Ba CH 3 CL

3
How to analyze the elements of clauses:

the basic grammar of
TRANSITIVITY and MOOD
1 Introducing TRANSITIVITY and MOOD: a simple example
1.1 The clause in its context
The major unit of English syntax is the clause, so this is where we will start.
Clauses occur in over a dozen different positions in English syntax, but the most
frequent by far is when the clause functions as a sentence. So we will begin by
examining the structure of a clause that is functioning as the sole clause in a
sentence.
But when sentences occur naturally they occur in texts (as we saw in Section
1.1 of Chapter 1), and every now and then I will use the longer term textsentence rather than sentence as a reminder of this fact. We should never think
of a sentence as something that stands on its own, but always as a contribution to a
text.1
Every text - whether it is spoken or written - occurs in a specific social
context. a The social context of our first example of a clause in a text-sentence is
the following. Twenty-five year old Paula and her eight year old nephew Adam are
watching a TV programme, in which a popular TV chef (Jamie Oliver) is showing
us how to cook a particularly delicious vegetable dish. It is carrots and leeks,
cooked gently in a little water and butter. Jamie has just sliced the vegetables and
put them in the saucepan, and the following exchange takes place:
Adam: Whats he going to do next?
Paula: He will simmer them gently. For about ten minutes.
We will take the first of Paula's two sentences as our first example to analyze.2
Like all of the clauses to be examined in the next few chapters, this sentence
consists of a single clause - and it is:
(1a) He will simmer them gently.
1. Chapters 11, 12 and 14 will deal with sentences that contain two or more clauses, some of
these being clauses that are embedded in groups. In the course of the next three chapters we will
usually refer to the work we are doing as the analysis of clauses - but always on the
understanding that they are clauses that occur as one-clause text-sentences. So these sentences
do - or could - occur in actual texts. In Chapters 7 to 10 we will refer to groups in a similar
way, i.e. as small instances of text.
2. We will come back later to the other two sentences, each of which has interesting
characteristics. We will have covered all of the points needed to analyze Adams question by
Chapter 14, but for the second sentence of Paulas reply we will have to wait till Chapters 23.
47
THE BASIC GRAMMAR OF TRANSITIVITY AND MOOD
1.2 The multifunctional principle

Before we begin work on the analysis itself, I must introduce one of the most
important ideas in modern linguistics. It was introduced by Halliday as a founding
principle of Systemic Functional Grammar. In the next chapter - so after we have
seen it at work - we will take a critical look at the precise status of this concept
should have in a theory of language.
We will call this principle the MULTIFUNCTIONAL PRINCIPLE, and it states that:
Every clause serves several different functions at the same time.
The structure of a clause is in some ways rather like the structure of a strong hemp
rope. A rope of this kind consists of several strands, each of which is itself made
up of countless fibres. In other words, every clause expresses several strands of
meaning, each being of a different type and each serving a different function - and
each containing within itself many finer meanings. These different major strands of
meaning are closely interwoven, and together they make up what we perceive as a
single entity - the clause as a whole. So 'meaning' is to be understood here in the
broad sense introduced in Chapter 2, and it includes several different types. Over
the next few chapters, we will build up our picture of the various strands and substrands of meaning that get expressed in English syntax, and of how they combine
in the structure of the clause.
Almost very clause of every text that is ever produced is, in this special sense,
'multifunctional'.3 This 'multifunctional principle' does not apply just to English,
but to all natural human languages.b
One of the most amazing things about human language is the way in which it
succeeds in combining all of the various strands of meaning into a SINGLE STRUCTURE. One major goal of this Handbook is to show how it is possible to do this. In
other words, it will show you how
a TWO-DIMENSIONAL 'branching' diagram
can capture all the necessary information from
a MULTI-DIMENSIONAL array of types of meaning.
And, as we will see in this and the next chapter in particular, it quite often does
this in a single element of the clause.
In this chapter we will focus on just TWO of these strands of meaning, as they
are expressed in the English clause. The names of the two are TRANSITIVITY and
MOOD.c I will now explain what each of these terms means.
1.3 The TRANSITIVITY strand of meaning
The first strand of meaning in the clause that we will examine is TRANSITIVITY. The word 'transitivity' is written in upper case letters because, in
Systemic Functional Grammar, we signify the names of the system networks of
meaning in this way - and so, by extension, the way in which they are realized at
the level of form. d
3.
48
The most frequent of the few exceptions is introduced in Section 6.9 of the next chapter.
TRANSITIVITY is in fact one of the major strands of meaning in the clauses of

all human languages. It defines the range of types of process that it is possible to
express through the language concerned - English, in our case - and the
participants in each of those types of process.
That description of TRANSITIVITY is rather too abstract to mean much on its
own - so let's use Example (1a) to make it clearer. We will begin with some key
points about the process - or, as we will term it here, the Process (with a capital
P).4
There are three points to make about the Process. The first is that the term
'Process' belongs to a description of language at the level of MEANING rather than at
the level of FORM. And, since the word 'semantics' is simply a more technical name
for 'the level of meaning', we can say that the term 'Process' is part of the
semantic description of a clause. So we now can say that, in (1a), the Process
is one of 'simmering'.5
Secondly, I should emphasize that the word 'Process' is being used here in a
broad sense. It may be an action such as 'simmering' or 'kissing', or a mental state
such as 'knowing' or 'loving', or a relationship such as 'being' or 'having'.
Thirdly, every Process functions as the pivotal element of a situation - the
name for the unit at the level of semantics that is equivalent to the clause a the level
of form.e So we can say that, in Example (1a), the situation of 'Jamie Oliver
simmering the vegetables gently' has 'simmering' as its Process. And, similarly,
the clause whose words are He will simmer them gently has simmer as its Main
Verb.
We have just made statements about each of the two levels of MEANING (or
SEMANTICS) and FORM. So, to summarize so far, we can say:
1
2
3
At the level of MEANING:

the semantic unit of the situation has, as a pivotal element, a Process.
At the level of FORM:
the syntactic unit of the clause has, as a pivotal element, a Main Verb. f
And the Process is typically expressed in the Main Verb (90% reliable).g
In Example (1a), then, the situation of 'Jamie Oliver simmering the vegetables
gently' has 'simmering' as its Process and, similarly, the clause whose words
are He will simmer them gently has simmer as its Main Verb.
This brings us to the MOST BASIC PRINCIPLE of syntax analysis, which is that:
There is one Main Verb per clause.
4. Throughout this Handbook we will use a capital P in spelling both Process and
Participant, so that these technical terms can be clearly recognized for what they are. This is part
of the useful convention that we write the names of ALL the elements of a clause - and of the
situation that it realizes - in this way.
5.
Here, the single quotation marks signify a meaning ( to introduce a further convention).
49
This principle is 99% reliable - and the exceptions to it rarely cause difficulties for
the syntax analyst.6 Even though we will come later to different and more complex
ways of expressing a Process - starting in Chapter 5 - you will find that this simple
principle provides the basis for all of your work on the analysis of clauses.h
We can summarize the ideas presented so far in the diagram in Figure 3.1:
Process
MEANING:
situation
Main Verb
FORM:
clause
('pivotal element')
Figure 3.1: the relations of Process and Main Verb

