Analysing English Grammar: A Systemic Functional Introduction (2012)

Chapter 8: Guidelines for grammatical analysis

This chapter is really a summary of all the steps and tools that have been covered in Chapters 1 through 6 and it follows directly from Chapter 7, which explained how to identify clause boundaries. The main goal of this chapter is to integrate all the information covered so far and present it as a proposal for a functional–structural approach to analysing grammar.

The very first step in analysing text is to identify individual clauses, since the clause is the main unit of interest for the systemic functional linguist and it is through the clause that the meanings of the text are realized. However, it would have been impossible to begin this book with an explanation of how to confidently recognize clause boundaries simply because so many factors contribute to this identification and it would be confusing to attempt to deal with all of them at the same time.

Developing an understanding of the clause is best approached in stages. In this book a decision was made to begin the first stage in Chapter 4 by considering the clause as representation and analysing the experiential meaning in the clause. Then building onto this Chapter 5 explored how to analyse the interpersonal meanings of the clause. The third and final stage in analysing the clause was presented in Chapter 6, which focused on the textual metafunction. Having now covered the various concepts in sufficient detail, the structures and meanings related to the clause, all this information can be put together in a single approach to grammatical analysis. The goal of this chapter is to present a set of guidelines for the beginner analyst that will cover all stages of the analysis so that it can be carried out in a systematic and consistent way.

In a sense, there is nothing new in this chapter. It is an organized compilation of the key knowledge and tools needed to analyse the clause. It represents the middle stage in the cycle of text analysis. Text analysis begins with a text and moves from that to a segmented state in the form of its component clauses, as shown in Chapter 7. These clauses, which realize the text, are then analysed individually – this is the focus of the current chapter. The final stage of the analysis, as will be shown in Chapter 9, involves analysing the results of the grammatical analysis so that the meanings in the text can be interpreted.

In this chapter, the full set of guidelines for analysing the clause will be reviewed and then demonstrated by using it to analyse the clauses of a text. The text used here is the same text which was segmented into clauses in Chapter 7. Before working through the demonstration of the guidelines, section 8.1 explains why the guidelines have been developed for analysing written rather than spoken texts. Following this, section 8.2 provides a brief summary of the various tests that are used in the guidelines and where to find them in this book. As with all other chapters, several exercises are provided at the end of the chapter followed by a section indicating a selection of further reading in the area of grammatical analysis.

8.1 A focus on written texts

Analysing language is challenging regardless of the type of text being considered. In order to keep this presentation as simple as possible, we will not use spoken or transcribed language and instead the focus will be on written (or punctuated) language. The main reason for this is that written language tends to identify clausal units of language (through the sentence) by the speaker’s use of punctuation. Spoken data presents different challenges for the analyst, including for example interruptions in mid-utterance, which make identifying clauses difficult. Some suggestions for reading in this area are given in section 8.6.

8.2 Summary of grammatical tests

Throughout this book various tests, probes and steps have been proposed as tools to assist in grammatical analysis. The guidelines presented in this chapter integrate all of these at various stages of the analysis. This section provides a summary of all the tests covered with a quick reference guide to finding them in the chapter where they were originally presented.

Chapter 2:

· Process test. This test is used to determine the number of expected participants, which identifies the number of core experiential elements of the clause.

· Word category criteria. The characteristics of the various lexical categories indicate features of a given lexical category which can be used to identify members of the category (e.g. recognizing nouns, verbs, adjectives).

Chapter 3:

· Pronoun replacement test. This test is used to identify nominal group boundaries within the clause.

· Movement test. This test includes, for example, the cleft test and passivization. It is used to test whether units are separate or not.

Chapter 4:

· Probes for determining process types.

· Probes for determining participant roles.

· Tests for circumstances. This test uses Halliday’s questions for circumstances to help determine the function of the circumstance.

Chapter 5:

· Subject test. This test is used to identify the location and boundary of the Subject in the clause.

· Tag question test. This test can be used to identify the Subject through the anaphoric pronoun reference in the tag.

· Conditions for finite clauses. This is not explicitly a test but these conditions must be met if a clause is finite.

· Three types of non-finite clause. The characteristics of non-finite clauses make them easier to identify.

· Test for recognizing imperative mood. This test is used to determine whether a clause is expressed in the imperative mood or not.

Chapter 6:

· Identifying Theme. Guidelines are presented here for identifying experiential Theme and other thematic functions.

8.2.1 Key to abbreviations

Wherever possible the full spelling for any term has been used but in some diagrams this becomes quite challenging due to space constraints. Table 8.1 lists the abbreviations that may be used when space does not allow the full term.

