

though, perhaps, a case can be made for interpreting this as a verbal projection nexus, agnate to the results reported that E = mc²:

Misrepresenting An Assigned Attributive Clause As An Identifying Clause (With An Ellipsed Token)

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 123):

Causative relational clauses (IFG2: 171; IFG3: 237-8, 299)

identifying

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the first clause, they christened the girl Victoria is a naming clause, and so the name is Token, not Value. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 288):

Naming and defining are linguistic exercises, in which the word is Token and its meaning is the Value. In ‘calling’, on the other hand, it is the name that is the Value.

[2] To be clear, the final clause, this proves my point, is attributive, not identifying, and it involves the conflation of Process and Attribute; see Table 5-14 in Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 269).

Unlike unassigned attributive clauses, assigned attributive clauses, being effective in voice, are 'reversible', in that they can be either operative, as above, or receptive, as below:

Clearly, the clause with the imagined that (this proves that my point) — which presumably means 'this proves that to be my point' — is not equivalent in meaning or wording to the actual clause without it (this proves my point).