The word 'form' is used in Figure 3.1. As I explained in Chapter 2, form is a
general term that includes items, syntax and (depending on whether the medium is
speech or writing) intonation or punctuation. So in Figure 3.1 we could replace the
word 'FORM' by 'SYNTAX', since it is the syntax of English that we are
focussing on in this handbook.
Note too that the relationships between (1a) 'situation' and 'clause' and (2)
'Process' and 'Main Verb' in Figure 3.1 express the important principle that the
units and elements of syntax should match as closely as possible the units and
elements of semantics - while recognizing that the match is rarely complete in a
natural language. The effect of this is that, as we learn about syntax, we will often
find it helpful to bring into the picture the functions that syntax serves - i.e. the
meanings that syntax expresses. We will find ourselves analyzing the form and
the meaning AT THE SAME TIME.
We come now to the Participants in the Process. All we need to say at this
point is that
Just as: the PROCESS is typically expressed in the Main Verb,
so too: the PARTICIPANTS are typically expressed in the Subject
and Complement.7
Now we are ready to identify the first strand of meaning in He will simmer
them gently. The analysis of its TRANSITIVITY is shown in Figure 3.2.
6. We will meet most of the more frequent types of exception in Section 6.9 of Chapter 4 and
Section 2 of Chapter 5.
7. I have not so far explained what a Subject and a Complement are, nor how to identify
instances of each. We will come to these questions in Sections 3, 6 and 7. At this point we are
simply illustrating the vital point that syntax is multi-functional.
50
Cl
KEY:
S
Cl
S
M
C
=
=
=
=
Clause
Subject
Main Verb
Complement

Figure 3.2: The TRANSITIVITY in Example 1a
The general name for the first of the two strands of meaning that we are
introducing in this section is experiential. It is called 'experiential' meaning
because it represents the events and objects (including people) as the Performer of
the sentence 'experiences' them - or claims to experience them. The events and
objects may be physical or abstract, and the world in which they are presented as
existing may be real or imaginary. It is through the experiential meanings that are
built into the languages that we learn than we interpret - or construe - the worlds
around us and inside us. The range of types of meaning that are covered by the
term experiential will become clearer as we introduce the various other strands of
meaning; each strand is a type of meaning that is clearly distinct from the other
types. The TRANSITIVITY of a text is simply the most important of a number of
types of experiential meaning that are found in the clause.
1.4 The MOOD strand of meaning
The second major function of language is to express interpersonal meaning.
And the main type of interpersonal meaning expressed in the clause is MOOD.
MOOD is meaning in terms of communication roles. But before we can
describe these we need to introduce two even more basic concepts: the Performer
and the Addressee.
Why do we use these terms rather than, say, 'Speaker' and 'Hearer'? The
reason is that the performer of an act of communication may be either a speaker or
a writer, and the addressee may be either a hearer or a reader. So, since we
often need to generalize across speech and writing, we will use the terms
Performer and Addressee (with an initial capital letter to signify that these are
roles). Sometimes we will abbreviate the word 'Performer' to P and 'Addressee' to
A - so when Paula is speaking to Adam, P and A can also stand for 'Paula' and
'Adam'. And we will also assume, in the rest of this handbook, that the performer
is female and that the addressee is male, because this will save having to use clumsy
expressions such as he/she, and himself/herself.
So we can say that Paula is the Performer of the information-giving act of He
will simmer them gently and that Adam is the Addressee.
We are now in a position where we can say how the different meanings in the
system network for MOOD are defined. It is in terms of the communication roles
51
that the Performer of the clause assigns to herself and the Addressee. So in our
example Paula, through the act of uttering this clause, assigns herself the role of
'giver of information' (i.e. information about what the TV chef is about to do), and
she assigns to Adam the role of 'receiver of information'.
There is an interesting relationship between the Performer of the communicative
act and the act itself. Notice that we can call both of them an information giver.
We can say that Paula, in her role as the Performer, is an 'information giver', and
we can also say that her one-clause utterance is an 'information-giver'. The
relationship is that the clause functions as a temporary 'extension' of P - as if it was
a tool that P is using - and the result of this is that we can refer to either Paula or her
utterance as the 'information giver'. So the interpersonal meaning of Example 1 is
'information giver'.
For the linguist, the crucial question is 'How is the meaning information giver'
signalled at the level of form?' The answer is that, in English, it is done by the
sequence of two elements of clause structure, the Subject and the Operator. i
(Later in this chapter I will state the criteria for identifying each of them.) The
syntax of the MOOD in Example 1 is shown in Figure 3.3.8
Cl
KEY:
Cl = Clause
S = Subject
O = Operator
S O

Figure 3.3: The MOOD in Example 1a
So MOOD is the main type of interpersonal meaning in the clause. Its
importance lies in the fact that it is the main way through which we represent, in the
semantics and syntax of the lexicogrammar, the discourse act that is performed
through uttering the clause.
I introduced the concept of an act as the lowest unit of discourse very briefly
in Section 2.3 of Chapter 1), and its introduction here shows that, in a full model of
this type of meaning,we need to recognize THREE levels of description:
1
2
3
at the level of MEANING: the interpersonal semantics of MOOD;

below it, at the level of FORM, the syntax that expresses the MOOD meanings;
above it, in the DISCOURSE STRUCTURE, the classes of act that these features
express (as illustrated in Figure 3.1 in Section 2.3 of Chapter 1).
Here we are concerned only with first two levels of description.