Table 8.1: List of abbreviations

8.3 The three-strand analysis

The three-strand analysis refers to the analysis of the clause with respect to each main metafunction (strand of meaning). Grammatical analysis, when envisaged in this way, forms the basis of a functional investigation into language use and as such it is a critically important step in any interpretation of the functions of language. The approach to the analysis has been built up over the past chapters, beginning with a very general view of a systemic functional model of language and developing a more specific understanding of the individual functions expressed by the clause.

In this section, the guidelines developed in this book have been refined to ten steps, which offer a consistent and systematic approach to analysing the clause. As already stated, grammatical analysis is applied to the unit of the clause and therefore this analysis cannot begin until the text has been segmented into clauses and the boundaries of the individual clauses have been verified. Therefore, the guidelines for the three-strand analysis are based on having already worked out not only the clause boundaries but also the unit boundaries of the verb group, although these may need to be re-evaluated as the analysis progresses.

The remainder of this section is organized as follows. First, an overview of the steps in the guidelines will be presented. Then the text which will be used in the demonstration of the guidelines is reviewed, as it was the text used in Chapter 7 to illustrate how to segment a text into clauses. Following this the grammatical analysis of the individual clauses is presented in step-by-step fashion, as has been done in previous chapters to show the progression of the analysis.

8.3.1 Overview of the ten steps

The grammatical analysis is applied to individual clauses and as already stated it constitutes the second stage or phase in the analysis, following on from the initial analysis of the text in terms isolating the clauses. As described in Chapter 7 the segmentation stage involves identifying possible clauses, restoring any ellipsed items, identifying all verb groups, locating the Finite element, and verifying clause boundaries based on number of verb groups and the recognition of any embedded clauses. The ten steps in grammatical analysis, as presented below, assume that the initial segmentation stage has been completed.

Identify the process and expected participants

Having already identified the main verb (as in Chapter 7) to identify clause boundaries, apply the process test from Chapter 2. It is a useful tool for understanding the importance of the process in determining the nature of the clause and figuring out what is expected in the clause. Recall that idiomatic or formulaic uses of language can obscure this and paraphrasing may help you to consider the meaning of the process.

Verify boundaries of internal structures

Use tests given in Chapters 3 and 4 (e.g. pronoun replacement test or movement test) to determine the internal structural units.

Determine the process type and participant roles

Use the probes and re-expression tests given in Chapter 4 to determine the process type and the function of the participants.

Identify any circumstance roles

In this step you will identify any parts of the clause that are not core experiential elements (i.e. processes and participants). Use the tests given in Chapter 4 to identify circumstance roles. If no circumstance type seems to work, verify the internal boundaries of the clause (step 3). However, if a circumstance role cannot be found, then one of the following options will apply: it may be an interpersonal adjunct (e.g. modal) with no experiential function, or it may be a circumstance but not one that matches one of the nine general categories of circumstances. In this case, either a best fit approach should be taken or additional literature should be consulted for a more detailed or broader account of these functions (see section 8.6).

Identify the Finite

Determine the type of Finite element (see Chapter 5).

Identify the Subject

In this step you will apply the Subject test (see Chapter 5) in order to confidently identify the Subject.

Determine the mood of the clause

The mood is determined by the order of the Subject and Finite (see Chapter 5). If a non-finite clause is being analysed, this step would be skipped as non-finite clauses do not express a mood choice. Similarly, any minor clauses or other units without a Mood element would not be analysed in this step.

Identify all markers of modality and polarity

In this step, the type of modality expressed is determined (see Chapter 5) and any markers of negative polarity are noted.

Locate the experiential Theme of the clause

The experiential Theme will be the first experiential element of the clause up to and including the Subject. If there is no such element, then it is very likely that the clause is in a special thematic construction. If a circumstance element precedes the Subject then the Theme will be marked (see Chapter 6).

Check for any other thematic elements

This involves identifying any other thematic elements (see Chapter 6).

Drawing the tree diagram (or box diagram): this is not actually a formal step in the analysis. As will be explained in Chapter 9, it is possible to use computer software to assist in managing the analysis and, in this case, diagrams would not be drawn for each clause. However, tree diagrams are essential for viewing the clause with all its integrated meanings (see Chapters 3, 4, 5 and 6). Different analysts may have slightly different interpretations but if the tree diagram cannot be satisfactorily drawn, then this may indicate a fundamental problem with the analysis or the theory. It is also a question of personal preference and some may find the tree diagrams very useful while others prefer to use only box diagrams. In practical terms, tree diagrams can be very time consuming when working on a computer. I always have a pencil and note pad handy when I am analysing grammar so that I can draw out the grammar for any clauses that are particularly tricky.

