Representing experience - A Systemic Functional Introduction - Analysing English Grammar

Analysing English Grammar: A Systemic Functional Introduction (2012)

Chapter 4: Representing experience

4.1 Introduction

Functional approaches to language seek to reveal more than structural grammar, they try to tell us something about meaning. One kind of meaning that can be revealed is how speakers represent their experience. This meaning is the focus of this chapter.

The previous three chapters have laid the foundation for our exploration into the functions of English grammar. The first chapter provided a useful overview of the relation between function and structure and introduced the functional–structural view of language. It also provided a brief overview of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL). In Chapter 2 more detail was given about the distinction between structure and function and the way in which this will be handled in this book. In doing so Chapter 2 presented a general view of the clause, and this chapter will pick up from this point and provide the first detailed view of the clause. Chapter 3 focused exclusively on a particular part of the grammar: the grammar of things and the structure of the nominal group. In this chapter the focus returns to the clause.

4.1.1 Goals (and limitations) of this chapter

This chapter deals specifically with the problems of analysing experiential meaning in the clause, and so we will take a close look at the ways in which entities participate in the situation.

The view of the clause in SFL is that it represents multiple meanings or functions at the same time. Consequently we need to take a multifunctional view when analysing grammar. As already stated in Chapter 1, this book will only consider the three main functions (or metafunctions): experiential, interpersonal and textual.

The prism was introduced in Chapter 1 as a useful metaphor for how we can look at the clause. As there are three primary colours which make up light, there are three primary metafunctions which contribute to the functions of the clause. Each of these was presented briefly in Chapter 1, and this chapter along with Chapters 5 and 6 will cover each strand in detail. The focus in this chapter is on the experiential strand of meaning.

It is important to note that while there are other meanings, there simply isn’t enough space here to cover everything. Furthermore, as there are many existing books which present each metafunction in great detail, the discussion of the metafunctions will be relatively sparse in favour of presenting the functional–structural view, showing how the functions and structures relate, since this is an area that often provides the greatest challenge in analysing the clause.

The goal of this chapter is to introduce the main meanings related to the experiential metafunction and to show how the functions relate to the expressions which realize them. The range of meanings expressed in this metafunction will be covered. The chapter also presents strategies for confidently analysing the functions.

4.2 Analysing experiential meaning

In order to illustrate the main functional strands of meaning and why we might be interested in analysing these functions, we will look at two brief excerpts from a study carried out on behalf of Air Canada, an airline company. Communication is vitally important to many companies and organizations but it is especially critical when safety is involved. Air-travel safety briefings are a particular area of importance because it is essential that, in the event of an emergency, all passengers respond quickly and appropriately to ensure the safety of everyone on the plane. Many airline companies realize that they are responsible for passenger safety and, since communication is the only way they have of transferring safety practice to passengers, the texts used in safety briefings will be of interest and importance to experts in language and communication. The text excerpts in this chapter and many of the examples considered were taken from a report written for Air Canada (Barkow and Rutenberg, 2002). The objective of the report was ‘to enhance the effectiveness of aircraft cabin safety briefings and to recommend improved communication practices to ensure that the briefings are easily understood by all passengers, including those with sensory or cognitive impairments’ (Barkow and Rutenberg, 2002: 1). Two excerpts describe the procedure for a high-altitude emergency for particular audiences. Text 4.1 is the safety briefing for the general public and Text 4.2 covers the same content but addresses individual passengers who are blind or who have impaired vision.


Text 4.1 Audio and caption script for high altitude emergencies for the general public

In a high altitude emergency, an oxygen mask will drop in front of you from the panel above. Place the mask over your mouth and nose, straighten out the strap, and pull the strap to be sure it is tight on your face. After you are wearing it securely, a tug on the hose will start the oxygen flow. It makes sense to put your own mask on first, before helping others.



Text 4.2 Individual audio script high altitude emergencies for passengers with visual impairment

During the flight, if the cabin pressure plunges an oxygen mask will drop in front of you from the panel over your head; it will be at your head height and within easy reach. I can’t demonstrate how that works but it will be easy for you to locate the dangling mask. Please take the mask that I am now holding in front of you, place the nose part over your nose and also cover your mouth; pull the rubber strap behind your head and make sure it fits snugly all around. But the oxygen flow will not start until you give the hose a tug. If you are trying to help another passenger, please put your own mask on first, just as they should do if they were helping you.


What might we want to know about these texts? For any safety briefing we may want to ensure that every passenger knows what he or she must actually do in certain circumstances. The text must clearly state who must do something (e.g. press an alarm button, open a window), what must have something done to it (e.g. glass must be smashed, door must be opened) and if relevant it should also include other important information such as how something should be done or where something must be done. Of course safety briefings should not include any information that isn’t completely relevant either (e.g. how friendly the pilot is or isn’t). In addition to wanting to know whether the safety briefings are clear and direct, we might also be interested in how essentially the same information is conveyed to all passengers as a group, compared to how it is conveyed to specific individuals as is the case in Text 4.1 and Text 4.2.

This kind of meaning refers to the content of the text; in other words who is involved, the processes they are involved in, and other information about how, when and where this involvement takes place. We described this in Chapter 1 as the experiential strand of meaning. This metafunction expresses the content of what is being said. Halliday explains it as ‘language as the expression of the processes and other phenomena of the external world including thoughts, feelings, and so on’ (Halliday, 1978: 48). Experiential meaning is expressed in the clause by a configuration of elements which represent the speaker’s experience. These are the processes, participating entities and any accompanying circumstances.

In Chapter 2, a very general description of the clause was given in terms of process and associated participating entities. This was only an introductory presentation of the clause as it is far too general to have any descriptive power. In that description, the main verb was seen as the key item in beginning the analysis. This is because it expresses the event – that is, the means of involvement, such as eating, driving or running. What we have said so far is that we need to be able to identify the main verb since it is the main verb that contributes most to determining the process for any given situation (or clause). The process then determines what the participants are (see the process test presented in Chapter 2). What is being described here is the system of transitivity. In other words, the available choices or options with respect to processes in terms of the representation of experience (experiential meaning) are organized in a system, and this system is called the transitivity system.

4.2.1 The grammar of processes and participants

Transitivity has special meaning in SFL. It is a very important concept, often working as the foundation for any analysis within a SFG framework; that is, from the analysis perspective, it is through the transitivity of a clause that the full analysis is derived. Although many textbooks teaching SFL analysis do not begin with the analysis of experiential structure, they all recognize the strong simultaneity in the relationship amongst the three strands of meaning. Halliday and Matthiessen (2004) begin the analysis of the clause through the textual metafunction, and yet the identification of Theme is determined by locating the first part of the clause to have some kind of experiential function (Halliday and Matthiessen, 2004: 66). This of course cannot be done until an understanding of experiential meaning is gained. The position taken in this book is that transitivity is central to any analysis of the clause.

Traditionally, transitivity is a concept that is associated with the verb; in other words, a verb is either transitive or intransitive (or copular). However, the distinction is always based on the presence or absence of the various roles involving objects: direct object, indirect object, no object and even whether one of these can occur as subject. What this shows is that the relation of transitivity concerns the distribution of objects, whether this means arguments, objects or participants, rather than the status of the verb. These two views of transitivity are really two sides of the same coin.

In traditional syntax, transitivity is determined by the number of arguments that a verb has. Halliday does base his view of transitivity on verbs but he extends it beyond that to include the participants: ‘transitivity is the grammar of processes . . . and the participants in these processes, and the attendant circumstances’ (1976: 30). In developing his theory of language, Halliday broadened the traditional notion of transitivity to shift the focus away from solely being placed on the verb. For Halliday, transitivity is instead a notion to be applied to the entire clause, extending beyond verbs and objects and even arguments, given that he also includes circumstances.

Halliday has been clear in his writing that his use of transitivity is a generalization of its traditional uses in grammatical description. He extends transitivity to refer generally to that which ‘defines some of the roles which nominal elements may occupy’ (Halliday, 2005: 61). It is really from this that we begin to understand that transitivity is about relating participating entities in the clause.

In the two texts given above, it is easy to see that each one is explaining what the passenger must do under certain conditions. For example, a passenger may have to place a face mask over his or her nose and mouth and pull on the strap of the mask. In both texts, the passenger (who is also the addressee) is represented as an active participant – that is, as someone doing something. In these cases, there is often a second participant such as the face mask or the strap, which is not represented functionally as doing something but rather as having something done to it. These activity-based processes are referred to as material processes. This type of process covers the range of processes that express activities of doing, happening, changing and creating. In the two texts above, the following verbs are expressing material processes: drop, place, straighten, pull, start, put, plunge, demonstrate, take, cover, give, help. The two main participating entities in material processes have the functions of Actor, the one doing the activity, and Goal, the one impacted upon or affected by the activity. This is illustrated in example (1) with the process take, where the Actor is not explicitly expressed but is understood as the addressee (you, which is the passenger in this case) and the Goal is expressed by the expression the mask that I am now holding in front of you.In addition to the two main participants in material processes, there are two other types of participant which can also be inherently involved in the process. These are Beneficiary and Scope. Beneficiary, like Goal, is a participant that is impacted upon by the process, but in this case it is because the participant benefits from the process or is a recipient in the process. Beneficiary typically occurs with verbs such as give, send, buy, and so forth.