1.5 Strands of meaning and system networks
8. The MOOD is also frequently expressed by the order of the Subject and Main Verb, as we will
see in Section 6. This happens when there is no Operator.
52
We have now introduced two pairs of terms that appear to duplicate each other:
(1) 'experiential' and TRANSITIVITY, and (2) 'interpersonal' and MOOD. This
apparent duplication occurs because we are so far considering only the clause (and
not all of the other units of syntax), and because we have considered only one of the
various types of meaning found in the experiential strand. (We will meet another
one shortly.) In fact the concept that there are 'experiential' and 'interpersonal'
strands of meaning is also relevant to other units of language - though it is most
obvious in the clause. The terms TRANSITIVITY and MOOD are simply the
names of two major system networks of choices between semantic features
(meanings) that are expressed in the clause (as described in Section 3.2 of Chapter
2). But also, by extension, they are used as the names of the strands of
meaning expressed in the structures that express those choices of semantic
features. The relationships between (1) the strand of meaning and (2) the particular
system network (and so the structures in which it is expressed) can be summarised
in a diagram, a corner of which is shown in Figure 3.4.
strand of meaning
or
'function of language'
experiential
interpersonal
expressed in the unit of:

clause
TRANSITIVITY
MOOD
Figure 3.4: Two major functions of language and two types of clause meaning
As Figure 3.4 shows, a 'function of language' and a 'strand of meaning' are
two ways of expressing the same thing. In general in this book we will use the
term that most clearly reminds us of the multifunctionality of language, i.e. the
metaphor of strands of meaning. j
It is interesting that both TRANSITIVITY and MOOD are concerned with
meanings that are 'roles'. But it is not surprising, in a functional approach to
language - since a 'role' IS a function. It is in fact quite easy to keep the two
types of role separate in your mind:
TRANSITIVITY covers the roles of the participants being referred to,
while
MOOD covers the roles of the interactants in the act of communication.
By the end of this chapter we will have simple examples of system networks for
both TRANSITIVITY and MOOD.
53
1.6 Putting TRANSITIVITY and MOOD together

If you compare Figures 3.1 and 3.2, you will see that the Subject is involved in
the syntax of both TRANSITIVITY and MOOD. This illustrates nicely the principle
of 'multifunctionality' that I introduced at the start of this chapter. Later we will
find that the Subject typically has a further function - that of being the type of
'Theme' which we will call 'Subject Theme'.9 So a Subject typically serves THREE
functions at the same time. The main discussion of the 'thematic' strand of the
clause's 'rope of meaning' comes in Chapter 6.k
However, as we will see in Section 7.2 of the next chapter, the Subject is not
the richest example of the MULTIFUNCTIONAL PRINCIPLE. A single word functioning
as the Operator can in fact carry up to FIVE meanings simultaneously. But at this
point we will simply note two of them - i.e. that the item will has its own internal
meaning of TIME (i.e. 'future time'), as well as its function as the Operator in
expressing the meaning of MOOD. The multifunctional principle therefore applies
to many of the individual elements within the clause (though less strongly to
elements other than the Subject and the Operator) - and so, by extension, to the
clause as a whole. This fact makes the multi-strand 'rope' metaphor for the clause a
little less suitable, because we must now envisage a rope of uneven thickness.
Indeed, it is a rope which occasionally consists of just one strand, but which often
has segments into which one or more extra strands have been spliced.
If we now put the TRANSITIVITY and MOOD analyses together into one
unified structure (with TIME included too) we get the analysis shown in Figure 3.5:
Cl
KEY:
S O
Cl
S
O
M
C
=
=
=
=
=
Clause
Subject
Operator
Main Verb
Complement

Figure 3.5: TRANSITIVITY and MOOD in Example 1a
1.7 The Manner of the Process
This leaves only the word gently. What kind of meaning is it? Is it experiential, like TRANSITIVITY, or interpersonal, like MOOD? Or is it a completely
new type of meaning?
Since we are taking a functional approach to understanding language, we should
ask: 'What function does gently perform here?' The answer is that it describes the
way in which 'he' is going to simmer 'them'. But it is not a Participant in the
Process of 'simmering', for reasons that will become clearer in Section 7 - and so it
9. As we will see in Chapter 6, the syntactic Subject of the clause is also - typically but not
necessarily - the subject of the clause in the everyday sense of the word, i.e. it is the person or
thing that the Performer wishes to say something about. See Fawcett (1999) for a fuller
discussion of the meaning of the Subject.
54
is not part of TRANSITIVITY. The function served by the word gently is that of
giving Adam further valuable information about the Manner in which Paula thinks
that Jamie Oliver intends to cook the sliced leeks and carrots. So the answer to our
question is that it is another part of the experiential meaning - even though it is
not a Participant in the Process, and not a part of the Process itself. The meaning of
'Manner' is one of many types of meaning that are frequently expressed at the level
of syntax as an Adjunct.
Figure 3.6 provides an analysis that covers all of the clause elements in our
example.
Cl
KEY:
S O
Cl
S
O
M
C
A
=
=
=
=
=
=
Clause
Subject
Operator
Main Verb
Complement
Adjunct

Figure 3.6: The full clause analysis of Example 1a
If we wished to specify the Time Position of the event, we would use a
different type of Adjunct, such as now in He will simmer them now. The 'Time
Position' and the 'Manner' of an event are just two of the many types of what is
termed 'Circumstance' - in a very broad sense of the term - and each such
Circumstance is realized as a separate type of Adjunct. These two are both types
of experiential meaning, but there are many types of Adjunct that express
meanings that belong in other strands of meaning. We will learn a little more about
Adjuncts at various points in this chapter and the next, and there will be a
reasonably full introduction to Adjuncts of all types in Chapter 6.10
2 Introducing the Pre-Guidelines

2.1 The foundations of clause analysis
In this section we will start laying the foundations for building efficient clause
analysis skills. At regular intervals this handbook will provide increasingly
complete sets of Guidelines on how to analyze sentences, based on what has been
covered so far.
The small set of guidelines that follow here simply give you the ORDER in which
you should look for the elements of clause structure. Since they do not give the
CRITERIA for identifying them, we will call them the Pre-Guidelines. The first
reasonably adequate set of Guidelines comes near the end of this chapter, in Section
8. But already we can state the five simple steps set out below.
10. We will cover the internal meaning of will, i.e. its meaning as a 'modal verb', in Chapter 4.
55
It is important to get into the habit of applying the steps in the Guidelines IN THE
If you do this, you will avoid several problems that would arise
regularly if you did not follow these guidelines. The order of introducing new
material in this handbook is based on the assumption that the steps specified in the
Guidelines will be applied in the order given - so it really is important for you to
keep to the suggested order. Later we will add other steps - but always keeping this
basic order.
Note that the analysis starts with M, and so typically in the MIDDLE of a clause.
It is interesting that this is NOT the method we use when we analyze clauses in
everyday life, i.e. when we hear or read a piece of text. When we are listening to
someone speaking, we normally start analyzing as soon as we hear the first word or even the first bit of a word. And when we read we normally start at the left and
work through it to the right (in English and most other European languages). But in
fact we cannot really be sure what a clause is about until we find the Main Verb, and
it is clear that, when you are CONSCIOUSLY analyzing the structure of a text-sentence,
the best advice is: DO NOT TRY TO ANALYZE A CLAUSE BY WORKING FROM LEFT TO RIGHT,
BUT START INSTEAD WITH THE MAIN VERB. Even the most experienced syntax analysts
find that it pays to start by locating the Main Verb. By the end of this chapter you
will have discovered the reasons why this is the best approach.
ORDER GIVEN.
2.2 The Pre-Guidelines

1
2
3
4
5
Find the Process.