8.3.2 The text and clause list

The text used as an example for the demonstration of the set of steps is the same text that was segmented in Chapter 7. It is repeated here in Text 8.1 below.

The clause listing for this text is also reproduced here for ease of reference as shown in Table 8.2.

Table 8.2: Clause listing for Text 8.1

8.3.3 Analysing the clause, step by step

Each clause in Text 8.1 will now be analysed in full. The analysis of the first ten clauses will be detailed, following the ten steps described above. The remaining five clauses will be presented without discussion. This will give the reader the opportunity to attempt the use of the guidelines and compare with the analysis presented here.

Text 8.1 Personal email text extract: email message from November 1999, a mother emailing her daughter

It’s about 6 am and I couldn’t sleep. I have to work at 8 as I went to Timmins yesterday for my mammogram so didn’t get to work. John drove me. I said if the roads were good I would drive myself but he said he would so it was nice. Went to the Fishbowl for lunch and then did some shopping. I got Robert the Thomas with the case. I was going to get him clothes as I saw some cute things but the Thomas thing is cute.

Clause [1]

It’s about 6 (hours) am

Identify the process and the expected participants

The main verb is ’s (be). This is a process of being.

Process test: In a process of being, we expect someone/something to be being something.

Therefore this process expects two participants.

Verify the boundaries of internal structures

There is only one group following the verb group. This clause cannot easily be rearranged in its current form but if it is seen to refer to ‘the time’, then the second participant can be moved to Subject position, showing that about 6 am is a group, as in ‘about 6 am is the time’.

Determine the process type and participant roles

When the main verb is be the only possible types of process are relational and existential processes. In this case, it seems to refer to ‘the time’ and so is a participant. With two participants identified, the best analysis for this clause is that of a relational process. The two participants can be inverted, provided it which is accepted as referring to ‘the time’: about 6 am is the time. Therefore the clause expresses an Identifying relational process, it, which is Identified and the second participant, about 6 am, is Identifier. There are no other participants.

Figure 8.1 Tree and box diagram for it’s about 6 am

The transitivity structure is therefore: Identified + relational process + Identifier.

Identify any circumstance roles

There are no circumstance roles.

Identify the Finite type

The Finite is a temporal Finite (tense) and is expressed by the main verb (Predicator). This is shown by contrasting simple present tense with simple past tense: It’s about 6 am It was about 6 am.

Identify the Subject

Original clause: it is about 6am.

Yes/no question: is it about 6am?

Therefore, it is the Subject.

Determine the mood of the clause

Subject followed by Finite indicates declarative mood structure.

Identify any markers of modality and polarity

No modal elements were identified in this clause.

Locate the experiential Theme

The experiential Theme is the first experiential element of the clause up to and including Subject; therefore it is the experiential Theme.

Check for any other thematic elements

There are no other thematic elements.

Clause [2]

and I couldn’t sleep

Identify the process and the expected participants

The main verb is sleep. This is a process of sleeping.

Process test: In a process of sleeping we expect someone to be sleeping.

Therefore we should expect one participant.

Verify the boundaries of internal structures

There are no internal boundaries to resolve in this clause as there are no groups following the verb group.

Determine the process type and participant roles

First, eliminate three processes that clearly do not apply in this case. This clause does not represent a relational process or a verbal process or an existential process. Therefore, it may be a material process, a mental process or a behavioural process. Sleeping is not a mental process since the main participant here is not physically perceiving anything nor is she having a good or bad feeling about anything. Sleeping does not involve cognition. The choice we are left with is between a material process and a behavioural process. The main distinction is whether or not the main participant is being represented as Actor or Behaver. Here the implication is that the participant was actively trying to sleep so the participant role of Actor best fits and the clause will be analysed as representing a material process. There are no other participants.

The transitivity structure is therefore: Actor + material process.

Identify any circumstance roles

There are no circumstance roles in this clause.

Identify the Finite type

The Finite is identified by the modal verb could.

Identify the Subject

Original clause: and I couldn’t sleep.

Yes/no question: and couldn’t I sleep?

The Finite has created a boundary around I and therefore I is the Subject. It should be noted that certain personal pronouns (e.g. I, he, she, they, we) in English show Subject case (see Chapter 2) and it may seem unnecessary to use the Subject test in these cases.

Figure 8.2 Tree and box diagram for and I couldn’t sleep

Determine the mood of the clause

The Subject is followed by the Finite and therefore this clause is in declarative mood.

Identify any markers of modality and polarity

Modality is expressed through the modal verb could. In this use, it indicates modality of ability. Negative polarity is expressed through the negator n’t.