(1) Take the mask that I am now holding in front of you

Scope on the surface is easily confused with Goal. Both can be recognized in traditional grammar as direct objects but functionally they differ considerably. Part of the meaning of Goal is that something was done to it. In contrast, Scope is not affected by the processes but rather it indicates ‘the domain over which the process takes place’ (Halliday and Matthiessen, 2004: 192). For example, if we were to compare the clauses given in (2) and (3), which are invented for illustration, we’d see that the participant your violin does not express the function of Goal in both cases.Although both clauses express material processes and the first participant in each case is Actor (expressed by he), only example (2) expresses a Goal whereas example (3) expresses a Scope. We can use the information given above as a probe to test whether or not your violin is a Goal or not (more such probes or tests will be given in section 4.3.2). For a participant to have the function of Goal, it will answer the question ‘what happened to it?’ If we try this with your violin, we get ‘what happened to your violin?’, and the answer for example (2) will be ‘he cleaned it, that’s what happened to it’. With example (3), it would be ‘he played it, that’s what happened to it’. Under normal circumstances, playing an instrument is not something that happens to it; the object is not impacted upon by the process of playing. Of course if someone found their guitar smashed to pieces and the owner asked ‘what happened to my guitar?’, then perhaps someone might answer ‘Pete Townshend played it, that’s what happened to it!’. However, in this context, my guitar would be expressing the function of Goal as it would be clearly impacted upon by the process of Pete Townshend’s playing. In example (3), your violin expresses the function of Scope because it serves to indicate the range or domain of the process of playing rather than indicating the participating entity which is affected by the process.

(2) He cleaned your violin

(3) He played your violin

Material processes only represent part of the picture of our experience. In addition to this rather external experience, we also experience the world internally through our senses. As a kind of complement to the active material processes, the sensory-based processes involve the neuro-cognitive system and include processes of knowing, seeing, hearing, and thinking. The label given to this range of processes is mental process. The participating entities involved in these processes express different functions to those involved in material processes. These participants are not actively doing something; they are sensing something (whether through cognition, perception or emotion, for example). The participant that is represented as having the function of sensing is called Senser and the participant that is represented as being sensed is called Phenomenon. Examples of this type of process are given in examples (4) and (5) as expressed by the verbs recall and know. These two examples are taken from the extract given in Text 4.3, which comes from the same Air Canada report (Barkow and Rutenberg, 2002) as Texts 4.1 and 4.2.In each case above, the passengers (participants and they) are represented in the role of Senser. This section of the text is commenting on passengers’ ability to understand the safety briefing on the airplane. They are not actively doing something in this representation as they were in Texts 4.1 and 4.2. Similarly the things they are recalling and knowing (or not knowing) are not impacted upon by the process as is the case in material processes; they are rather Phenomena to be experienced or sensed. In terms of the experiential function of the clause, then, examples (4) and (5) can be described as expressing a configuration of Senser – mental process – Phenomenon.

(4) Participants may recall being told not to use electronic devices until after take-off

(5) They may not know whether that includes their wristwatch, heart-rate monitor, pacemaker, hearing aid, and/or their personal-digital-assistant microcomputer


Text 4.3 Excerpt from Air Canada Report (Barkow and Rutenberg, 2002: 1)

This is not, however, a sufficient demonstration of either full comprehension or the likelihood of effective life-preserving behaviour at a much later point in time. For example, participants may recall being told not to use electronic devices until after take-off. But they may not know whether that includes their wristwatch, heart-rate monitor, pacemaker, hearing aid, and/or their personal-digital-assistant microcomputer. They may recall that they should blow into some tubes if their life jacket fails to respond to the pulled tabs, but not be sure where to find those tubes.


Material and mental processes capture two of the three main types of process. The third main process type differs considerably from these two in the sense that, rather than relating the participants through external or internal processes, relational processes relate two participating entities in a more abstract way. The prototypical verb for relational processes is the verb be. Examples of this type of process are given in (6) and (7), taken from Texts 4.2 and 4.3 respectively.The process represented here is one of relating; two participants are related with respect to each other. In (6), it (i.e. the oxygen mask) is being represented in terms of a particular location (at your head height). In this example the second Participant is very close to having a circumstance function since it specifies where a participant is (see section 4.2.2 below). However, the distinction between a participant and a circumstance relates to the degree of attachment it has to the process: participants are inherent to the process because they fulfil an expectation (i.e. they need to be involved); circumstances are attendant to the process but are optional rather than required (see section 4.2.2 below). The specific function of the participants involved in relational processes depends on the type of relational process being expressed. Relational processes will tend to be one of two types: Attributive or Identifying.

(6) It will be at your head height

(7) This is not, however, a sufficient demonstration of either full comprehension or the likelihood of effective life-preserving behaviour at a much later point in time

Attributive processes attribute some kind of quality to a participating entity. Attributive processes involve two participants. One participant is functioning as Carrier; this is the participant that ‘carries’ the attribute (quality), as shown in the invented examples (8) and (9), where the snow and my neighbour express the function of Carrier. The participant which expresses the attribute or quality is called the Attribute. This is shown in examples (8) and (9) respectively as beautiful and a nice person. In both cases, a relation is set up between the two participating entities.Identifying processes are very similar to Attributive processes in that a relation is set up between two entities, but in the case of Identifying processes the relation is that of assigning an identity rather than attributing a quality. Examples of these are given in (10) and (11), where one participating entity is identified in relation to the other one.In each of these types of process, one participant will be being identified by the other, so the one being identified is called Identified and the one which is identifying is called Identifier. In (10), Lise Fontaine identifies who my lecturer is and therefore it is expressing the function of Identifier, whereas my lecturer is being identified so it is expressing the function of Identified. The same is true for example (11), where your cousin expresses Identified and my neighbourexpresses Identifier. The main way to distinguish between Attributive and Identifying processes is that, with an Identifying process, the two participants can be interchanged without reducing the acceptability of the clause, whereas this is not the case with Attributive clause. For example, my neighbour is your cousin is just as acceptable as your cousin is my neighbour whereas *a nice person is my neighbour is not.

(8) The snow is beautiful

(9) My neighbour is a nice person

(10) My lecturer is Lise Fontaine

(11) Your cousin is my neighbour

The three process types described above represent the three main ways in which speakers categorize their experience. This is illustrated in Figure 4.1 and Table 4.1, which attempt to show that this description does not represent discrete categories but ones which merge into each other. As with all categorization, some examples are more representative of a category than others and there are instances where it can be difficult to know whether the speaker intended one representation over another. In addition, some clauses express processes which are difficult to label definitively as material or mental, for example.

Figure 4.1

Figure 4.1 Three main processes in the representation of experience

(adapted from Halliday, 1994)

Table 4.1: Summary of Halliday’s process types and participant roles (adapted from Halliday and Matthiessen, 2004: 260), participants underscored


Process

General meaning

Participants

Canonical example

Material

doing, happening

Actor, Goal, Beneficiary, Scope

John[Actor] hit the ball[Goal] John[Actor] gave the ball[Goal] to Jane[Beneficiary] John[Actor] climbed the mountain[Scope]

Mental

sensing, seeing, thinking, wanting, feeling

Senser, Phenomenon

John[Senser] likes Jane[Phenomenon]

Relational

being

Attributive

attributing

Carrier, Attribute

John[Carrier] is nice[Attribute]

Identifying

identifying

Identifier, Identified

John[Identified] is the lawyer[Identifier]

Behavioural

behaving

Behaver

John[Behaver] is laughing

Verbal

saying

Sayer, Receiver, Verbiage

John[Sayer] told me[Receiver] a story[Verbiage]

Existential

existing

Existent

There was a tree[Existent] near the bench


The degree of detail in representing experience can be refined by considering three additional categories of experiential representation. As Halliday explains, ‘we also find further categories located at the three boundaries; not so clearly set apart, but nevertheless recognizable in the grammar as intermediate between the different pairs – sharing some feature of each, and thus acquiring a character of their own’ (1994: 107). As shown in Figure 4.2, these additional processes found at the boundaries overlap with the three main process types and they include the more minor processes of verbal, behavioural and existential processes.

Figure 4.2

Figure 4.2 The standard six process types in the representation of experience

(adapted from Halliday, 1994)

Between material processes and mental processes we find a category called behavioural processes, which ‘represent outer manifestations of inner workings, the acting out of processes of consciousness and physiological states’ (Halliday, 1994: 107). The participant in this type of process cannot be clearly identified as either Actor or Senser and is instead represented as Behaver – as something in between the two. Examples of verbs expressing behavioural processes include breathe, cry, laugh, stare, yawn, frown, smile and chat. In these cases, the speaker is representing experience as a kind of combination of material and mental processes since the participant involved is displaying a manifestation of a neurological or cognitive experience. In an example such as the man is crying it is difficult to see the participant (i.e. the man) as an Actor, as one who is actively doing something. At the same time, this participant is not truly a Senser. The behaviour, which can be thought of as one type of external activity, is the result of something experienced internally.

Verbal processes are seen as covering the border between mental and relational processes. Halliday describes these as ‘symbolic relationships constructed in human consciousness and enacted in the form of language, like saying and meaning’ (1994: 107). This type of process involves representations of saying and the main participant is that of Sayer, the entity which produces the utterance or message. The utterance or what was said is called Verbiage. Often there is also a participant who receives what was said and this is called Receiver. In the invented example shown in (12), the Sayer is expressed by he, the Verbiage is expressed by the answer and the Receiver is expressed by me.Finally, existential processes fall between material and relational processes. They are called existential processes because they are concerned with existence. These processes involve only one participant, called Existent, and they have a particular clause structure. In these clauses the Subject is there and the verb is typically be, as is shown in example (13). In this invented example, the only participant is a snow storm, which expresses the Existent.These six types of process provide a model of experience and they categorize the range of experience that can be represented. Although each one has been discussed here in linear order, there is no such order to them. Halliday (1994: 107) describes them as a circular continuum. Figures 4.1 and 4.2 attempt to illustrate this continuum, and they are adapted from the diagram given by Halliday (for example, 1994: 108). What the metaphor is trying to show is that there is overlap amongst the various categories, and within any given category there will be some processes that are more prototypical of the category than others. The distinction among these types of process is related to the type of meaning each represents as well as the associated role of the potential participants for that particular type of process. More often than not, it is the function of the participants that determines the type of process. In section 4.3, some tests for identifying processes and labelling participants are discussed.