Find the Operator (an element that helps show the MOOD)
Find the Subject (the other element that helps show the MOOD)
S is probably also a Participant. Find any other Participants.
Find any Adjuncts.
(M)
(O)
(S)
(C)
(A)
WARNING These Pre-Guidelines are greatly oversimplified, and the five

steps listed above will be modified and supplemented by others in later
Guidelines.
2.3 Your first analysis task
Now it is time for you to do your first clause analysis - using the PreGuidelines. There will be regular 'Analysis Tasks' throughout the book.
Some will be small tasks, like the present one, and they should be done as
part of the process of reading the book. Other 'Analysis Tasks' will present
you with a dozen or so clauses to analyze, and these should be worked
through carefully, like every major section of the book.
These 'Analysis Tasks' are not an optional extra. Each is designed
either to introduce an important new idea in such a way that you discover it
for yourself, or to fill out the existing picture in a useful way.
56
After you have done this first 'Analysis Task', we will discuss the important
question of the CRITERIA to be used in making such decisions.
First, MAKE SURE THAT YOU CANNOT SEE THE NEXT DIAGRAM (Figure 3.7). This is
because it shows you the solutions to the two analysis tasks that I am about to set
you. 11
Now, doing the best you can on the basis of what I have said so far, and
without looking at Figure 3.7, try to analyze Examples (2a) and (2b). But first
read the 'Three tips' (the first of which explains the reason for the space below).
(2a) Ivy might visit Fred.
(2b) Might Ivy visit Fred?
2.4 Three tips for drawing syntax diagrams

1
When you write down the clauses to be analyzed, you should LEAVE FOUR OR
FIVE LINES OF SPACE ABOVE THE TEXT itself, for the analysis diagram - as I have
done with Examples (2a) and (2b) above. (However, we will need more space
for the full analysis of sentences, later in the book.)
You can often save space by writing two or more sentences side by side - as
above.
It is best to
analysis.
WORK IN PENCIL,
with an ERASER ready in case you change your
When you have done the analyses, look at Figure 3.7 and compare your analyses of
(2a) and (2b) with mine.
__________________________________________________________________
DO YOUR ANALYSIS NOW, BEFORE LOOKING AT FIGURE 7.
__________________________________________________________________
11. If you know the answers before you do the analysis, you will cheat yourself of the opportunity
to think about the analysis before you do it. The quickest way to understand the ideas presented
here is to 'learn through doing'.
57
2.5 Solutions
Cl
Cl
(2a) Ivy might visit Fred.
Figure 3.7: The clause analysis of (2a) and (2b)
2.6 What criteria did you use?

Assuming that your solutions agree with mine in Figure 3.7, the question is:
'How did you do it?'. Let's take (2a) first. Unless you have previous experience
of analyzing syntax, you will almost certainly have based your analysis of (2a) on
your intuitive recognition - at some level - of its various close semantic and syntactic
similarities to (1a) - i.e. to He will simmer them gently (but without gently). We
will now look at the three main methods which you might have used to analyze
these clauses - starting with the least satisfactory.
1
It is just possible - though very unlikely - that you operated purely AT THE LEVEL
reasoning like this:
OF FORM,
The first word of (1a) was S, so the first word of (2a) is probably S too.
The second word of (1a) was O, so the second word of (2a) is probably O
also.... and so on.
This method happens to work in the case of (2a), but it wouldn't work for (2b) or
for most other text-sentences that you try it on - and it certainly wouldn't have given
you any sense of having explained anything.
2 Alternatively, you may have operated
reasoning roughly along the following lines:
AT THE LEVEL OF MEANING,
perhaps
The Process is clearly one of visiting, so visit is the Main Verb.

Although this is a different Process from the one in (1a), both Processes
have two Participants. And in both clauses the FIRST Participant is 'doing
the simmering' or 'doing the visiting', while the SECOND Participant is
having the 'simmering' or 'visiting' done to it. Therefore, since the first
Participant in (1a) is S the first Participant in (2a) is probably S too. So the
second participant is probably C. Finally, the word might is presumably
an Operator, since it is in the same position in relation to the other elements
as will is in (1a).
58
As it happens, this method gets the right result in the cases of both (2a) and (2b).
And it has the virtue of being a genuinely functional explanation. However,
surprising though it may at first seem, there is a major flaw in this method of
reasoning, so that it is NOT a reliable way to identify the Subject. There are in fact
several different types of clause for which this approach doesn't work, and we will
meet them all at the appropriate points in the Handbook. For now, simply note that
this approach fails with examples such as The Tower of London is visited by most
Americans who come to Britain and It's nice that they'll be visiting York. In the
first The Tower of London is the Subject but it is not doing the visiting, and in the
second it is the Subject, and yet it doesnt refer to anything at all.12
Before I describe the third approach to identifying the Subject, let's look at how
you analyzed (2b). Analyzing (2b) should have been easier than analyzing (2a) because its experiential meaning is identical to that of (2a). In other words, the
meanings of (2a) and (2b) are the same in the experiential strand of meaning, but
they are different in the interpersonal strand. The reason why I asked you to
analyze (2b) was to enable you to recognize, through your own analysis, a key
point in understanding English syntax. This is the fact that when S comes before O
the clause typically means one thing, and when O comes before S a clause typically
means something else. As we will see, it is the difference between GIVING and
SEEKING information.
3
If you were following the Pre-guidelines closely, you might have operated AT
in some such way as
the following:
THE LEVEL OF MEANING (BOTH EXPERIENTIAL AND INTERPERSONAL)
The Process in (2a) is 'visiting', so visit is the M. In (1a) we saw that we