Locate the experiential Theme

The experiential Theme is I (i.e. Actor/Subject/Theme).

Check for any other thematic elements

The conjunction and has the function of textual Theme.

Clause [3]

I have to work at 8 (hours)

Identify the process and the expected participants

The main verb is work. This is a process of working.

Process test: In a process of working, I expect someone to be working.

Therefore I expect one participant.

Verify the boundaries of internal structures

There are no internal boundaries to resolve in this clause as there is only one possible group following the verb group.

Determine the process type and participant roles

First, eliminate three processes that clearly do not apply in this case. This clause does not represent a relational process or a verbal process or an existential process. Therefore it may be a material process, a mental process or a behavioural process. This is a straightforward case since ‘working’ is an action process and the main participant in this clause is being represented as doing something. The test for Actor works: I have to work what she has to do is work. There are no other participants.

The transitivity structure is therefore: Actor + material process.

Identify any circumstance roles

There is one remaining element in the clause which appears to be a circumstance: at 8 answers the question ‘when?’ in relation to the process. Therefore the type of circumstance represented is that of Location(time).

Identify the Finite type

The Finite is expressed by the auxiliary verb have and is a temporal Finite (tense).

Figure 8.3 Tree and box diagram for I have to work at 8 am

This is shown by contrasting simple present tense with simple past tense: I have to work at 8 I had to work at 8.

Identify the Subject

Original clause: I have to work at 8.

Yes/no question: ?have I to work at 8?

Add do-support: I do have to work at 8.

Yes/no question: do I have to work at 8?

The auxiliary Finite do has created a boundary around I and therefore I is the Subject.

Determine the mood of the clause

The Subject is followed by the Finite so the mood represented in this clause is declarative.

Identify any markers of modality and polarity

Modality is expressed in this clause through the use of have (to), which indicates modality of obligation (see Chapter 5).

Locate the experiential Theme

The experiential Theme is I (Actor/Subject/Theme).

Check for any other thematic elements

There are no other thematic elements in the clause.

Clause [4]

as I went to Timmins yesterday for my mammogram

Identify the process and the expected participants

The main verb is went. This is a process of going.

Process test: In a process of going I expect someone to be going.

Therefore, I am expecting one participant.

Note that your application of the process test may produce a different result if you see this process as being one of someone going somewhere, for example, where the somewhere (Location) would be considered a participant rather than a circumstance.

Verify the boundaries of internal structures

The movement test will show how many groups are involved in the clause following the main verb. The conjunction (as) should be left out of the tests to make it easier.

*To Timmins yesterday I went for my mammogram.

*To Timmins yesterday for my mammogram I went.

Yesterday I went to Timmins for my mammogram.

This indicates that yesterday is a separate group from the remainder of the clause. Consequently to Timmins and for my mammogram must also be separate groups since yesterday falls between them. However, we can use the pronoun replacement test to show that to Timmins is indeed a separate group from for my mammogram:

Yesterday I went there for my mammogram.

Therefore the internal boundaries of the clause are as follows:

Determine the process type and participant roles

First eliminate three processes that clearly do not apply in this case. This clause does not represent a relational process or a verbal process or an existential process. Therefore it may be a material process, a mental process or a behavioural process. This is a straightforward case since going is an action process and the main participant in this clause is being represented as doing something. The test for Actor works: I went to Timmins what she had to do was go to Timmins. There are no other participants. The core transitivity structure is therefore: Actor + material process.

Identify any circumstance roles

This clause represents three different circumstances:

to Timmins

yesterday

for my mammogram

Each answers the following questions respectively: where?, when?, and why?

Therefore each circumstance has the following functions:

Location: Space (to Timmins)

Location: Time (yesterday)

Cause: (for my mammogram)

Identify the Finite type

The Finite in this clause is expressed by the main verb (went) and is a temporal verbal element (tense). This is shown by contrasting simple past tense with simple present tense: I went to Timmins / she went to Timmins I go to Timmins / she goes to Timmins.

Identify the Subject

Original clause: I went to Timmins yesterday for my mammogram.

Add do-support: I did go to Timmins yesterday for my mammogram.

Yes/no question: did I go to Timmins yesterday for my mammogram?

The auxiliary Finite did has created a boundary around I and therefore I is the Subject.

Determine the mood of the clause

The Subject is followed by the Finite. Therefore the mood is declarative.

Identify any markers of modality and polarity

There are no expressions of modality and no markers of negative polarity.

Locate the experiential Theme

I is the experiential Theme (Actor/Subject/Theme).