(12) He told me the answer

(13) There was a snow storm last night

A summary of the six process types is given in Table 4.1, where each process type is listed along with its respective participants. Now that we have completed the overview of the process types and their inherent participants, the next section will cover the range of meanings expressed by circumstances.

4.2.2 The grammar of descriptions: circumstances and relevant structures

The process and participants represented in the clause reveal only part of the picture with respect to experiential meaning. As stated above, this strand of meaning covers the range of meanings available to the speaker in representing his or her experience of the world, including processes, participants and circumstances. According to Thompson (2004: 109) circumstances ‘encode the background against which the process takes place’. In this sense, they describe the process or situation in some way. This may be related to where the process is taking place, how it is taking place or why it is taking place. There is no expectation involved between the process and any circumstances as there is for participants. Any situation can include additional meaning in the form of an attendant circumstance. This means that circumstances are not part of the core of the clause and they tend to be seen as peripheral elements. In a way, we have already been implicitly working this way because the process test focuses on the process and the expected participants and does not include any circumstances. With the process test, we identify the core elements of the clause and in addition there may be one or more circumstantial elements. Seen this way, circumstances are considered optional elements of the clause even though they may express very important or critical information. For example, when we receive a bill, the statement will tell us what we have to pay. In a process of paying, we expect someone to be paying something to someone but most of us will also want to know exactly when the bill must be paid and we may also want to know where the bill can be paid: e.g. You must pay us £100 by 1 March 2011. So although by 1 March 2011 is not a core element in the sense of being expected by the process pay, it is very important information to those involved in the situation. In this case, by 1 March 2011 indicates when you must pay £100. This is seen as having the function of Location with respect to time since it specifies a location in time for the process (i.e. when). If the clause had also included information about where the bill can be paid, this would have also been seen as having the function of Location, but this would be a location with respect to place since it specifies a location in space (i.e. where).

In standard SFL, there are nine main categories of circumstance. These are listed in Table 4.2, where each type is illustrated with examples. However, as Thompson (2004: 109) points out, there is a very wide range of meanings which can be expressed as a circumstance. Therefore it is entirely possible that a text will contain circumstances that do not fit one of the nine categories given in Table 4.2. However, the vast majority of cases will fit within the standard categories, which extends to twenty-two categories if the sub-types are counted.

Table 4.2: The nine basic types of circumstantial elements (adapted from Halliday and Matthiessen, 2004: 262)


Type

Sub-type

Question answered

Example

Extent

distance

How far?

He ran three miles

duration

How long?

He ran for three days

frequency

How frequently?

He ran every day

Location

place

Where?

He ran in Toronto

time

When?

He ran last year

Manner

means

By what means?

He saved her with a rope

quality

How?

She saved him quickly

comparison

Like what?

She ran like the wind

degree

How much?

She loved him more than anyone

Cause

reason

Why?

She ran because she loved to

purpose

For what purpose?

She ran to raise money

behalf

On whose behalf?

She ran for her sister

Contingency

condition

Under what conditions?

In the event of fire leave the building

default

Under what negative conditions?

Without an agreement, the plan will fail

concession

With what concessions?

Despite her help, the plan failed.

Accompaniment

comitative

Who/what with?

John ran with Jane

additive

Who/what else?

John wears mittens in addition to his gloves

Role

guise

What as?

She spoke as his mentor

product

What into?

He was transformed into a prince

Matter

matter

What about?

He warned me about the film

Angle

source

According to whom?

According to the lecturer, the class is cancelled

viewpoint

From whose viewpoint/perspective?

To me, he’s an idiot.


This presentation of circumstances has been very brief, but several of the main issues surrounding analysing participants and circumstances are covered in the next section and specifically in section 4.3.3. Table 4.2 will be a useful reference to have handy for the discussions. Towards the end of this chapter, section 4.4 presents a new structure which is needed for the analysis of circumstances. It also works through the analysis of Text 4.1 by providing step-by-step guidelines for analysing experiential meaning.

4.3 Tests for analysing processes, participants and circumstances

The difficulty in analysing English grammar is that it will sometimes be unclear what functions are being represented by the speaker. The model of experience described above is meant to cover the range of meanings that the speaker is able to capture with his or her language use. Although some categories are easier to identify and label than others, there is no one-to-one correlation between a particular verb and a particular process. Even the verb be does not uniquely identify a particular process type; however, it does reduce the option to either a relational process (e.g. The weather is beautiful) or an existential process (e.g. There was no answer). Furthermore, some verbs can be used to express a variety of process types, for example go, which could express a material (e.g. he went home), relational (e.g. the problem goes back to last summer) or verbal process (e.g., in informal speech, then he goes ‘you can’t have any’). This section offers some ways in which tests can be used to help identify the functional elements of the experiential strand of meaning.

4.3.1 Processes

There are two main difficulties in analysing processes. One relates to the semantics of a given verb, which often happens with verbs that have a wide semantic distribution or when a verb is not a typical example of a particular category. The other involves the way in which lexical verbs combine in English, which makes it difficult at times to know which verb is expressing the event (and therefore the process).

4.3.1.1 Verb semantics

In cases where the clause has only one verb or clearly only one lexical verb then identifying the process in a general sense is relatively straightforward. In example (14), from Text 4.1, there are only two verbs. The first is a modal auxiliary verb and the second is a lexical verb.Although a detailed account of the verb group will be given in Chapter 5, we can still be confident that the process is expressed by the verb drop. The process test can be used here to determine the number of participants seen as inherently involved in this process. The most standard use of drop is that of something dropping something. This is where we encounter our first difficulty in working out the specific process type. The problem is that this use of drop does not fit this paradigm because in this case an oxygen mask is not actually dropping anything. However, it is what is dropping, even though the something that is causing it to drop is not specified. In this sense it is almost as if an oxygen mask were simultaneously represented as both Actor and Goal. Halliday and Matthiessen (2004) discuss these types of material processes in detail and argue that, in addition to the transitive analysis we have been discussing, a perspective that is ergative (demonstrates a grammatical pattern where the subject of the clause behaves like the object) is needed to account for these types of clauses. However, for our purposes here we will simply consider that an oxygen mask is Goal, since it is affected by the process and since it can be paired with a transitive clause such as something will drop an oxygen mask in front of you from the panel above. Section 4.7 details references for further reading on this topic.

(14) In a high altitude emergency, an oxygen mask will drop in front of you from the panel above.

In example (15), also from Text 4.1, the main lexical verb is make. As will be shown in Chapter 5, the verbs put and help are not candidates for the main verb of the clause because they are non-finite verb forms. For the current purposes, we can think of them as being without any tense.The verb make is one that has a wide range of meanings and uses. If we apply the process test, we may end up with: in a process of making, we expect someone to be making something. This sense of make suggests a material process, since it would involve someone actively doing something. However, when we consider the meanings expressed in example (15) it becomes clear that this clause is not expressing an active process; in other words, sense is not being made. This alone does not mean that the process expressed is not material. It is often the case that certain process types can be excluded almost immediately simply because it is clear that they are not being expressed by the clause in question. Example (15) is not expressing an existential process, nor is it behavioural or verbal. This leaves us to work out whether the process is material, mental or relational.

(15) It makes sense to put your own mask on first before helping others.

There is one grammatical feature which tends to discriminate between material and mental processes and this is the use of the present progressive (present continuous or, as Halliday [Halliday and Matthiessen, 2004: 346] refers to it, ‘present-in-present’). Material processes tend to prefer the present progressive form rather than the simple present, whereas mental processes and some relational processes often seem unacceptable in the present progressive form. If we use this information to test the clause in example (15), we will find the following results.Sometimes the clause can sound odd when re-expressed like this so it might be a good idea to reduce it. In this case we could reasonably reduce the clause to: it makes sense, which clearly can be expressed in the present progressive (i.e. it is making sense). This tells us that the process is not mental. There is a sense of understanding involved, because if something makes sense then it is understood, and this is what may make us think that it is a mental process. However, mental processes must have a Senser and this clause does not include one.

It makes sense to put your own mask on first before helping others

?It is making sense to put your own mask on first before helping others

At this point, we have to determine whether the process is material or relational. In section 4.3.2, probes for analysing participants are given which need to be considered in conjunction with the approach discussed here. One solution in these cases is to see whether or not there is a prototypical verb for a given process type which could replace the verb in question. This may help us to see the meanings being represented more clearly. There is only one prototypical verb for relational processes and this is the verb be. To test for a relational process, the clause needs to be re-expressed with be as the main verb. There is one difficulty as we do this: we can’t say *it is sense but we can say it is sensible. Expressions such as make (no) sense or make (no) difference are idiomatic or formulaic expressions which are difficult to analyse. We need to look to its idiomatic meaning as an expression rather than the individual lexical components. This expression serves to relate two entities by assigning an attribute of ‘sense’ to some other entity. With this view, it becomes clear that example (15) above expresses a relational process.

4.3.1.2 Multiple lexical verbs

In the two clauses shown in examples (16) and (17), from Texts 4.2 and 4.3, the semantics of the verbs is not the problem. The difficulty here is due to the combination of verbs: trying to help and fails to respond in each clause respectively.In these cases, the analyst has to determine, as for example in (16), whether the process is one of trying or one of helping, or indeed both. In each of these examples, only one of the lexical verbs is required to maintain the meaning of the clause; the other one is not required for the event to be expressed. Instead it adds meaning by elaborating on the event.

(16) If you are trying to help another passenger

(17) If their life jacket fails to respond to the pulled tabs

The process test helps identify the expected participants, and in example (16) it can be applied as follows:

· If this is a process of trying, we expect someone to be trying something (e.g. someone tried the cake, someone tried the lock); however, we don’t find the expected participants (specifically we don’t find the entity which was tried).