was S and will was O, and there are some similarities between both we
and Ivy (e.g. both are humans) and between will and might (e.g. both
suggest that the situation being referred to happens in the future). When we
were examining (1a), S and O were said to show that it was an
'information giver'. So, since (2a) is clearly also an information giver,
there must be an S and an O in it. If so, will must be the O and Ivy must
be the S. This leaves the problem of labelling Fred. In a Process of
visiting there are two participants: a visitor and a visited. Ivy is clearly
the 'visitor' and Fred is the 'visited'. So, since we have already
established that Ivy is S, Fred must be C. Now for (2b). Everything
works in exactly the same way as in (2a) - except that (2b) is not giving
information but seeking it - i.e. it is an 'information seeker'.
Notice that this third line of reasoning incorporates part of the reasoning of the
second method, but it also adds something about the meaning of MOOD.
However, it must be admitted that it is very weak on how to recognize the Operator,
and I clearly need to provide you with a much safer way to identify it - and, because
the identification of the Subject depends on the Operator - a safer wat to identify the
Subject.
12. In other words, what is nice is not some possible referent of it, but (the fact) that they will
be visiting York.
59
But before I do that I will explain why the criteria used in the first and second
examples of reasoning set out above are not to be trusted. This will be useful
information to have in mind when making future analyses. We will focus here on
the problem of identifying the Subject.
2.7 Some dodgy criteria for identifying the Subject
The most obvious problem with the first approach - i.e. 'The Subject is what
comes first' - is the simple fact that the Subject is quite frequently NOT the first
'thing' or 'person' to be mentioned in a clause. There are many reasons why other
elements come first, and we will meet most of the frequent ones in this and the next
two chapters.
The second process of reasoning described above may at first seem persuasive but it is in fact DANGEROUSLY MISLEADING. This is because it pays too much attention
to the experiential strand of meaning and too little to the interpersonal strand
of meaning. If you found yourself using the second method when you analyzed
(2a) and (2b), you would do well to replace it immediately by the method to be
described in the next section - because if you do not your sentence analyses will
regularly turn out to be seriously wrong.
The problem with the second process of reasoning is that it rests of the
assumption that 'the Subject is the doer of the action'. The difficulty about this
assumption is that the Subject is very often NOT 'the doer of the action'. There are
three main reasons for this. Firstly, very many clauses do not express an 'action'
at all - so there is no 'doer of the action'. Many such clauses express not actions
but 'states' - e.g. states of 'being', 'having', 'feeling' or knowing', etc. For
example, 'being happy' isn't 'performing an action', and nor is 'having a car' or
'liking someone' or 'knowing something'. And changes of state such as
becoming (more sensible) and realizing (something) arent actions either.
However, even if we agreed to extend the meaning of 'performing an action' to
include 'being', 'having', 'liking', 'knowing', becoming, realizing etc., it still
wouldn't solve the problem. Consider a case with a Process that is clearly an action
such as The Prime Minister was murdered by a religious zealot. Here the Subject
is the thing that is AFFECTED by the action, and not the 'doer of the action' - so once
again the 'doer of the action' test won't work. Thirdly, the Subject is quite regularly
not a Participant at all. We will meet one case of this sort in Section 7 of this
chapter, and several others in Chapter 16.l
So what function does the Subject serve, and how do we recognize a Subject
when we encounter one? The fact is that the task of identifying the Subject in
English is a problem - but it is one that can be solved quite easily, if you follow the
guidelines set out in the next section.m
60
3 MOOD and the test for the Subject and Operator

3.1 The basic concepts
This section does two things at the same time. The first is to lay the foundations
for the more reliable test for identifying the Subject that we will have by the end of
Chapter 6. But to do this we need to recognize the fact the meaning of the Subject
in English is inherently inseparable from the meaning of the clauses MOOD. So
this section also makes a start on building up a picture of the system network for
MOOD in English. (Chapter 5 will develop a much fuller picture.)n
The best way to identify the Subject (S) in English is by using two of the major
meanings of the MOOD system. Examples (2a) and (2b) - Ivy might visit Fred and
Might Ivy visit Fred? - illustrate the fact that, typically:
S O means 'information giver', and
O S means 'information seeker'.
Note too that:
One clause can have only ONE Subject and only
ONE
Operator.
In order to identify the Subject (S), we must first be able to identify the
Operator (O) - if there is one. Even though there are many different types of
Operator, it is in fact usually fairly easy to identify the Operator in a clause - if it has
one. The way to do this is one of the main topics of the next chapter. For now I
will only use examples with Operators of the type met so far, i.e. ones like will and
might. We will now look the first version of the Subject and Operator Test - which
operates within these limitations.
3.2 The Subject and Operator Test (first version)
1
Preparation: if the clause to be analyzed does NOT have the structure of an

information giver, first re-express it so that it has.
Example: re-express Will Fiona eat it? as Fiona will eat it.
(Of course, if the clause to be analyzed already has the structure of an information giver, such as Fiona will eat it, there is no need to re-express it. And,
since the vast majority of clauses in texts are information givers, there is usually
no need for this Preparation step.)
2 Identifying the Operator (O). This is easy, because the Operator is either
(a) a 'modal verb' or (b) one of a small number of other types of verb, which
we will meet later in this chapter or in the next two. Modal verbs include may,
might, will, would, shall, should, etc. (The full list of modal verb forms is
given in Chapter 4, together with an introduction to the four general functions
that the modal verbs serve.)o
Example: will is in the list of modal verbs, so it is probably the Operator.
61
Re-expression: re-express the clause as an information seeker.13 (In a

few cases the original clause will have been an information seeker, and then it
will seem a little odd to have to change it back again - but this only happens
infrequently.)
Example: re-express Fiona will eat it as Will Fiona eat it?
Identifying the Subject (S). The Subject is the word or words which, by
occurring before or after the Operator, shows whether the clause is an
information giver or an information seeker. In other words:
S O means 'information giver, and
O S means 'information seeker'.
Example: Since the word will is the Operator, Fiona is the Subject.p
3.3 Information seekers and polarity seekers

I have been using the term 'information seeker', in order to bring out directly
the contrast with 'information giver'. But in fact there are several different types of
information seeker - and we must therefore be clear as to which type is needed for
the Subject and Operator Test. The type needed is the polarity seeker. This is
the type of information seeker that seeks the answer Yes or No.
Why does it have the name 'polarity seeker'? The answer must begin by
clarifying that the meanings expressed by Yes and No . These are:
Yes
No
= 'If I expressed this as a full clause it would be positive.'

= 'If I expressed this as a full clause it would be negative.'
In other words, a polarity-seeker asks the Addressee to choose between the two
'poles' of 'positive' and 'negative' (rather as a magnetized iron bar has a positive
pole and a negative pole). So, when your purpose is to get the Addressee to answer
Yes or No, you typically produce a 'polarity seeker'. This is why an informal name
for a polarity seeker is a 'Yes-No question'. (We will meet the other main type of
information seeker in Chapter 4.)
3.4 Getting into the habit of using the Subject and Operator Test
As we develop the Guidelines for analyzing clauses, you will find that the
Subject and Operator Test is one of your most valuable tools - and that it will help
you to avoid making mistakes with a wide variety of problem cases. It is therefore
a good idea to get into the habit of applying it regularly. I suggest that you use it for
all of the examples that you are asked to analyze in the rest of this chapter and the
next two, so that it becomes a procedure that is as unconscious as using a knife and
fork or riding a bicycle.
As with those skills, you need to attend CONSCIOUSLY to the details of the
procedure at first, and then after a while you will find yourself applying the
13. There are in fact several types of information seeker, and the type we need is the one that
invites the Addressee to answer Yes or No. See the next sub-section.
62
principle unconsciously. But it is always useful, whenever you meet cases where
the structure is unusual in a way that might involve the Subject, to apply the Subject
and Operator Test quite consciously and deliberately.q
3.5 Summary so far
To summarize the main concepts introduced in this chapter so far, consider (2b)
again, as shown in Figure 3.8:
O S expresses MOOD.
Cl
S M C expresses TRANSITIVITY.