Check for any other thematic elements

There is a conjunction as before the experiential Theme and it has the function of textual Theme.

Clause [5]

so (I) didn’t get to work

Figure 8.4 Tree and box diagram for as I went to Timmins yesterday for my mammogram

Identify the process and the expected participants

The main verb is get. This is a process of getting.

Process test: in a process of getting we expect someone to be getting someone/somewhere.

Therefore I expect two participants.

Verify the boundaries of internal structures

The internal boundaries for this clause are straightforward, so no need for tests to determine group boundaries. There is only one group following the verb group.

Determine the process type and participant roles

This clause is similar to I didn’t go to work or I didn’t arrive at work. First eliminate three processes that clearly don’t apply in this case. This clause does not represent a mental process or a verbal process or an existential process. Therefore it may be a material process, a relational process or a behavioural process. This is a relatively straightforward case since ‘getting’ in the sense it is used here is an action process (like ‘go’ or ‘arrive’) and the main participant in this clause is being represented as doing something (or not doing something as in this case). The test for Actor works (ignore the negative polarity): I got to work what she had to do was get to work. The second participant represents the somewhere expected from the process test. This participant could be either Goal or Scope. Since it is not affected by the process, the best interpretation of the function of this participant is Scope. In some approaches, the locational participant is labelled Location just as for the circumstance. This clause differs from the previous one (go) since the Location is optional and therefore it is difficult to determine whether the Location in a process of going is a participant or a circumstance (or interpersonally a Complement or an adjunct); however, in this case, getrequires a Complement.

Figure 8.5 Tree and box diagram or so didn’t get to work

The transitivity structure is therefore: Actor + material process + Scope.

Identify any circumstance roles

There are no circumstances in this clause.

Identify the Finite type

The Finite in this clause is expressed by the auxiliary verb do and is therefore a temporal verbal element (tense). This is shown by contrasting past tense with present tense: I didn’t get to work / she didn’t get to work I don’t get to work / she doesn’t get to work.

Identify the Subject

Original clause: so (I) didn’t get to work.

Yes/no question: so didn’t I get to work?

The auxiliary Finite did has created a boundary around I and therefore I is the Subject.

Determine the mood of the clause

The Subject is followed by the Finite so therefore the mood choice is declarative.

Identify any markers of modality and polarity

There is no modality expressed in this clause. The polarity is negative (n’t).

Locate the experiential Theme

The experiential Theme is I (Actor/Subject/Theme).

Check for any other thematic elements

The only element preceding the experiential Theme is the conjunction so. It has the function of textual Theme.

Clause [6]

John drove me

Identify the process and the expected participants

The main verb is drove. This is a process of driving.

Process test: in a process of driving we expect someone to be driving OR we expect someone to be driving something OR we expect someone to be driving someone somewhere.

Therefore I could expect one, two or three participants. In this instance, two participants are represented, even though the clause fits the third possibility (i.e. someone drove someone somewhere).

Verify the boundaries of internal structures

There is no need for tests to determine the group boundaries since there is only one possible group following the verb group.

Determine the process type and participant roles

First eliminate three processes that clearly do not apply in this case. This clause does not represent a relational process or a verbal process or an existential process. Therefore it may be a material process, a mental process or a behavioural process. This is a straightforward case since ‘driving’ is an action process and the main participant in this clause is being represented as doing something. The test for Actor works: John drove me what John did was drive me. The second participant, me, is either Goal or Scope. By applying the tests for Goal and Scope, it is clear that Scope is the most appropriate role: *what happened to me was that John drove me (Goal) vs. who was it that John drove? (Scope).

The transitivity structure is therefore: Actor + material process + Scope.

Identify any circumstance roles

There are no circumstance roles in this clause.

Figure 8.6 Tree and box diagram for John drove me

Identify the Finite type

The Finite is expressed by the main verb drove and is a temporal verbal element (tense). This is shown by contrasting simple past tense with simple present tense: John drove me John drives me.

Identify the Subject

Original clause: John drove me.

Add do-support: John did drive me.

Yes/no question: did John drive me?

The auxiliary Finite did has created a boundary around John and therefore John is the Subject.

Determine the mood of the clause

The Subject is followed by the Finite, which indicates that the clause is in the declarative mood.

Identify any markers of modality and polarity

There is no modality expressed in this clause. The polarity is positive.

Locate the experiential Theme

The experiential Theme is expressed by John (Actor/Subject/Theme).

Check for any other thematic elements

There are no elements preceding the experiential Theme.

Clause [7]

I said if the roads were good I would drive myself

Identify the process and the expected participants

The main verb is said. This is a process of saying.

Process test: In a process of saying, I expect someone to be saying something.

