Reconstruing Biological Evolution Through The Interpersonal Metafunction

variation = chance (Jacques Monod) = probability = modalisation

selection = necessity (Jacques Monod) = obligation = modulation

Reconstruing Determinism Through Metalanguage

The notion of determinism conflates two angles: one ideational, one interpersonal. 

Ideationally, determinism can be seen to involve the logical relation of cause; interpersonally, it can be seen to involve modality. 

For propositions about cause, the congruent modality is modalisation: usuality and probability. 

Statements of cause and effect are concerned with usuality and probability, as demonstrated by quantum physics and non-linear systems. 

Interpretations of determinism couched in terms of obligation (eg necessity) are therefore incongruent.

Reconstruing The Laws Of Physics Through Metalanguage

Ideationally, the 'Laws of Physics' are construals of experience. 

Interpersonally, they are propositions, not proposals; they are statements not commands. 

So, the congruent modality for them is modalisation not modulation; 

that is, usuality and probability, not obligation and inclination. 

So, contrary to the usual wording of physicists, 

the Universe does not obey the 'Laws of Physics'. 

The 'Laws of Physics' are probabilistic statements about the Universe.

Adjuncts: Circumstantial vs Modal vs Conjunctive

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 123):

An Adjunct is an element that has not got the potential of being Subject; that is, it cannot be elevated to the interpersonal status of modal responsibility. This means that arguments cannot be constructed around those elements that serve as Adjuncts; in experiential terms, they cannot be constructed around circumstances, but they can be constructed around participants, either actually, as Subject, or potentially, as Complement … .

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 132-3):

The two types of Adjuncts are also similar both in their own composition (as adverbial groups and prepositional phrases) and in how they may be differentiated from circumstantial Adjuncts. Whereas circumstantial Adjuncts fall most naturally at the end of the clause, where they carry the unmarked tonic (intonational) prominence, modal and conjunctive Adjuncts occur finally only as Afterthought and can never carry the only tonic prominence in the clause. … And while they all can occur thematically, only the circumstantial Adjuncts can normally occur as predicated Theme …

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 133):

What is common to the modal and conjunctive Adjuncts, as distinct from the circumstantials, is that they are both constructing a context for the clause. Thus even though the same semantic feature may be involved, for example time, it has a different significance in each case. A modal Adjunct of time, such as just, yet, already, relates closely to the primary tense, which is the ‘shared time’ of speaker and listener; a conjunctive Adjunct of time, such as next, meanwhile, locates the clause in time with respect to the preceding textual environment; and both are different from time as circumstance, such as in the afternoon. And the same item may function sometimes circumstantially and sometimes conjunctively; for example, then, at that moment, later on, again.

Why Intensive Attributes Are Complements

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 122-3):

A Complement is an element within the Residue that has the potential of being Subject but is not; in other words, it is an element that has the potential for being given the interpersonally elevated status of modal responsibility — something that can be the nub of the argument. It is typically realised by a nominal group. … Any nominal group not functioning as Subject will be a Complement; and this includes nominal groups of one type which could not function as Subject as they stand, namely those with adjective as Head … There is an explanation of this ‘from above’ in terms of function in transitivity: nominal groups with adjective as Head can function in the clause only as Attributes, and the Attribute cannot be mapped onto the interpersonal rôle of Subject. This is because only participants in the clause can take modal responsibility, and the Attribute is only marginally, if at all, a participant.

That is, the reason that a Complement that is an Attribute cannot be raised to Subject is experiential, not interpersonal.

Reconstruing Platonic Forms Through Metalanguage

Viewed through the lens of SFL theory, (non-material abstract) Platonic Forms (or ideas) correspond to the system pole on the cline of instantiation. 

That is, the Forms are the (categorial) potential of which perceived material phenomena are actual instances; the Forms are the types of which perceived material phenomena are the tokens.

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)