Figure 3.8: The TRANSITIVITY and MOOD of (2b)
4 Words, elements and units: keeping things simple

4.1 The problem
One way of looking at the problem facing the syntax analyst is to see it as the
following question: 'Which words go with which?' We have avoided facing up to
this problem so far, because I have been careful to choose examples in which there
is just ONE WORD FOR EACH ELEMENT of the clause.
But now look at (1b), in which some elements consist of more than one word and try to analyze it.
(1b) That nice man should cook those delicious vegetables very carefully indeed.
If you find you are having difficulties, just go straight to the solution.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
4.2 The solution
Figure 3.9 shows that the analysis of Example (1a) as well as (1b) - and the
fact we can use one diagram to analyze both of them illustrates a very important
point. This is that the structures of (1a) and (1b) are identical IN TERMS OF THEIR
CLAUSE ELEMENTS. In other words, they have the same clause structure - even
though the words are completely different and even though (1a) has only five words
while (1b) has eleven. This is because there is not just one word at each of S, C
and A, but SEVERAL WORDS.
63
Cl
(1a)
He
will simmer
them
gently.
(1b) That nice man should cook those delicious vegetables very carefully indeed.
Figure 3.9: An example with several words at S, C and A
Figure 3.9 illustrates some other important points. The first is that each of that
nice lady, those delicious vegetables and very carefully indeed is a unit - just as the
clause as a whole is a unit. Each of these units has its own elements - and in
later chapters we will cover the two classes of unit that happen to be used here the 'nominal group' and the 'quality group' - as well as all the other classes of unit.
But UNTIL WE REACH THAT POINT WE WILL MAKE THE TASK OF ANALYSIS EASIER BY USING
ONE BROAD TRIANGLE FOR ANY CASES WHERE AN ELEMENT OF A CLAUSE CONTAINS MORE
- exactly as in Figure 3.9.

Notice, though, that this still leaves the problem of how to answer the question
'Which words go with which?' For example, how do you decide whether those
should stand on its own or be put together with delicious vegetables - or even with
cook? The answer to such questions lies in considering the functions served by the
elements of the clause, i.e. in the careful use of the tests summarized in the
Guidelines which you will find near the end of this chapter (and at the end of later
chapters).
THAN ONE WORD
4.3 Can all clause elements be filled by units?

The complexity in (1b) raises an important question. This is: 'Can every
element of every clause be replaced by a group of words in this way?' I will be
introducing several other clause elements in the following chapters - so, if the
answer was to be 'Yes', this would greatly add to the complexity of the work of
analyzing clauses. Luckily, the answer is 'No'. In fact:
Only Subjects, Complements and Adjuncts can be filled by units.
(99.9% reliable)
So the good news for the analyst is that there is no possibility of having more
than one word for either the Operator or the Main Verb - and virtually none for any
of the other types of clause element to be introduced over the next few chapters.r
4.4 Why do Subjects, Complements and most Adjuncts have internal
structure?
One advantage of looking at language from a functional and semantic
perspective is that this approach helps us to understand WHY language is as it is. So
64
we can reasonably ask: 'Why is it that only the Subject, Complement and Adjunct
can be replaced by units consisting of more than one word?'. The answer is that it
is only these three types of clause elements that can be filled by UNITS THAT REFER TO
ENTITIES.
The clause itself refers to an 'entity' - to the particular type of entity that we call
a 'situation', as we have seen. The most important type of entity other than a
'situation' is a 'thing' (in a sense of 'thing' that includes both 'abstract' and
'physical' things, and both 'human' and 'non-human' things, etc). And, roughly
speaking, it is the UNITS which express things and the other types of entity including other situations - that fill Subjects, Complements and Adjuncts. It is
because each of these types of entity has its own internal SEMANTIC complexity that
the units which fill Subjects, Complements and Adjuncts have their own internal
SYNTACTIC complexity.
4.5 The relative simplicity of syntactic complexity
In fact, it is one of the most important facts about the English language that there
is enormous scope for complexity within Subjects, Complements and Adjuncts and also within certain elements of the lower units as well. Chapters 7 to 20 are
designed to introduce you to the principal ways in which the English language
enriches the basic structure of a single clause, often by embedding clauses and
groups in other clauses and groups, in order to express ideas that have this degree
of complexity.
It may sound as if there is a lot to learn about the syntactic structure of English.
It is true that there is quite a lot - but it is not too much for the average human mind
to grasp quite easily. And, as we will see at the end of Chapter 21, the essentials of
English syntax can be summarized - once you have learnt the principles - on JUST
THREE PAGES. Surprisingly, perhaps, we will find that quite a SMALL SET OF
PRINCIPLES will enable us to understand all of the potentially VERY GREAT COMPLEXITY
found in the structure of English sentences. (For an overview of the structures see
Chapter 21, and for a presentation of the principles see Chapters 23 and 24.)
However, the foundation for understanding the rich complexity of English
syntax is a good understanding of the structure of the clause. It is because we
need to focus our attention on the clause itself that I will generally use only one or
two words for each S, C and A for the next few chapters (unless the example
would sound unnatural).
5 Conflating the Main Verb with the Operator (O/M):

the special case of 'being'
5.1 Four peculiarities of 'being'
By far the most frequent Main Verb is one or other of the various forms of
the verb be, so it is important to introduce this 'special case' early on. It has four
unique characteristics, as we will soon see. But first lets have an example.
Paula (P) and her young nephew Adam (A) - who is a gifted footballer - are
going for a walk in the park. A has just had a letter from Manchester United
65
Football Club inviting him to go for a training week. Ike and Ivy are reporters for a
local newspaper, and Paula has just seen them walking towards P and A. Since P
has had a bad experience with them in the past she doesnt trust them, so she has
just said to A I don't think we should talk to those two - and now she adds her
rather inadequate reason, as in (3):
(3) They are reporters.
Try to analyze this apparently simple example. If you follow the principles
established so far, you will be able to do this, but you will discover several
important facts about English as you do so.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Your procedure should have been as follows. First, you should have located
the Process, and so the Main Verb. The Process in this clause is the minimal
Process of being, and the Main Verb is therefore the word are. It is the 'state'
type of Process, and this reminds us that our definition of 'Process' must be wide
enough to include 'states' as well as 'changes of state' and 'actions', etc. Next, if
you have applied the Subject and Operator Test carefully you will have found that
the information seeker that corresponds to They are reporters is Are they reporters?
This demonstrates clearly that are is BOTH the Operator AND the Main Verb in this
clause. The analysis is therefore as in Figure 3.10.
Cl
S O/M
(3) They are reporters.