· If this is a process of helping, we expect someone to be helping someone (e.g. someone helped that person).

The movement test (e.g. cleft test: It was/is X that Y) can be used to probe the units:

It was another passenger that you were trying to help (were trying to help expresses the process)

*It was to help another passenger that you were trying (were trying does not seem acceptable as the process)

The results indicate that we do find the participants expected for a process of helping, and the movement test supports the analysis of help as the process.

The same approach can be applied to example (17), as follows.

The process test:

· If this is a process of failing (depending on the sense of failing), then we expect someone or something to fail (e.g. the new menu failed).

· If this is a process of responding, then we expect someone or something to respond to something.

The movement test is applied here to clarify the unit boundaries.

It was the pulled tabs that the life jacket failed to respond to

*It was to respond to the pulled tabs that the life jacket failed

In this example, the first lexical verb (fail) has an auxiliary-like nature to it, as can be seen if we compare example (17) to (17′).

(17′) If their life jacket doesn’t respond to the pulled tabs

The point is that as analysts we need to have good criteria for the descriptions we provide and this must be done as systematically and consistently as possible. It is also important that we understand the implications of one possible analysis over another.

4.3.1.3 Phrasal verbs

Phrasal verbs pose, in a sense, the opposite problem to the one discussed above with respect to multiple lexical verbs. Phrasal verbs are single lexical items which are composed of more than one orthographic word. They tend to be highly problematic for those learning English as an additional language since they have a meaning that is completely different from that of the root verb. For example, turn down means to refuse (e.g. She turned down the job) and turn in means to submit (e.g. She turned in her coursework). In these two cases, the meaning of the phrasal verb has little to do with the meaning of turn. These forms can be problematic in analysing grammar because one peculiarity of these multi-word items is that the words can be separated by other parts of the clause. Example (18), from Text 4.2, shows an example of the phrasal verb put on, which means don or start wearing, where the verb and its preposition are separated by your own mask. In (18′) the clause has been re-expressed so that the phrasal verb is not separated. These verb forms, whether separated by other words or not, express one verbal meaning and consequently one process; in other words, the morphological description of these forms is that of a free (verb) morpheme and a free (preposition) morpheme combining derivationally to form a new verb. This is in contrast to examples such as (19), where the verb put expresses a different function from the preposition on; in other words, these two forms are coincidentally in the same clause, but they each have a different job to do. Here, put expresses the process on its own and on is part of a prepositional phrase which expresses a circumstance.The question for the analyst is how the difference between examples such as (18) and (19) can be identified, since on the surface they look very similar. The movement test will help determine where the unit boundaries are and therefore it can be used to determine whether the preposition in question is part of a prepositional phrase or whether it contributes to expressing the process.

(18) please put your own mask on first

(18′) please put on your own mask

(19) please put your mask on the shelf

For example, for (18′):

· *It was on first that you should put your mask (on first is not a prepositional phrase)

· It was your mask that you should put on first (put on is a phrasal verb)

For example, for (19):

· It was on the shelf that you should put your mask (on the shelf is a prepositional phrase)

· *It was the shelf that you should put on your mask (put on is not a phrasal verb)

The results indicate that in the case of (18′), the preposition on is part of a single lexical item, put on, which expresses the process. As a result, your mask is a participant expressing the thing that should be put on (i.e. the Goal). In contrast, the results for example (19) suggest that on is part of a prepositional phrase, on the shelf, which expresses a circumstance of Location (place).

The challenge with phrasal verbs is two-fold: identifying the multi-word nature of these lexical items (a structural problem) and recognizing the semantic value it contributes to the process (a functional problem). However, by considering both the functional and structural perspectives in a consistent and systematic way, the problem becomes much more manageable.

4.3.1.4 Passive voice construction and relational processes

Certain passive constructions expressing material or mental processes can be difficult to distinguish from Attributive relational processes. The reason for this is that verbs in the past participle can form derived adjectives (e.g. broken). This is illustrated in example (20) (discussed above as example (17)) with the adjective pulled in the nominal group the pulled tabs. The invented example shown in (21) gives an example of how the same form is used as a verb in the past participle.The difficulty arises in cases where it is difficult to tell whether the past participle form is in the clause as a verb or as an adjective because clauses in the passive voice will have the structure be + past participle and clauses which express Attributive relational clauses may have the structure be + adjective, and some adjectives look identical to past participle verbs. Examples (22) and (23) each contain a word which is identical to the past participle forms of the verbs wear and break respectively. Both can appear as adjectives or verbs. The question we need to resolve is whether or not these forms express the process or a participant (i.e. Attribute).Any word can be identified as an adjective if it behaves like one and this can be determined using the guidelines given in Chapter 2 for adjectives. Adjectives can be intensified by modifiers such as very and they can be used to modify nouns. For example, it is possible to say that is a very broken seatbelt. To determine whether the forms worn and broken are adjectives, they should be tested for these two characteristics, as follows.These results suggest that worn is not an adjective and that broken is. In order to be certain that the form in question is an adjective rather than a verb, there is one further consideration. If the clause is in the passive voice, then it should be possible to re-express the clause by inserting the Actor or Senser that may have been left out, or by re-expressing the clause in the active voice, as follows.These results support the previous results. It seems reasonable to consider worn as a verb, which means that it is expressing the process. The evidence for broken is less conclusive, but it seems reasonable here to consider broken as an adjective, which means that the process in example (23) is relational and broken is expressing the Attribute.

(20) If their life jacket fails to respond to the pulled tabs

(21) They have pulled the tabs

(22) Seat belts must be worn at all times when seated (Barkow and Rutenberg, 2002)

(23) The seat belts are broken (invented example)

*Seat belts must be very worn at all times when seated

The seat belts are very broken

Seat belts must be worn by passengers at all times when seated / Passengers must wear seat belts at all times when seated

?The seat belts are broken by passengers / Passengers break the seat belts

4.3.2 Probes for identifying the functions of participating entities

There are already some very good resources available to help with analysing the functions of participants, and some of these are listed in section 4.7 for further reading. In this section, some of the main sources of confusion will be discussed with some strategies for testing participants.

The participant probes presented here have been adapted from Fawcett and Neale (2005). A probe may be a question that is answered based on the clause or it may be a re-expression of the clause in a sentence that forces a particular functional interpretation. The idea is that the probe for each participant type will work only for that particular participant (e.g. Actor, Goal or Senser). If the probe and its response do not fit with the clause being analysed then this suggests that the participant type does not capture the meaning expressed by the participant in question and another probe should be used. For example, if a participant is being probed for the function of Actor, the successful use of the probe will indicate that Actor is a reasonable label to assign to the participant and, if not, then another probe should be used until a match is found. Some of the probes are a bit difficult to follow in the way that they are worded, but the example for each should show how the probes can be used. These probes assume that the process has been identified and the process test has been applied. In some cases, the clause may need minor revision for the purposes of probing the clause more easily.

4.3.2.1 Probes for material processes

Actor

Probe: What did [participant] do?

Response: What [participant] did was to. . .

Example 1:

If you are trying to help another passenger

In this example, the process is help (try to help) and the participant in question is you.

Probe: What did you do?
Response: What you did was to try to help another passenger

The result of this probe is to confirm you as Actor since the probe fits with the function of the participant in question.

Example 2:

But they may not know whether that includes their wristwatch, heart-rate monitor, pacemaker, hearing aid, and/or their personal-digital-assistant microcomputer

In this example, the process is know and the participant in question is they.

Probe: What did they do?
Response: *What they did was to know whether that includes their wristwatch.

The result of the Actor probe indicates that they is not functioning as Actor in this clause.

Goal

Probe: What happened to [participant]?

Response: What happened to [participant] was that. . . (complete with the rest of the clause being analysed)

Example:

If you are trying to help another passenger

In this example, the process is help (try to help) and the participant in question is another passenger, which will be re-expressed as the other passenger for ease of expression.

Probe: What happened to the other passenger?

Response: What happened to the other passenger is that he or she was helped by you.

The result of the Goal probe is that it is reasonable to assign the label of Goal to this participant.

Scope

Probe: What was it that someone ? (where = the process)
Response: It was the [participant]

For example, Probe: What was it that Jane played? Response: It was the piano.

Note: This probe will help to distinguish between Scope and Goal but it will not exclude the possibility that the participant is a Phenomenon in a mental process. Therefore a positive result for this probe should also be checked against the probe for Phenomenon unless it is already known that the process is material and not mental.

Example:

Can technical and ergonomic improvements be made to the airplane?

In this example, the process is make and the participant in question is technical and ergonomic improvements. The clause will be re-expressed as a declarative clause in active voice (rather than the passive voice) for ease of expression: They made technical and ergonomic improvements to the airplane.

Probe: What was it that they made?
Response: It was improvements to the airplane.

The result of the Scope probe suggests that the participant technical and ergonomic improvements is functioning as Scope. As noted above, the possibility of Phenomenon must be considered. The Actor probe will show that there is an Actor (i.e. they) and this means that we can be confident that the clause is material and not mental. However, in order to be certain that this participant is not a Goal, the Goal probe will be applied.

Goal probe: What happened to (the) technical and ergonomic improvements?

Response: *What happened to (the) technical and ergonomic improvements was that they were made.

The result of the Goal probe is that this participant is not functioning as Goal.

We can now feel confident that in this clause technical and ergonomic improvements has the function of Scope.

4.3.2.2 Probes for mental processes

Senser

The probe for mental processes is based on replacing the verb for a prototypical verb for mental processes. These include: perceive, know, believe, understand, think, like, dislike, and so forth. In a sense, then, the participant in question is removed from the clause being analysed and fitted into a known mental clause to see if their function remains the same.

Probe: [participant] something

Example:

Do you know the location of the nearest emergency exit?