Therefore I expect two participants.

Verify the boundaries of internal structures

The internal boundaries for this clause were resolved when the clause boundaries were determined due to the embedded clauses. Therefore there is no need to apply any further tests at this point.

Determine the process type and participant roles

Three process types are typically unacceptable for any given clause and can be eliminated immediately. In this case, it is not a relational process, an existential process or a behavioural process. It could be a material process, a mental process or a verbal process. A process of saying is always a verbal process. Therefore the participant roles included are easily identified as Sayer and Verbiage.

The transitivity structure for this clause is: Sayer + verbal process + Verbiage.

The embedded clauses will not be analysed here but they certainly could be if this were desirable. Figure 8.8 shows the tree diagram for this clause with the embedded clauses analysed.

Figure 8.8 Clause 7 including an analysis for the embedded clauses

Identify any circumstance roles

There are no circumstance roles represented in this clause.

Identify the Finite type

The Finite is expressed by the main verb, said, and is a temporal Finite element (tense). This is shown by contrasting simple past tense with simple present tense: I said. . . / she said. . . I say. . . / she says. . .

Identify the Subject

Original clause: I said if the roads were good I would drive myself.

Add do-support: I did say if the roads were good I would drive myself.

Yes/no question: did I say if the roads were good I would drive myself?

The auxiliary Finite did has created a boundary around I and therefore I is the Subject.

Determine the mood of the clause

The Subject is followed by the Finite and therefore the clause is declarative.

Identify any markers of modality and polarity

There is no modality expressed in the main elements of the clause; however, there is a modal verb in the embedded clause (would) and the use of were is in fact a fossilized verbal form, which is historically the subjunctive mood. However, this distinction is largely lost in Modern English. Nevertheless the embedded clause does express a kind of hypothetical condition which is within the modality of probability.

Figure 8.7 Tree and box diagram for I said if the roads were good I would drive myself

Locate the experiential Theme

The experiential Theme is I (Sayer/Subject/Theme).

Check for any other thematic elements

There are no other thematic elements.

Clause [8]

but he said he would (drive me)

Identify the process and the expected participants

The main verb is said (‘say’). This is a process of saying.

Process test: In a process of saying, I expect someone to be saying something.

Therefore I expect two participants.

Verify the boundaries of internal structures

The internal boundaries of the clause were determined when the clause boundaries were analysed. Consequently there is only one element following the verb group and this is the embedded clause.

Determine the process type and participant roles

We should be able to discount three processes without much difficulty. In this case, it is not a relational process, an existential process or a behavioural process. It could be a material process, a mental process or a verbal process. A process of saying is always a verbal process. Therefore the participant roles included are easily identified as Sayer and Verbiage.

The transitivity structure for this clause is: Sayer + verbal process + Verbiage.

As for Clause 7, the embedded clause won’t be analysed in detailed steps here. Figure 8.10 shows the tree diagram for this clause with the embedded clauses analysed.

Figure 8.10 Clause 8 with embedded clause analysed

Identify any circumstance roles

There are no circumstance roles for this clause.

Identify the Finite type

The Finite element is expressed by the main verb, said, and is a temporal Finite element (tense).

This is shown by contrasting simple past tense with simple present tense:

He said. . . He says. . .

Identify the Subject

Original clause: but he said he would (drive me)

Add do-support: but he did say he would (drive me)

Yes/no question: but did he say he would (drive me)?

The auxiliary verb, did, has created a boundary around he and therefore he is the Subject.

Determine the mood of the clause

The Subject is followed by the Finite and therefore the mood of this clause is declarative.

Identify any markers of modality and polarity

There is no expression of modality in the main clause; however, as with the previous clause, there is a modal verb in the embedded clause (Verbiage). The polarity is unmarked (positive).

Figure 8.9 Tree and box diagram for but he said he would

Locate the experiential Theme

The experiential Theme is he (Sayer/Subject/Theme).

Check for any other thematic elements

The conjunction but has the function of textual Theme.

Clause [9]

so it was nice

Identify the process and the expected participants

The main verb is was ‘be’. This is a process of being.

Process test: In a process of being, I expect someone/something to be being something.

Therefore I expect two participants.

Verify the boundaries of internal structures

There is only one group following the verb group (see Chapter 2 for lexical categories and Chapter 3 for group structure).

Determine the process type and participant roles

When the main verb and process is the verb be, then the process type is always relational. In this case it is an attributive type of relational process. As explained in Chapter 4, relational processes can be attributive or identifying. Identifying clauses are reversible and therefore the two participants can swap places, but for this clause it will not work: *nice it was. Furthermore, although it is not always the case, Attributes are often expressed by an adjective (or adjective group). Since nice is an adjective and the clause cannot be Identifying, there are good reasons for determining that the process is attributive.

