Friday, 16 March 2012

Relational Clauses & Semiotic Dimensions

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 215):
… we can see how the grammar models the realisational relationship between two strata in the form of relational clauses of identity [and the dimensions of instantiation and delicacy in the form of relational clauses of class–membership]. In this way, the grammar of relational clauses is based on the dimensions of a semiotic system.

Relational Clauses: Instantiation And Realisation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 215):
In her account of ‘relational’ clauses, Davidse (1992, 1996) adopts a semiotic approach, interpreting class–membership by reference to the semiotic relation of instantiation and identity by reference to the semiotic relation of realisation.

Identifying Vs Attributive Mode

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 227-8):
Class membership [attribution] does not serve to identify … One way of looking at the ‘identifying’ clause would be to say that here we are narrowing down the class in question to a class of one … only one member in the class, a single instance.

Attributive Vs Identifying Mode: Lexical Verb

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 219):
The lexical verb in the verbal group realising the [attributive] Process is one of the ‘ascriptive’ classes.

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 228):
The lexical verb of the verbal group realising the [identifying] Process is one from the ‘equative’ classes.

Attributive Vs Identifying Mode: Interrogative Probe

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 220):
The interrogative probe for such [‘attributive’] clauses is what? how? or what…like?

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 228):
The interrogative probe for such [‘identifying’] clauses is which?, who?, which/who…as? (or what? if the choice is open–ended) …

Attributive Mode: Attribute

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 219-20):
If the Attribute is realised by a nominal group with a common noun as Head without a premodifying adjective, it is usually expressed as if it was a circumstance (with a preposition following the verb …). Attributes with noun Head are rare with the verbs keep, go and get, where they would be highly ambiguous.

Attributive Vs Identifying Mode: In/Definiteness

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 219):
The nominal group functioning as Attribute construes a class of thing and is typically indefinite: it has either an adjective or a common noun as Head and, if appropriate, an indefinite article … It cannot be a proper noun or a pronoun since these do not construe classes.
Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 228):
The nominal group realising the function of Identifier is typically definite: it has a common noun as Head, with the or other specific determiner as Deictic, or else a proper noun or pronoun. The only form with adjective as head is the superlative ….

Attributive Vs Identifying Mode: Reversibility

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 215):
The ‘identifying’ ones are reversible … The ‘attributive’ ones are not reversible …

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 220):
The [‘attributive’] clauses are not reversible: there are no ‘receptive’ forms

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 228):
These [‘identifying’] clauses are reversible. All verbs except the neutral be and the phased become, remain (and those with following prepositions like as in act as) have passive forms … Clauses with be reverse without change in the form of the verb and without marking the non-Subject participant …

Relational Clauses Vs Material & Mental Clauses: Salience

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 214):
Verbs in general in ‘relational’ clauses are typically non-salient, whereas verbs in ‘material’ and ‘mental’ clauses are salient at the accented syllable …

Relational Clauses Vs Material & Mental Clauses: Inherent Participants

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 213):
In ‘relational’ clauses, there are two parts to the ‘being’: something is said to ‘be’ something else … This means that in a ‘relational’ clause in English, there are always two inherent participants … In contrast, the general classes of ‘material’ and ‘mental’ clauses have only one inherent participant (the Actor and the Senser, respectively).

Relational Clauses Vs Mental Clauses: Projection

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 213):
With a ‘mental’ clause, the phenomenon of consciousness can be construed as an idea brought into existence through the process of consciousness and represented grammatically as a separate clause … but this is not possible with ‘relational’ clauses.

Relational & Mental Clauses Vs Material Clauses: Acts & Facts

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 213):
In being able to be construed not only with things as participants, but also with acts and facts, ‘relational’ clauses clearly differ from ‘material’ ones; but they resemble ‘mental’ ones in this respect.

Relational Clauses Vs Mental Clauses: Consciousness

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 212):
… while one participant in a ‘mental’ clause, the Senser, is always endowed with consciousness, this is not the case with ‘relational’ clauses.