The process is know and the participant in question is you. This clause will be re-expressed as a declarative clause for ease of expression: You know the location of the nearest emergency exit. However, given that the clause is already in the probe format (i.e. you know something), the participant you is clearly functioning as Senser.

Phenomenon

The probe for Phenomenon is the same as the one for Senser except that it is put into the mental process frame in the Phenomenon role to see if it carries this function.

Probe: Someone [participant]

Example:

For this study, six target groups of passengers were considered

This clause is in the passive voice so it will be re-expressed in the active voice for ease of expression in applying the probe:

For this study, someone considered six target groups of passengers

Probe: Someone thought about or pondered six target groups of passengers.

The result indicates that the participant, six target groups of passengers, is functioning as Phenomenon.

4.3.2.3 Probes for relational processes

Carrier

The probe for the Carrier function is a re-expression test where the clause in question is split up and fitted into a frame that forces the participant being analysed into the function of Carrier.

Probe: [Attribute] is what (or how or who or where) [participant] was/is

Example:

Communication on airplanes is often poor

The process is expressed by be and the participant in question is communication on airplanes.

Probe: Poor is what communication on airplanes is.

The result shows that communication on airplanes functions as Carrier for the Attribute poor.

Attribute

The probe for the Attribute function works in the same way as the Carrier probe but in this case the re-expressed clause forces the participant being analysed into the function of Attribute.

Probe: The thing about [Carrier] is that it is [participant].

Example:

Communication on airplanes is often poor

This example is the same as the previous one. The process is expressed by be but the participant in question here is poor.

Probe: The thing about communication on airplanes is that it is poor.

The result indicates that the participant, poor, is functioning as Attribute.

Identified and Identifier

The Probe for the participants in Identifying relational processes relies on the features of this type of process. The first thing to verify is that the process is relational. The main feature of an Identifying process is that the two participants (Identified and Identifier) can be inverted without affecting the acceptability of the clause. Because of this relation, there is no need for two separate probes as one will suffice.

Probe:

1. Is the process expressed by ‘be’? If not, can the verb be replaced by ‘be’ without loss of meaning? If ‘yes’, then the process is likely to be relational and the participant may be Identified. If ‘no’, then the process is not relational and the participant cannot be Identified and the probe for Identified should stop.

2. Can the two participants be reversed in order, i.e. [participant1] is [participant2] vs. [participant2] is [participant1]? If ‘yes’, then it is highly likely that the process is Identifying and one of the two participants is Identified. If ‘no’ then the process is not Identifying and the Identified probe should stop.

3. Is the participant known (already mentioned) or recoverable from the context? If ‘yes’ then the participant in question is Identified and the remaining participant is Identifier. If ‘not’ then the participant in question is Identifier and the remaining participant is Identified.

Example:

Deafness means an inability to discriminate conversational speech through the ear

In this clause, the process is expressed by mean and the participant in question is deafness.

Probe:

1. Is the process expressed by ‘be’? If not, can the verb be replaced by ‘be’ without loss of meaning?

The process is not expressed by ‘be’ but it can be:

Deafness is an inability to discriminate conversational speech through the ear.

2. Can the two participants be reversed in order, i.e. [participant1] is [participant2] vs. [participant2] is [participant1]?
Yes.

An inability to discriminate conversational speech through the ear means deafness.

3. Is the participant known (already mentioned) or recoverable from the context?
Yes.
The results indicate that the participant deafness is functioning as Identified in an Identifying process.

4.3.2.4 Probes for verbal processes

Sayer

The prototypical verb for the verbal process is ‘say’ but this process type expresses a wide range of meanings related to reporting information. The consequence of this is that the role of Sayer is not always a person who can speak but any participant that can relay the information. Once a Sayer has been identified, labelling the remaining participants in the verbal process is straightforward. For this reason, only the Sayer probe will be considered for verbal processes. If there is doubt about the process type, Sayer could be confused with participants in other processes, especially as Senser in mental processes.

Like mental processes, verbal processes can project another clause, and both types of process prefer the simple present to refer to the present. However, there is one way in which these two processes differ and this is with respect to Receiver. Verbal processes can have a Receiver whereas mental processes cannot. The Senser probe relies on these features of verbal processes.

Probe:

1. Does [participant] report information?

2. Can the process project another clause (even if it does not in this particular case)? If ‘no’, then it is not a verbal process and the participant is not Sayer but if ‘yes’ then it may be either a verbal or mental process.

3. Can/does the clause include a Receiver as a participant (even if it does not include one in this particular case)? If ‘yes’, then the participant in question is Sayer. If ‘no’, then it is not a verbal process and the participant in question is not Sayer.

Example:

Look in the seat pocket in front of you for the safety instruction card. It explains the safety features of this aircraft.
The process in this example is expressed by explain and the participant in question is it (the safety instruction card).

Probe:

1. Does the safety instruction card report information?
Yes it does.

2. Can the process project another clause (even if it does not in this particular case)?
Yes. The safety instruction card explains that this aircraft has safety procedures.

3. Can/does the clause include a Receiver as a participant (even if it does not include one in this particular case)?
Yes. The safety instruction card explains the safety features of this aircraft to you.
The results indicate that the participant in question can reasonably be analysed as Sayer.

4.3.2.5 Probes for behavioural processes

Behaver

It is very difficult to probe behavioural processes because they are a border category which represents sensing and saying as activity. In this sense Behaver is very much like Actor in the sense that this participant is to a certain extent doing something. It is also more like material processes than any other process type because it prefers present progressive (present continuous) in present time reference rather than simple present (e.g. I am sneezing vs. I sneeze). Unlike verbal and some mental processes, behavioural processes cannot project another clause (e.g. He said you could not attend vs. He chatted with his neighbour but *He chatted that you could not go). Behavioural processes tend to be single-participant processes with the only participant being the Behaver. However, there is relative lack of volition or consciousness in behavioural processes (yawn, shiver, sweat, chat, listen, etc.) as compared to material processes.

The best way to probe for Behaver then is to consider whether or not the participant is represented in an activity and whether there is a mental or verbal aspect to the process. It is also important to check that the process involved is not able to project another clause so that verbal processes can be ruled out.

Probe:

1. Is [participant] involved in an activity? (if ‘yes’, [participant] may be Behaver)

2. Is there a mental or verbal quality to the process? (if ‘yes’, [participant] may be Behaver)

3. Can the process project another clause? (if ‘yes’, [participant] is not Behaver; if ‘no’ [participant] is most likely Behaver).

Example:

The little dog laughed to see such fun
In this clause the process is laugh and the participant in question is the little dog.

Probe:

1. Is the little dog involved in an activity? Yes, it is laughing.

2. Is there a mental or verbal quality to the process? Yes, it is sensing pleasure, he likes something.

3. Can the process project another clause? No.
The results indicate that the participant, the little dog, is expressing the function of Behaver.

4.3.2.6 Probes for existential processes

Existent

There are two parts to this probe:

1. Is the Subject of the clause ‘there’?

2. Is the process expressed by ‘be’? If not, can the process be replaced by ‘be’ without loss of meaning?

If the answers to 1 and 2 are ‘yes’, then the participant in question is an Existent.

Example:

There remain some questions about how a noisy environment might degrade comprehension.

1. The Subject is ‘there’.

2. The verb is not ‘be’ but it can be replaced by ‘be’ without loss of meaning:

There are some questions about how a noisy environment might degrade comprehension.
The result of this probe is that the participant, some questions about how a noisy environment might degrade comprehension, is functioning as Existent in an existential process.

4.3.3 Circumstances

Circumstances will generally answer the questions which are associated to each circumstance type (see Table 4.2). For example, a circumstance of Location will answer either ‘where?’ or ‘when?’. The questions listed in Table 4.2can be used to probe the circumstance being answered in order to identify the function it has in a given clause.

As an example, the clause given in example (22) above is given here again as example (24) so that the circumstance can be analysed.In this clause, at all times when seated is a nominal group. There is something time-related about this expression. However, if we use the questions from Table 4.2 as probes to test the circumstance, we may find that although it seems to answer the question ‘when?’ it does not specify a point in time as should be the case with a circumstance of Location. If we consider whether any other of these probe questions fit the circumstance, then we find that a circumstance of Contingency is also possible. The function of at all times when seated is not about identifying the process in a point in time, it is identifying the conditions under which the process must be carried out. In this clause then at all times when seated is a circumstance of Contingency since it expresses the conditions under which the process must occur.

(24) Seat belts must be worn at all times when seated

4.3.3.1 Circumstance or participant

One of the difficulties in analysing grammar in a functional framework is being able to determine whether an element of the clause is functioning as a participant or a circumstance. In section 4.3.1.3, phrasal verbs were discussed in terms of the challenges they present to identifying the process (i.e. whether the process is expressed by a single orthographic word or not), and in particular the phrasal verb ‘put on’ was considered. There is an implicit consequence for determining the difference between circumstances and participants in these cases as discussed in section 4.3.1.3. However, once the process is correctly identified then there should be few challenges in this regard.

There are some instances that raise questions even if the process is correctly identified. In example (25), from Text 4.1, the process is place but over your mouth and nose is functioning to specify where the process is taking place, which would indicate a circumstance of Location. It is not sufficient to identify the process; the process test allows us to identify the expected participants. By applying the process test for this example, we find: in a process of placing, we expect someone to be placing something somewhere. Note that we would consider not specifying the ‘somewhere’ as incomplete, and our expectations would not be met, as shown in example (26).As a result, place has three participants: Actor (the participant doing the placing), Goal (the participant being affected by the placing) and Location (the participant specifying where the placing must occur or where the Actor must place the Goal).

(25) Place the mask over your mouth and nose

(26) *Place the mask

In a sense it is irrelevant whether or not over your mouth and nose is seen as a participant or a circumstance because its function is the same in terms of the role it has in this particular clause. The main distinction to be made is whether it is an optional, peripheral element (i.e. circumstance) or a central, core element (i.e. participant) of the clause.