The transitivity structure is: Carrier + relational process + Attribute.

Identify any circumstance roles

There are no circumstance roles.

Identify the Finite type

The Finite is expressed by the main verb (be) and is a temporal Finite element (tense). This is shown by contrasting simple past tense with simple present tense: it was nice it is nice.

Identify the Subject

Original clause: so it was nice.

Yes/no question: so was it nice?

The Finite created a boundary around it. Therefore it is the Subject.

Determine the mood of the clause

The Subject is followed by the Finite, which indicates declarative mood structure.

Identify any markers of modality and polarity

There is no modality or negative polarity expressed in this clause.

Locate the experiential Theme

The experiential Theme is it (Carrier/Subject/Theme).

Check for any other thematic elements

The conjunction so has the function of textual Theme.

Clause [10]

(we) went to the Fishbowl for lunch

Figure 8.11 Tree and box diagram for so it was nice

Identify the process and the expected participants

The main verb is went (‘go’). This is a process of going.

Process test: In a process of going, I expect someone to be going.

Therefore one participant is expected.

Verify the boundaries of internal structures

Following the verb group we find a prepositional group (phrase) and another prepositional group. In this step we have to sort out the relationship between the two. They could combine to form a single group where the second one is embedded in the first or they could function as two separate groups with respect to the clause. By applying the movement test we can see whether for lunch can successfully be moved and, if so, this would indicate that it is separate from to the Fishbowl.

For lunch we went to the Fishbowl.

*to the Fishbowl for lunch we went.

The pronoun replacement test will also support the result from the movement test:

we went there for lunch

Determine the process type and participant roles

As in the analyses above, we should be able to immediately eliminate three process types. A process of going is not likely to be relational, mental or existential. The participant tests lead us to analysing this clause as material since the test for Actor works: we went to the Fishbowl what we did was go to the Fishbowl.

There are no other participant roles.

The core transitivity structure is: (Actor) + material process.

Identify any circumstance roles

There are two circumstances in this clause. The first is to the Fishbowl. This answers the question ‘where?’. The type of meaning represented here is therefore a circumstance of Location in Space. The second is for lunch. This answers the question ‘why?’. The type of meaning represented here is a circumstance of Cause.

Identify the Finite type

The Finite is expressed by the main verb (go) and is a temporal Finite element (tense). This is shown by contrasting simple past tense with simple present tense:

(we) went to the Fishbowl for lunch / she went to the Fishbowl for lunch we go to the Fishbowl for lunch / she goes to the Fishbowl for lunch.

Identify the Subject

Original clause: (we) went to the Fishbowl for lunch.

Add do-support: we did go to the Fishbowl for lunch.

Yes/no question: did we go to the Fishbowl for lunch?

The Finite has identified a boundary around the Subject, which is we; however in this clause the Subject is empty since it was ellipsed.

Determine the mood of the clause

The Subject is followed by the Finite, which indicates declarative mood structure. This relationship holds even though the Subject is ellipsed.

Identify any markers of modality and polarity

There is no modality or negative polarity expressed in this clause.

Locate the experiential Theme

The experiential Theme is we (Actor/Subject/Theme) even though it is ellipsed.

Check for any other thematic elements

There are no other thematic elements.

This completes the detailed presentation of the ten steps in analysing the clause. The grammatical analysis for each of the five remaining clauses is given below without a description of the steps taken in the analysis. These clauses are reproduced below.

[11] and then (we) did some shopping

[12] I got Robert the Thomas (train) with the case

[13] I was going to get him clothes

[14] as I saw some cute things

[15] but the Thomas thing is cute

Before looking at the complete analysis, you may wish to try to analyse these clauses on your own. The presentation of the guidelines, as was done above, is necessarily repetitive but it is by repeating the steps systematically that a thorough approach to grammatical analysis is developed. In my experience, when students are struggling with the analysis, it is often because they have skipped steps and consequently overlooked an important earlier step.