Figure 3.10: The conflation of the Operator and the Main Verb
Note the direct parallels between the analysis of Examples (2a) and (3). In other
words, even though there are only three elements in (3) as against the four in (2a),
the MOOD in (3) is realized by S O, just as it was in (1a). And the TRANSITIVITY in (3) is realized by S M C, just as it is in (1a). The only completely
new concept is the fusion of O and M in the word are, so that they function as one
element. The technical term for this in SFG is to say that they have been
conflated. We will find that this concept of conflation is needed at several other
places in the grammar. Notice that in the present example the two elements that are
conflated represent meanings from two different strands of meaning - and this is
often the case. The M is the pivotal element of the clause's TRANSITIVITY, and
the O is one of the two key elements of its MOOD. (However, it is important to
66
emphasize that there are other frequent cases of am, are, is, was and were which are
NOT to be analyzed as O/M, as we will see in Chapters 4, 5 and 14.) s
There are three other peculiarities about the use of a forms of be as a Main Verb.
The first is simply to note the irregularity of its forms, i.e.
am, are, is, was, were, be, being, been
The second peculiarity about be is that, in most major modern dialects of
English, there is no other verb that can at the same time be both M and be conflated
with O (i.e. the forms am, are, is, was or were).14
The third peculiarity is one that occurs at the level of meaning. This is that,
even though a clause with being as its Process clearly contains the TWO elements
of a Subject and a Complement, it is reasonable to ask in cases such as (3): 'How
many Participants are there in this clause?'. You might want to argue that, since the
expression reporters refers to the same referent as they, there is only one
Participant.t However, I take the view, as many linguists would, that there are TWO
referents, and so TWO Participant Roles. The two are:
(a) the two or more people who are presumed to be already identified for the
Addressee, and who are referred to by they, and
(b) the general class of 'reporters'.
In other words, the Performer's purpose in uttering this clause is to tell the
Addressee that one referent ('the two or more people') is to be classified as a
member of another referent, i.e. the general class of 'reporters'. And, since these
two referents are not the same, the Performer naturally has to present the clause as
involving two referents, and so two Participant Roles. (The names of the two
specific types of Participant Role used here are the Carrier and the Attribute, as we
will see in Chapter 2 of the Functional Semantics Handbook.)
You might still want to ask: 'Can a class of things really be a 'referent'?' The
short answer is that a class of things can - and must - be treated as a referent.
Consider, for example, the status of the word reporters in the clause Reporters are
untrustworthy (a prejudice that may have been in Paulas mind when uttering (3) as
a reason for not taliking to Ike and Ivy). Here reporters is the Subject of the clause
rather than its Complement. As in Example (3), the referent is 'members of the
class of reporters' - but few linguists would wish to say that there was no referent
for reporters. (If we did there would be no referent at all in the clause.)15 The
general point to be made here is that, if we are to develop an adequate model of the
meanings in language, we must have a concept of 'referent' that is broad enough to
include classes of things.u
14. We should note that some older people in Britain still say Have you a pen? rather than either
of the more frequent forms Do you have a pen? or Have you got a pen? So for them it is not only
the am/is/are/was/were forms of be that can be O/M, but also the have/has/had forms of have. See
Section 5.8 of the next chapter on the fading usage ofhave as the Operator.
15. If we did there would be no referent at all in the clause. We might express the meaning of
reporters more precisely by saying 'members of the class of reporters', so that we can say Reporters
are untrustworthy means 'Members of the class of reporters are untrustworthy'.
67
5.2
Analysis task: discovering a new type of Complement
We will approach the new type of Complement to be introduced here by

analyzing a couple of simple examples. Try analyzing these examples, spoken
about a six-month old baby:
(4) Is Alex happy now?
(5) He's amazing!
You will find that they take a stage further the principle about the number of
Participants in clauses with a Carrier and an Attribute established for (3), and that
(5) also makes one think about these two further questions:
1. What type of meaning is expressed in the word amazing?, and
2. How should we define a word?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
5.3 Solutions
Cl
O/M S
Cl
S O/M
(4) Is Alex happy now? (5) He 's amazing.

Figure 3.11: Two types of 'quality' as the Complement
5.4 Qualities as Complements
In both (4) and (5) we have a new type of Complement: a word that expresses
the quality of a 'thing'. (In this sense of 'thing', a 'person' is a type of 'thing'.)
Like reporters in (3), happy and amazing are examples of Complements whose
specific Participant Role is to function as an Attribute. In other words, just as
'being a reporter' means 'being a member of the class of reporters', so 'being
happy' in Example (4) means 'being a member of the class of happy people'.
When the Performer (P) asks whether someone is happy, P is asking about that
persons mental state. Clearly, this is an aspect of experiential meaning - just as
the Attribute strong is in Alex is strong. The only difference is that Alexs strength
is a relatively permanent attribute, but his happiness comes and goes - hence the
question. But the temporariness of his happiness does not make it any less
experiential.
68
5.5 Introducing affective meaning