4.3.3.2 Circumstance or qualifier within a nominal group

Confidently identifying the internal boundaries of the clause is critical to grammatical analysis. There are occasions where we find a sequence of a noun followed by a preposition which is part of a prepositional phrase. The Groucho Marx example which was discussed in Chapters 1 and 2 showed how comedians can play with the structural ambiguity at the boundary of a nominal group and a prepositional phrase. As was shown in Chapter 3, the qualifier element of the nominal group can be expressed by a prepositional phrase. This potential for ambiguity is what Groucho Marx exploited in his famous joke.

Once the process is identified and the process test has been completed, it is important to verify the internal boundaries of the clause so that the units can be analysed in terms of the functions they express. In example (27), from Text 4.2, the process is expressed by the verb pull. If the process test is applied, the result is that in a process of pulling we expect someone to be pulling something.In this example, there are two possibilities concerning the prepositional phrase behind your head. The first is that it functions as a circumstance of Location, expressing where the process should take place. The second is that it functions as a qualifier in the nominal group the rubber strap behind your head. Some of the ways in which this can be resolved were given in Chapter 3. In this particular case, there is complete structural ambiguity. In other words, all tests will render an acceptable result because both possibilities are possible. In order to test the group boundaries, the clause will be re-expressed with a Subject as shown in (28).The passivization test will be used here to illustrate this point made above:

The rubber strap behind your head must be pulled

The rubber strap must be pulled behind your head

Clearly both are acceptable and therefore the clause is structurally ambiguous. However, the important thing to remember is that, as with the Groucho Marx example, the different structural realizations create different meanings. The context of this utterance is extremely important. This is intended to be said to a passenger who is blind and therefore cannot see what exactly they are meant to do. Furthermore the preceding clauses provided instruction on how to correctly put on the oxygen mask in case of emergency. The rubber strap which must be pulled is located at the back of the head and therefore the most likely analysis for this example is that behind your head is a modifier of strap. It is true that the person wearing the mask and tightening the strap will do so at the back of the head but it is not true that the pulling must take place behind the person’s head. The person could remove the mask and adjust the strap and then replace the mask.

(27) Pull the rubber strap behind your head

(28) You must pull the rubber strap behind your head

Consequently there are no circumstances in example (28), and the prepositional phrase behind your head is a qualifier within the nominal group.

4.4 Functional–structural view of the experiential strand of meaning

In this section, an overview of the functional–structural view of the experiential strand of meaning is given. It will introduce the relevant structural units related to experiential meaning and consider the relationship between function and structure. It provides a summary of everything covered so far by analysing Text 4.1 in a detailed way using a step-by-step approach. Each clause is then analysed as consistently as possible and the specific challenges posed by each clause are discussed in each case.

4.4.1 Structural units expressing experiential functions

This chapter has presented the main functions of the experiential strand of meaning. These are the processes, participants and circumstances which represent the speaker’s experience. This book approaches grammar from a functional–structural view, which focuses on the important relationship between function and structure.

In Chapter 3, most of the structures needed to represent participants were covered since the most frequent grammatical resource for expressing participants is the nominal group.

As we have already seen, processes are generally expressed through verbs in English, and the associated structural unit (i.e. the verb group) will be presented in Chapter 5. Consequently, the detail concerning this part of the clause will not be discussed here but we will come back to this in the next chapter.

What is left, then, are the structural units associated to expressing circumstances. Circumstances are typically expressed by the following structural units:

· prepositional phrase (e.g. I ate my dinner in the kitchen)

· clause (e.g. I ate my dinner sitting at the table)

· nominal group (e.g. I ate my dinner last week)

· adverb group (e.g. I ate my dinner quickly)

This section will present the adverb group since the remaining structures are covered elsewhere in the book. It will also introduce the co-ordination of units such as I ate my breakfast and my dinner in my hotel room, where two nominal groups are co-ordinated.

4.4.1.1 Adverb group

The discussion of adjectives and adverbs in Chapter 2 explained how similar these two word categories are, and in fact the question was raised as to whether or not there was a need for separate categories. The distinction between the two is often made in functional terms rather than in terms of lexical behaviour. In other words, it is generally accepted that for a given adjective–adverb word it is an adjective if it is modifying a noun and it is an adverb if it is modifying anything else.

The similarity between the two word classes carries over to the structural unit associated to it. The adjective group was presented in detail in Chapter 3 and the adverb group has a very similar structure to it with two exceptions. The first is that the head element is an adverb rather than an adjective. The second is that there is only one type of post-modifier rather than two. Since the adverb group is so closely related to the adjective group, which has already been discussed, this section will simply offer a brief presentation of this unit.

The basic structure of the adverb group is shown in Figure 4.3 and structurally it is identical to the adjective group (see Chapter 3). The head element is called the apex (a), which is expressed as an adverb (it is expressed by an adjective in the adjective group). As with all group units there is the potential for modification of the apex. The pre-head modifier element is called a temperer (t). The post-modifying element is called a finisher (f). The finisher element, as in the adjective group, is an obligatory element whose function is to complete (or finish) the lexicogrammatical requirements of the comparison expressed by the apex (as in ‘faster’) or by the temperer and apex (as in ‘more quickly’). An example of a circumstance expressed by an adverb group is given in (29), where the adverb group is underlined. A tree diagram of the clause is given in Figure 4.4.The adverb group serves a variety of other functions in addition to circumstance. It can express the temperer in an adjective group as shown in (30), where the adverb group is underlined. Here it is modifying the adjective large. It also expresses a function which is part of the meanings covered in the interpersonal strand of meaning, which will be discussed in Chapter 5. This interpersonal function concerns the speaker’s opinion or judgement of what they are saying such as, for example, the use of probably in example (31).

(29) The communication of safety information is structured sequentially

(30) It is no small challenge to produce on-board briefings that are understood by an acceptably large proportion of travellers

(31) It probably is a waste of valuable communication time to mention lighting at all

Figure 4.3

Figure 4.3 Basic structure of the adverb group

Figure 4.4

Figure 4.4 Circumstance expressed by an adverb group

4.4.1.2 Co-ordination

Although co-ordination is not a unit of its own, it does relate to all structural units since they can be co-ordinated. In theory, only the same units can be co-ordinated (e.g. two clauses or two nominal groups) but in some cases the structures co-ordinated are not identical but they share the same function, as shown in (32), where very quickly and in good order are co-ordinated even though the first unit is an adverb group and the second one is a prepositional phrase. They both express a circumstance function.Clause co-ordination will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 7 but for now the notation used to show unit co-ordination is presented here so that it can be included in the tree diagrams for the text being analysed. The notation itself is relatively straightforward since it simply fits into the existing notation that shows the relation between structure and function. There is one new symbol that is needed to indicate the actual conjunction which indicates the co-ordination. The ampersand symbol, ‘&’, is used to indicate co-ordination (following Fawcett, 2000c). The most common lexical items which express co-ordination are and, orand but. Since these forms do not get modified, there is no associated group for them. There are, however, some conjunctions that can be modified, such as even if or just as (see Halliday and Matthiessen, 2004: 358). Example (32) is illustrated in Figure 4.5, showing how the conjunction is seen as part of the final co-ordinated unit and the two units are represented as structurally equal and adjacent.

(32) It was delivered very quickly and in good order

Figure 4.5

Figure 4.5 Co-ordinated units

4.4.2 Functional analysis of the clause

This section will walk through the analysis that can be done at this stage. Some parts of the analysis will be omitted since they are only discussed in later chapters (e.g. the verb group). The text analysed here is Text 4.1, which was originally presented in section 4.2.


In a high altitude emergency, an oxygen mask will drop in front of you from the panel above. Place the mask over your mouth and nose, straighten out the strap, and pull the strap to be sure it is tight on your face. After you are wearing it securely, a tug on the hose will start the oxygen flow. It makes sense to put your own mask on first, before helping others.


As stated earlier in this book, one of the main goals is to present a methodology for analysing grammar with a functional–structural approach. Ultimately, in Chapter 8, a full set of guidelines will be developed, offering a step-by-step strategy for analysing the clause. The steps presented here are those that can be done with the information presented so far. Each further chapter will contribute more and more to the picture of the clause and the approach being developed. However, this is not necessarily a linear process in the sense that it is not simply the case that we will add more steps to the end of the list of steps. Instead, as the information becomes available, the steps will be modified in the most appropriate way, which may mean that, for example, what is step 1 now may not be step 1 in Chapter 8.

The steps in the guidelines for analysing experiential meaning are outlined below. After these have been briefly discussed, the clauses in Text 4.1 will be analysed in turn following each step. The approach to identifying clauses within a text will not be covered in this chapter because concepts and understanding must be gained first from Chapters 5, 6 and 7. For example, identifying clauses requires a firm understanding of the verb system and the distinction between finite and non-finite verbs, something that will only be presented in Chapter 5. It also requires an understanding of the various ways in which clauses combine and this is covered in Chapter 7, which relies in part on the textual meaning presented in Chapter 6.

In the analysis of Text 4.1, then, there will be no discussion of the clauses listed (i.e. how the clause boundaries were determined) and they will simply be presented without challenge, since the strategies involved in working this out rely on later chapters. In later chapters, strategies will be developed for working this out. This leaves us with five relatively straightforward steps for analysing experiential meaning, each of which is based on content already covered to this point.

4.4.2.1 Guidelines for analysing experiential meaning

Use the process test to show how many participants are expected by the process

This step relies on the process test to identify the number of participants which are expected by the process. It also helps to locate them in the clause. The process Test will reduce the clause to the core experiential elements (i.e. the process and any inherent participating entities). Part of this step includes checking to see if any expected participants have been left out for any reason (e.g. a passive clause such as The dishwasher was emptied or perhaps an imperative clause such as Eat your dinner!). It may also be important to consider whether the process is expressed by a phrasal verb.