Clause [11]

and then (we) did some shopping

Figure 8.12 Tree and box diagram for went to the Fishbowl for lunch

Figure 8.13 Tree and box diagram for and then did some shopping

Clause [12]

I got Robert the Thomas with the case

Figure 8.14 Tree and box diagram for I got Robert the Thomas with the case

Clause [13]

I was going to get him clothes

Figure 8.15 Tree and box diagram for I was going to get him clothes

Clause [14]

as I saw some cute things

Figure 8.16 Tree and box diagram for as I saw some cute things

Clause [15]

but the Thomas thing is cute

Figure 8.17 Tree and box diagram for but the Thomas thing is cute

8.4 Summary

It may seem that, despite the attempts to analyse grammar in a systematic way, the analysis itself is highly interpretive. This is true to some extent since, as Halliday (1994: xvi) points out, ‘work of this kind . . . is a work of interpretation’. In many cases the analysis is open to discussion and debate. There are no truly definitive answers since, when dealing with language, we have no way of verifying our claims. As Mel’uk (1997: 2, my translation) explains:

Linguistics is in the same situation as all other natural sciences. Language, which is a system of very complex rules, encoded in a speaker’s brain in some unknown way, is inaccessible to the direct observation of ‘pure’ linguists: we cannot open up heads, neither can we penetrate them with electrodes in order to observe language as it is stored in the brain. The only solution we have is to develop models of language.

Therefore, our analysis is as good as our model and it can always be improved. In any case, language itself is not designed to conform to our models so there will always be instances that will perplex even the best one. Halliday (1994: xvi) explains that ‘there are always indeterminacies, alternative interpretations, places where one has to balance one factor against another’. The ability to cope with this comes with experience and ideally, in return, it contributes to improving the model of language.

The grammatical analysis of an individual clause provides an in-depth account of the multiple meanings it expresses and the way it is structured in order to express these meanings. However, very clearly, the single clause tells us very little about the text we began with in the first stage of the analysis. There must be a transition from the analysis of the individual clauses of the fragmented text to the interpretation of the multifunctional nature of the text. Having now demonstrated the guidelines for analysing the clause, the next chapter in this book, Chapter 9, provides some direction in how to make this transition, returning the focus of the analysis to the text. This is not to say that there are never any good reasons for restricting analysis to the clause since many theoretical grammarians or syntacticians will focus almost exclusively on this. Similarly many language teachers, for example, may want to study language understanding or language production at the clause level. It always depends on the objectives of the study. For most students of English language, it is important to develop a firm understanding of the overall practice of grammatical analysis in a general sense so that they can apply it for whatever purpose is needed. Therefore, to round off the approach to analysing English grammar, Chapter 9 completes the picture with a focus on the interpretation of the grammatical analysis.

8.5 Exercises

Each exercise below includes the texts from the exercises in Chapter 7. Use the clause lists identified from those exercises to analyse each clause completely. You may wish to check your clause boundaries against the answers in Chapter 10 before doing the grammatical analysis.

Exercise 8.1

I always get to this computer later at night. John is out golfing and Jane is at a sleepover birthday party where they are sleeping outside in tents and Sue has three friends over for a sleep over. They are watching a movie now.

(Excerpt from a personal email written by an adult female to a female friend, June 2005)

link to answer

Exercise 8.2

When it first happened, there was a big thunderstorm that shook the house and the rain fell really fast. My brother was startled because he was outside. Now the water is knee-high but we’re alright. We went canoeing to a nice park which is really fun! We saw some iguanas today, and we even had a black snake at our house and I saw a snake on a canoe too! Every time I go out we go out in a canoe or our dad carries us because me and my brother don’t like going out in the water because of the snakes. We should be going back to school in three weeks. It’s a long time off.

(BBC, CBBC Newsround. 2011. Press Pack Reports: I’m stuck in the Australian floods. http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_9340000/newsid_9341900/9341995.stm)

link to answer

Exercise 8.3

The future must see the broadening of human rights throughout the world. People who have glimpsed freedom will never be content until they have secured it for themselves. In a truest sense, human rights are a fundamental object of law and government in a just society. Human rights exist to the degree that they are respected by people in relations with each other and by governments in relations with their citizens. The world at large is aware of the tragic consequences for human beings ruled by totalitarian systems. If we examine Hitler’s rise to power, we see how the chains are forged which keep the individual a slave and we can see many similarities in the way things are accomplished in other countries. Politically men must be free to discuss and to arrive at as many facts as possible and there must be at least a two-party system in a country because when there is only one political party, too many things can be subordinated to the interests of that one party and it becomes a tyrant and not an instrument of democratic government.

(Roosevelt, Eleanor. 1948. The Struggle for Human Rights. [speech] Paris, France, 28 September 1948. http://edchange.org/multicultural/speeches/eleanor_roosevelt_rights.html)

link to answer

8.6 Further reading

For approaches to analysing spoken language:

Eggins, S. and D. Slade. 1997. Analysing Casual Conversation. London: Cassell.

O’Grady, G. 2010. A Grammar of Spoken English Discourse. London: Continuum.

To supplement reading on analysing the clause:

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

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

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