Reconstruing Cosmogenesis Through Metalanguage

The grammar construes material processes as 

• either creative or transformative, and 
• either doing (transitive) or happening (intransitive).

Models of the creation of the universe construe it as either a doing or happening.

Mythological models construe the creation as 'other-engendered': a doing in which the universe is the Goal/Medium of the process and a supernatural being is the Actor/Agent.

God	created	the Universe
Actor	Process: material: creative	Goal
Agent		Medium

Scientific models construe the creation as 'self-engendered': a happening in which the universe is the Actor/Medium of a process that has neither Goal nor Agent.

the Universe	emerged
Actor	Process: material: creative
Medium

Reconstruing 'Solving An Equation' As 'Elaborating An Identifying Clause'

A mathematical equation is an identifying clause with the function structure:

• Identified^Process^Identifier

Solving the equation involves elaborating the same relation until the unknown Token conflates with the Identified and its mathematical Value conflates with the Identifier, giving the function structure of a decoding identifying clause:

• Identified/Token^Process^Identifier/Value

In a decoding clause such as this, the identity decodes the Token by reference to the Value.

Classifier Vs Epithet: Reflections In The Grammar

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 320):

Classifiers do not accept degrees of comparison or intensity … and they tend to be organised in mutually exclusive and exhaustive sets …

For example, in the nominal group a stone wall, the noun stone can only function as Classifier, and not as Epithet, since if it functioned as Epithet, it would make sense to say: a very stone wall and a more stone wall than the previous one.

Process Type Quiz: Test Your Transitivity Knowledge

Clauses:

Sayers project wordings.

Sensers project meanings.

The identity encodes a value by reference to a token.

The identity decodes a token by reference to a value.

Hypotactic Verbal Group Complexes: causatives and expansion type

1. verbal group complex: help to resist

expansion type: extending (a + b)

category: conation: reussive

See clause example here.

2. verbal group complex: make cherish

expansion type: enhancing (a x b)

category: agency

See clause example here.

See Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 509-14).

Sample Theme Analysis: Marked Theme Fronted Beyond Dependent Clause

Clause Complex:

Facing you <<as you leave 10 and 11>> are the figures of giant man-headed bulls, 6 , from an 8th-century BC Assyrian palace.

Analysis:

Facing you: Theme: marked (Location)

are the figures of giant man-headed bulls, 6, from an 8th-century BC Assyrian palace: Rheme

Click here for a transitivity analysis.

How To Distinguish Non-Defining From Defining Relative Clauses — From Roundabout

A defining (embedded) relative clause cannot typically be fronted (as Theme), since it functions as the Qualifier in a nominal group realising a direct or indirect participant.

A non-defining (ranking) relative clause can be fronted (in the clause nexus), as in:

Founded in 1690 by Prince Constantine Brancoveanu, the monastery of Horezu is a masterpiece of the ‘Brancovenesti’ style.*

Built by King Philip, the Royal Monastery of San Lorenzo El Real is a must-see of Madrid.°

See the discussion of these fronted non-finite hypotactic elaborating attributive clauses in Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 404).

* analysis requested by Claudia Stoian on Sysfling, April 2012 (see here)

° analysis requested by Claudia Stoian on Sysfling, October 2012

How To Distinguish Non-Defining From Defining Relative Clauses — From Below

In terms of how they are typically realised phonologically:

• a non-defining (ranking) relative clause and the clause it hypotactically elaborates are each 'realised by a tone group, and each tone group selects the same tone' (Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 396), whereas

• a defining (embedded) relative clause does not 'form a separate tone group' (op cit: 429).

Sample Identifying Clause Analysis

Clause:

Adiposity and low aerobic fitness in children are associated with a clustering of cardiovascular risk factors.

Analysis:

Adiposity and low aerobic fitness in children: Token

are associated with: Process: relational: intensive

a clustering of cardiovascular risk factors: Value

Reasoning:

Viewed from 'round about', this clause is the receptive agnate of the clause:

People associate adiposity and low aerobic fitness in children with a clustering of cardiovascular risk factors

where people functions as Assigner/Agent.

If ASSIGNMENT is only an option for relational clauses of the intensive kind (Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 237), then the process is intensive, not circumstantial.

Viewed 'from above', association is a type of extension in figures of being-&-having (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 145-6), so this is an instance of extension (meaning) being realised as elaboration (wording). (The meaning of extension is here lexicalised rather than grammaticalised.)

The Claim ‘All Strata Make Meaning’

‘All Strata Make Meaning’

all strata = Actor

make = Process: material (abstract): creative

meaning = Goal: outcome

This construes ‘meaning’ and ‘all strata’ as distinct participants in an abstract material process. That is, all strata act and meaning is the outcome.