Use the replacement test and/or a movement test to identify the internal boundaries of the clause (different elements of the clause)

In addition to the process and any participants there may be other elements of the clause (e.g. perhaps one or more circumstances). This step relates to Halliday’s analogy of finding the walls and rooms in the house or the intermediate structural units of the clause (Halliday, 1994: 180). This was discussed in Chapter 2, where its importance was stressed. As a result of this step, the structural units expressing the participant(s) should be clear and, as was discussed earlier in this chapter, it will also help to identify any structural units expressing a circumstance. This step primarily relies on the content from Chapters 2 and 3.

Determine the type of process and the participant functions

Completing this step relies on an understanding of the different process types and their associated participants. Various strategies and probes were discussed in this chapter and they must be used here to confidently identify and label the process type and the participant functions. This is not a linear process, and the identification of the process type is often based on the function of the participants.

Identify and label any circumstances

This step will probably be quite straightforward if step 2 was done successfully. Table 4.2 lists the most commonly accepted circumstance types, and if the clause under analysis includes a circumstance it is highly likely that it will fit one of these categories. The questions associated to each type should be used as probes in identifying the function of the circumstance.

Draw the tree diagram

At this point the tree diagram should be relatively straightforward because the units will already have been identified. It is of course possible that a clause includes structures that have not yet been covered, and in this case the triangle notation introduced in Chapter 2 should be used.

4.4.2.2 List of clauses

The following is the list of clauses in Text 4.1. The process has been underlined in each case.

1. [1] In a high altitude emergency, an oxygen mask will drop in front of you from the panel above

2. [2] Place the mask over your mouth and nose

3. [3] Straighten out the strap

4. [4] And pull the strap to be sure it is tight on your face

5. [5] After you are wearing it securely a tug on the hose will start the oxygen flow

6. [6] It makes sense to put your own mask on first before helping others

Each clause will now be analysed in turn by following the five steps presented above.

Clause [1]

In a high altitude emergency, an oxygen mask will drop in front of you from the panel above

Process test

In a process of dropping, we expect something to be dropping.

U+21D2 1 participant

Find internal structural boundaries

· Pronoun replacement test for an oxygen mask:

In a high altitude emergency it will drop in front of you from the panel above

Therefore an oxygen mask constitutes a single unit, a nominal group, which is distinct from the remaining units of the clause. Consequently in a high altitude emergency is also a single structural unit. It is a prepositional phrase.

· Movement test for in front of you from the panel above:

In a high altitude emergency, it will drop from the panel above in front of you

This shows that in front of you from the panel above is not a single structural unit and that in front of you and from the panel above are distinct units, both of which are prepositional phrases.

The internal boundaries for this clause are as follows:

In a high altitude emergency | an oxygen mask | will drop | in front of you | from the panel above

Process type and participant functions

Three process types can be eliminated immediately since it cannot be existential, behavioural or mental. The process is not about reporting information so verbal processes can also be eliminated. In fact the process type for this clause was discussed above in section 4.3.1.1, where it was determined that the process is material and that the participant has the function of Goal.

Identify any circumstances

There are three circumstances in this clause: in a high altitude emergency, in front of you and from the panel above. Using the probe questions given earlier in this chapter, the function of each circumstance can be identified as follows:

Under what conditions? in a high altitude emergency U+21D2 circumstance of Contingency (condition)
Where? in front of you U+21D2 circumstance of Location (space)
Where? from the panel above U+21D2 circumstance of Location (space)

Tree diagram and box diagram

The tree diagram for this clause can be seen in Figure 4.6.

Figure 4.6

Figure 4.6 Tree diagram for clause [1] from Text 4.1

The same information can be represented in box diagrams but there is often a loss of structural and internal information in doing so. This is illustrated in Figure 4.7. When both types of diagrams are used, it gives a complete functional–structural description of the clause.

Figure 4.7

Figure 4.7 Box diagram for clause 1 from Text 4.1

Clause [2]

Place the mask over your mouth and nose

Process test

In a process of placing, we expect someone to be placing something somewhere.

U+21D2 3 participants

Note that the someone doing the placing is not expressed in the clause but it is implicitly understood as the person being spoken to (i.e. you, which in this case is the passenger on the plane).

Find internal structural boundaries

· Pronoun replacement test for the mask vs. the mask over your mouth and nose:

Place it over your mouth and nose

Therefore the mask constitutes single unit, a nominal group, which is distinct from the remaining units of the clause. Consequently over your mouth and nose is also a single structural unit. It is a prepositional phrase. However, if in doubt, this can be tested with a movement test (e.g. passivization or cleft test).

· Movement test for over your mouth and nose:

The mask must be placed over your mouth and nose (passivization)

* The mask over your mouth and nose must be placed

It is over your mouth and nose that you must place the mask (cleft test)

*It is the mask over your mouth and nose that you must place
This shows that over your mouth and nose is a single structural unit.
The internal boundaries for this clause are as follows:

Place | the mask | over your mouth and nose

Process type and participant functions

Three process types can be eliminated immediately since it cannot be existential, relational or verbal. This clause is representing what someone is doing (or what they will be doing) so it is reasonable to assume the process is material. In order to be certain, the participant probes will be used. The clause will be re-expressed as a declarative clause so that the implicit participant (i.e. you, the passenger) is expressed: the passenger must place the mask over his or her mouth and nose.

· Probe for Actor:

Probe: What did the passenger do?

Response: What the passenger did was to place the mask over his or her mouth and nose.

The result of this probe is that the participant the passenger is functioning as Actor. This confirms that the process is material. However, the function of the remaining two participants must be identified. The status of the third participant, over your mouth and nose, was discussed in section 4.3.3.1, where it was argued that although it resembles a circumstance of Location it has the function of a participant since it is expected by the process. Therefore this participant is labelled as Location. The most likely function of the second participant is that of Goal, but this should be probed so that analysis is conducted in a systematic and consistent way and so that it is justifiable without any guesswork.

· Probe for Goal:

Probe: What happened to the mask?

Response: What happened to the mask is that it was placed over the passenger’s mouth and nose.

The result from this probe confirms Goal as the function for the mask.

Identify any circumstances

The function of Location in this clause is an expected participant and it is therefore part of the core experiential meaning of the clause. Consequently it is not a circumstance.

Tree diagram and box diagram

The diagrams for this clause can be seen in Figure 4.8.

Figure 4.8

Figure 4.8 Tree and box diagrams for clause [2] from Text 4.1

Clause [3]

Straighten out the strap

Process test

In a process of straightening out, we expect someone (or something) to be straightening out something.

U+21D2 2 participants

Note that, as with clause 2, the someone doing the straightening out is not expressed in the clause but it is implicitly understood as the person being spoken to (i.e. you, which in this case is the passenger on the plane).

Find internal structural boundaries

There is no need to test the unit boundaries since the clause expresses only the process and the second participant (the strap).

The internal boundaries for this clause are as follows:

Straighten out | the strap

Process type and participant functions

Three process types can be eliminated immediately since it cannot be existential, behavioural or verbal. The process of straightening out is very much a physical activity so it is reasonable to assume that the process is material, but as always this must be tested. Before trying the participant probes, the clause will be re-expressed as a declarative clause so that the first participant (you, the passenger) is included:

the passenger should straighten out the strap

· Probe for Actor:

Probe: What did the passenger do?

Response: What the passenger did was to straighten out the strap.

· Probe for Goal:

Probe: What happened to the strap?

Response: What happened to the strap is that it was straightened out by the passenger.

The results of the Actor and Goal probe indicate that the process is indeed material and that the two participants are respectively Actor and Goal.

Identify any circumstances

There are no circumstances in this clause.

Tree diagram and box diagram

The diagrams for this clause can be seen in Figure 4.9.

Figure 4.9

Figure 4.9 Tree and box diagrams for clause [3] from Text 4.1

Clause [4]

And pull the strap to be sure it is tight on your face

Process test

In a process of pulling, we expect someone to be pulling something.

U+21D2 2 participants

Note that the someone doing the pulling is not expressed in the clause, but it is implicitly understood as the person being spoken to (i.e. you, which in this case is the passenger on the plane).

Find internal structural boundaries

· Pronoun replacement test for the strap vs. the strap to be sure it is tight on your face:

And pull it to be sure it is tight on your face

Therefore the strap constitutes a single unit, a nominal group, which is distinct from the remaining units of the clause. A movement test should be used to test the unit boundaries for to be sure it is tight on your face.

· Movement test for to be sure it is tight on your face (by fronting):

to be sure it is tight on your face, pull the strap

· and to test to be sure as separate from it is tight on your face:

*to be sure, pull the strap it is tight on your face

This shows that to be sure it is tight on your face is a single structural unit (it is an embedded clause; see Chapters 5 and 7).

The internal boundaries for this clause are as follows:

And | pull | the strap | to be sure it is tight on your face

Process type and participant functions

Three process types can be eliminated immediately since it cannot be existential, relational or verbal. Because of the second participant, the process is unlikely to be behavioural. The process of pulling is an active physical event which can be observed externally, so the process is most likely to be material and not mental. The participant probes will determine whether the functions of the participants support this analysis. The clause will be re-expressed as a declarative clause so that the implicit participant (i.e. you, the passenger) is expressed: the passenger should pull the strap to be sure it is tight on his or her face.

· Probe for Actor:

Probe: What did the passenger do?

Response: What the passenger did was to pull the strap.

The result of this probe is that the participant the passenger is functioning as Actor. This confirms that the process is material.

· Probe for Goal:

Probe: What happened to the strap?

Response: What happened to the strap is that it was pulled.

The result from these probes confirms Actor as the function of the person being addressed (i.e. the passenger) and Goal as the function for the strap.

Identify any circumstances

There is one circumstance in this clause: to be sure it is tight on your face.

Following the probe questions for circumstances, this circumstance is expressing why the process should take place and is therefore a circumstance of Cause (reason).

Tree diagram and box diagram

The diagrams for this clause can be seen in Figure 4.10.

Figure 4.10

Figure 4.10 Tree and box diagrams for clause [4] from Text 4.1

Clause [5]

After you are wearing it securely a tug on the hose will start the oxygen flow

Process test

In a process of starting, we expect someone or something to be starting something.

U+21D2 2 participants

Note that the something doing the starting is itself expressing an event (tug). However, rather than expressing it as a situation realized by a clause it is expressed as a thing and realized by a nominal group.

Find internal structural boundaries

· Movement test to check boundaries of after you are wearing it securely

A tug on the hose will start the oxygen flow after you are wearing it securely

Although logically this sounds a bit odd, the grammatical structure is fine and so we can conclude that after you are wearing it securely is a prepositional phrase. The completive, you are wearing it securely, is a clause but it could be replaced with a pronoun, such as ‘after that’. Some would argue that ‘after’ is not a preposition but rather a conjunction introducing a subordinate clause (see Chapter 7).

· Pronoun replacement test for a tug vs. a tug on the hose:

*after you are wearing it securely it on the hose will start the oxygen flow

after you are wearing it securely it will start the oxygen flow

Therefore a tug does not constitute a single unit but a tug on the hose does.

The internal boundaries for this clause are as follows:

After you are wearing it securely | a tug on the hose | will start | the oxygen flow

Process type and participant functions

Three process types can be eliminated immediately since it cannot be existential, behavioural or verbal. In addition to this, the participant doing the starting is not sentient so the process cannot be mental. This leaves only two process types: relational and material. We can quickly test for relational by checking to see if the process can be expressed with the verb ‘be’: *After you are wearing it securely a tug on the hose will be the oxygen flow. This is clearly not the intended meaning for this clause. Therefore we can be confident that the process is material. The participant probes will be used to determine the participant functions.

· Probe for Actor:

Probe: What did the tug on the hose do?

Response: What the tug on the hose did was to start the oxygen flow.

The result of this probe is that the participant a tug on the hose is functioning as Actor.

· Probe for Goal:

Probe: What happened to the oxygen flow?

Response: What happened to the oxygen flow is that it was started.

The Goal probe seems reasonable and certainly the oxygen flow is affected by the process in this case. Therefore the participant the oxygen flow has the function of Goal.

Identify any circumstances

There is one circumstance in this clause: after you are wearing it securely.

Following the probe questions for circumstances, this circumstance is expressing when the process should take place so is therefore analysed as Location (place).

Tree diagram and box diagram

The diagrams for this clause can be seen in Figure 4.11.

Figure 4.11

Figure 4.11 Tree and box diagrams for clause [5] from Text 4.1

Clause [6]

It makes sense to put your own mask on first before helping others

Process test

The process for this clause was discussed in section 4.3.1.1 due to the idiomatic or formulaic nature of the expression make sense. As a result of the discussion, the process was determined to be relational.

In a process of making sense, we expect someone or something to be making sense.

U+21D2 2 participants, where sense is the second participant.

It may seem odd to consider that part of what expresses the process is considered as a participant but this is because this slot in the expression can vary (e.g. make no difference or make no odds). This will be discussed further in step 3, when the functions of the participants are examined.

Find internal structural boundaries

The remainder of the clause needs to be analysed structurally to see if there are any further internal boundaries concerning to put your own mask on first before helping others:

· Movement test:

Before helping others it makes sense to put your own mask on first

This shows that before helping others is a discrete unit from the remainder of the clause.

The status of first is ambiguous since it could be fronted in the clause without changing the acceptability of the clause:

First, before helping others, it makes sense to put your own mask on

However, by moving first within the embedded clause to put your own mask on, we can show that it is an element of the embedded clause formed by the verb ‘put on’ rather than the main clause (i.e. make sense):

Before helping others it makes sense to first put your own mask on

Therefore the internal boundaries for this clause are as follows:

It | makes | sense | to put your own mask on first | before helping others

Process type and participant functions

Three process types can be eliminated immediately since it cannot be existential, Behaviour or verbal. The challenge with this clause is that the process is expressed by an idiomatic expression; in other words, the clause is not about making something. Since it is not about the activity of making, it is not likely to express a material process. This leaves us to consider either a relational or mental process.

If the process is relational, then there will be a relation expressed between two participants (e.g. Carrier and Attribute, where in this case the Attribute is sense). The implication here is that sense has a role as participant. If the process is mental, then we should be able to test for the participants of Senser and possibly Phenomenon. The implication here is that sense expresses the process and does not function as a participant. The probes for these participants have to be considered.

The clause will be re-expressed without the dummy ‘it’ Subject so that it fits the format of the probes. To use participant probes for relational processes the clause will be rephrased as: Putting your own mask on first is sensible (see section 4.3.1.1 for why sensible is used here). To use mental participant probes, the clause will be rephrased as: Putting your own mask on first makes sense. However it must be noted, as already stated, that analysing idiomatic expressions is challenging and the probes may not work as neatly as they would otherwise.

· Probe for Carrier:

Sensible is what putting your own mask on first is.

If we accept that the re-expression is reasonable then we can conclude that this interpretation is possible, and therefore to put your own mask on first can be seen to function as Carrier. There is no need to test for the Attribute as in this case it would have to be sense.

· Probe for Senser:

Applying this probe is challenging because the expression being analysed does not fit the Senser–Phenomenon frame, as can be seen when the probe for Senser is applied:

Someone understands something?
The same issue is encountered with the Phenomenon probe:

Someone understands putting your own mask on first?

The meaning of makes sense could be seen as cognitive since it does have something to do with understanding; however, it is somewhat of a struggle to interpret the participants expressed as either Senser or Phenomenon. Furthermore it is quite difficult to re-express the clause with a Senser: Putting your mask on first makes sense to me. However, to me does not seem to express Senser but rather a circumstance of Angle.

It is impossible to be completely confident about what the speaker intended but the evidence here suggests that the process is relational.

Identify any circumstances

There is one circumstance in this clause: before helping others.

Following the probe questions for circumstances, this circumstance is expressing when the process should take place and is therefore a circumstance of Location (place).

This clause requires a special note since there is a nominal group in the clause that has been left unanalysed. This is a nominal group containing the pronoun it. This is in fact a special construction that will be discussed in Chapter 6, but for now we will simply say that it is completing the Subject role so that the Carrier can be displaced to a later position in the clause. The pronoun it can be seen in this case as coreferential with putting your own mask on first. In this view, we could consider that it also has the function of Carrier. However, to avoid duplication, Carrier will only be applied once to this participant, which in this case is putting your own mask on first. As it has no real function in experiential meaning, its function is left blank for now. It has functions in the other two main strands of meaning and these will be discussed in Chapters 5 and 6.

Tree diagram and box diagram

The diagrams for this clause can be seen in Figure 4.12.

Figure 4.12

Figure 4.12 Tree and box diagrams for clause [6] from Text 4.1

4.5 Summary

This chapter has provided the first detailed functional analysis of the clause. In addition to the process test and replacement and movement tests presented in Chapters 2 and 3, this chapter has listed various probes and tests for analysing experiential meaning. The guidelines presented here provide a working summary of the steps involved in analysing the clause. These will be supplemented and developed in the next chapter, which explains how to analyse the clause within the interpersonal strand of meaning.

4.6 Exercises

Exercise 4.1

Analyse each of the clauses listed below using the steps developed in this chapter and draw the tree diagram. You may need to refer to content from the previous chapters as well, especially Chapter 3 for determining the internal boundaries of the clause and Chapter 2 for the process test. The clauses are taken from a personal email between friends (17 May 2007) about some car trouble they experienced while travelling through the United States. The clauses have been slightly modified from the original.

1. After three more hours of work we discover one of the spark plug cords is frayed.

link to answer

2. We work for another hour.

link to answer

3. We notice a cracked bracket.

link to answer

4. We are sent to a garage for some welding.

link to answer

5. They send us to a different garage.

link to answer

6. The people here love our vehicle.

link to answer

7. Everyone of them used to own one.

link to answer

8. It’s not working optimally.

link to answer

9. We head to a new garage.

link to answer

10. The man behind the counter is sweet.

link to answer

11. He says it will cost approximately $2000.

link to answer

12. We run back to Mark’s garage.

link to answer

13. We need a new distributor.

link to answer

14. He orders one.

link to answer

15. It will be in by noon tomorrow.

link to answer

16. We love this man.

link to answer

link to answer

4.7 Further reading

There are several very good books which cover the experiential strand of meaning in more detail. Perhaps the most obvious one to consult is Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar (IFG), which is now published in its third edition, although any edition would be a valuable resource.

Halliday, M. A. K. and C. Matthiessen. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 3rd edn. London: Hodder Arnold.

There are three books which are seen as more basic introductions to systemic functional grammar. They are often used as course textbooks. Each one has a chapter dedicated to each strand of meaning, including the experiential metafunction. These are:

Bloor, T. and M. Bloor. 2004. The Functional Analysis of English: A Hallidayan Approach. 2nd edn. London: Arnold.

Eggins, S. 2004. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. 2nd edn. London: Continuum.

Thompson, G. 2004. Introducing Functional Grammar. 2nd edn. London: Arnold.

The above books are excellent resources for reading about experiential meaning in more depth and breadth – especially IFG, which is the comprehensive reference for the subject. There is one book which is highly recommended for those trying to analyse the clause in a systemic functional framework because it provides invaluable guidance in teasing out the kinds of problems discussed briefly in this chapter. It is a workbook with exercises and answers and, since it is a companion to IFG, it will refer the reader to the relevant pages of IFG where appropriate:

Martin, J., C. Matthiessen and C. Painter. 1997. Working with Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.