It does not assign meaning to all strata.

See also http://thoughts-that-cross-my-mind.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/david-rose-on-stratification.html

and http://thoughts-that-cross-my-mind.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/david-rose-on-stratification_22.html

Sample Nominal Group Analysis

a	kind	of	giant	mutated	axolotl
extended Numerative: type: variety			Epithet	Classifier	Thing
Deitic	Thing

See Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 333-4)

Logical Analysis Of (Stylistically) Incongruent Wording Of A Sequence

Sequence Realised By Clause Complex:

Destroy it and man is destroyed.

Bi-Stratal Logical Analysis:

enhancement: condition (meaning) 

incongruently realised as 

extension: addition (wording),

entailing a metaphor of mood:

conditional proposition (meaning) 

incongruently realised as 

imperative (wording).

Sample Logical Relations Analysis

Founded in 1690 by Prince Constantine Brancoveanu, the monastery of Horezu is a masterpiece of the 'Brancovenesti' style.

Founded in 1690 by Prince Constantine Brancoveanu: = beta

the monastery of Horezu is a masterpiece of the 'Brancovenesti' style: alpha

ie The elaborating dependent clause is a non-defining relative clause with Mood element ellipsis, fronted for Thematic purposes.

—

Only one person on Sysfling got this one right:

Thomas Bloor wrote:

Sorry this is two days late and people have moved on to other interesting data, but I think it’s important to add that ‘Founded in 1690 by Prince Constantine Brancoveanu’ is non-defining. This makes it a dependent, as opposed to an embedded clause, so not rankshifted into the nominal group that it precedes. So yes, relative, and yes fronted, if that isn’t too Chomskyan, but not rankshifted.. If written, it would be set off with commas and if spoken by appropriate intonation, exactly like a full non-defining clause. I believe this means it is not a Modifier/Qualifier. I’m not proposing this as the only possible analysis – circumstantials spring to mind. As David says, co-text matters.

Instance [Defined]

An instance is a representative sample, a specimen.

An instance of a linguistic system is a representative sample of that linguistic system, a specimen of that linguistic system.

The contrast between ‘operative’ and ‘receptive’ is a contrast in voice open to ‘transitive’ clauses

(1) How Operative & Receptive Clauses Differ

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 182):

The clauses are the same experientially; they both represent a configuration of Actor + Process + Goal. But they differ in how these rôles are mapped onto the interpersonal functions in the modal structure of the clause. In the ‘operative’ variant, the Actor is mapped on to the Subject, so it is given modal responsibility and in the ‘unmarked’ case (in a ‘declarative’ clause) it is also the Theme; and the Goal is mapped on to the Complement, so in the ‘unmarked’ case it falls within the Rheme. However, in the ‘receptive’ variant, it is the Goal that is mapped onto the Subject, so it is assigned modal responsibility and it is also the Theme in the ‘unmarked’ case; and the Actor has the status of an Adjunct within the Rheme of the clause and, as an Adjunct, it may be left out …

(2) Purpose Of Choosing Receptive

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 232):

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).

Sample Circumstance Analysis

Clause:

… to protect them from pests like snails caterpillars, rats and insects

Analysis:

Viewed 'from above', this is a circumstance of Contingency: condition.

It functions like:

to protect them in the event of pests like snails caterpillars, rats and insects

Sample Verbal Group Complex Analyses

(1) I want to buy him a present

want | to buy: a ' b

(i.e. projection)

(2) I want to try to convince him to come

want | to try | to convince: a ' b + c

(i.e. projection and extension)

Sample Theme Analysis

Clause:

One year [[after they got married]] they found his socks and car keys.

Analysis:

Marked Theme: circumstance of temporal Location realised by a nominal group with an embedded clause as Qualifier.

Note: The reason one year after is not a conjunction group, with one year as a Premodifier of after is as follows:

(1) conjunctions form a word class within the primary word class of adverbials [Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 358];

(2) Premodifiers in adverbial groups are grammatical items — there is no lexical premodification in the adverbial group [op cit: 356];

(3) items serving as Premodifiers in adverbial groups are adverbs of polarity, comparison or intensification [ibid];

(4) all the examples given of Premodifiers in conjunction groups are grammatical items (even, just, not, only), not lexical items [op cit: 358].

Consider, for example, the inutility of analysing the following as a conjunction group:

Thirteen excruciating mind-numbing minutes after (he began speaking) …

Sensing Proportionalities

perceiving is to emoting as

thinking is to desiring

and

emoting is to desiring as

perceiving is to thinking