But now consider the meaning of amazing in (5). This word too expresses a
mental state - but in this case it is THE FEELINGS OF THE PERFOMER that amazing
expresses - rather than describing the feelings of the referent, as in Alex is happy.
In other words, the meaning of Hes amazing is roughly He is a member of the
class of people who I - THE PERFORMER OF THIS TEXT-SENTENCE - consider to be
amazing'. We will therefore distinguish this quite different type of meaning as
affective meaning, i.e. a type of meaning whose function is to express the
affective state of the Performer. Other affective qualities expressing the Performers
favourable feelings (here termed favour) include nice, marvellous, great, excellent
and terrific, and ones that express disfavour include nasty, rotten, awful, lousy
and terrible.
Affective meaning is therefore an additonal strand of meaning, and it is found in
almost all texts. It is too often treated as the poor cousin among the various types of
meaning, but its central importance in the language can be demonstrated clearly.
Just try the experiment of rewriting a text so that it has NO AFFECTIVE MEANING
WHATSOEVER. There is a saying Its love that makes the world go round and,
rather similarly, this exercise proves that its the expression of loving and hating and liking and disliking - that brings a text to life.
However, affective meaning is often very closely interwoven with experiential
meaning - very frequently in the same word - and the result is that it often goes
unrecognized. And yet the subtle introduction of affective meaning to a text is
probably the most powerful tool for forming attitudes - and so for persuading
people - that a language provides. Indeed, it is one that is often far more effective
than a well-constructed argument - unwilling though we may be to admit it. It is
effective precisely because it is typically unnoticed by the Addressee.
So far we have noted certain words that carry affective meaning. But affective
meaning is typically realized in groups, such as the underlined portions of Hes a
stupid prat and She was absolutely excellent. So we will not add the affective
strand of meaning to our model of the many strands of meaning that are realized in
the clause untill we meet cases of affective meaning that are expresses directly as
elements of the clause (as we will in Chapter 6). And in the Functional Semantics
Handbook (Fawcett in preparation) affective meaning is given a chapter of its own.
Finally, notice that the two types of quality that we have met in this section
and the last in fact refer - though only in an indirect way - to 'things'. In other
words, they are 'qualities' of 'things'. This is in contrast with qualities of
situations, such as the word gently, which we met in the example of He will simmer
them gently at the start of Section 1.
5.6 Contractions
In Example (5) there is a second point that requires a brief comment. This
concerns contractions. In Hes amazing the single letter s - together with the
preceding apostrophe - stands for the full form is. You can test this claim by
changing it into a polarity seeker, i.e. Is he amazing? Conversely, (4) could be
changed into the 'information giver' Alex is happy now. Contracted forms of this
69
type are extremely common in speech - and so also in writing that represents
speech, and in casual writing such as a letter to a close friend.
How does this affect our work when we are analyzing syntax? The answer is
that we must be alert to the possibility that what appears in a written text to be a
single word - because it has a space before and after it - may in fact represent two
quite separate grammatical elements - as in the case of hes in Example 5. The fact
is that when people read a written text they normally work on the basis of two
general assumptions - but these, taken together, are only about 90% to 95% reliable
(depending on the type of text). These two rather dubious assumptions are:
Two untrustworthy assumptions
1
2
If a string of letters is preceded and followed by a space, it is a 'word', and

A word corresponds to the smallest element of syntactic structure.
While these general principles don't apply in cases such as He's amazing, they
work well for most of the time. (There are several other types of exception that
occur quite frequently, and we will meet these in later chapters.)
Luckily, very few contractions are a source of problems in sentence analysis,
so you won't have difficulties in this area. In (5), for example, it is easy to work
out that the 's must be the M, because we expect a clause to have a M (99.99%
reliable, with only very rare exceptions). In general the presence of an apostrophe
(') means:
1
2
one or more letters are missing, and

the apostrophe and what follows it is a SEPARATE ELEMENT OF SYNTAX.
In the table that follows, I have included the forms of have, so that this table of the
most frequent cases can be complete.16
Full forms:
Contracted forms:
modal verbs
forms of 'be'
forms of 'have'
will would
am is are
has have had
'll
'd
'm 's 're
's
've
'd
Table 1: Contractions of English verb forms

Notice the ambiguity of the items 's and 'd. The first could be either is or has,
and the second could be either had or would. (We will meet the full set of 'modal
verbs' in the next chapter, and the additional use of the verbs be and have as
16. Contracted forms of have normally only occur in modern English when they are being used as
Auxiliary Verbs rather than Main Verbs. (Forms of have as Auxiliary Verbs will be introduced in
Section 11 of the next chapter.) So while I have a new laptop and Ive got a new laptop sound
natural, Ive a new laptop sounds dated (or possible a regional dialect). And if we change the
example so that the Subject is not the Performer but an outsider (third person, in traditional
grammar), as in Hes a new laptop, the contraction becomes completely unacceptable. In this case,
of course, the reason is the ambiguity between the interpretation of s as is (which is the first
interpretation because it is so frequent) or has.
70
Auxiliary Verbs is introduced in Chapter 4.) But once you are aware of the
existence of these contractions they are unlikely to cause you problems.17
6 Towards an improved Subject and Operator Test

6.1 Clauses with no Operator
In this section we will work our way towards a version of the Subject and
Operator Test that has much greater coverage. Let me begin by asking you to
analyze (6):
(6) Fred visited Fiona yesterday.
You will probably be able to do so quite easily - but if you follow the procedures of
the Subject and Operator Test you will meet a small but highly significant problem.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Cl
(6) Fred visited Fiona yesterday.

Figure 3.12: the analysis of (6)
The problem comes in Step 2 of the existing Subject and Operator Test. It is
that, since there is no Operator in (6), there is no element which can be used to form
a polarity seeker. The fact is that clauses without Operators such as (6) occur very
frequently in most types of text - for example the underlined clauses in the
following excerpt from one of the most famous texts of all, Homer's Odyssey:
Poseidon marshalled the clouds and seizing his trident [he] stirred up the sea. He
roused the stormy blasts of every wind that blows, and [he] covered land and water
17. The two other frequent uses of the apostrophe behave rather differently. The apostrophe in my
grandfather's house conforms to the same general principle exemplified here, i.e. that the
apostrophe and what follows it constitute a different element. But it requires a different analysis as is shown in Chapter 15. But the contraction n't (for not), as in Ike isn't here, simply indicates
that the item n't is the weak form of not.
71
alike with a canopy of cloud. Darkness swooped down from the sky .... and so
on, for many more clauses.18
So how do we form the polarity seeker that is the equivalent of such
information givers? The answer, as you will already have discovered for yourself
in analyzing (6), is that in such cases we introduce a form of the verb do to function
as the Operator, as in Figure 3.13.
Cl
(6a) Did Fred visit Fiona yesterday?

Figure 3.13: the analysis of the polarity seeker that is the equivalent of (6)
In all of the examples considered so far we have found that, when we needed an
Operator to change the meaning of an information giver to a polarity seeker,
there was one in the clause already. For example, the word might is already present
in (2a) Ivy might visit Fred, so it is straightforward to re-express it as Might Ivy
visit Fred? The reason why the item might is available is because the meaning of
'possibility' is required, whichever of the two MOOD meanings has been chosen.
So it is ONLY WHEN NO OTHER MEANING HAS BEEN CHOSEN THAT IS EXPRESSED IN AN
OPERATOR that a form of do is introduced. In other words, the form of do is
introduced as a default. The complete set of the forms of do that can function at O
is simply:
do, does, did.
The fact that we find it necessary to provide a word that will function as the
Operator is interesting in itself - because it shows how important the sequence of O
and S is in expressing the meanings of the English clause.
Clearly, we need to extend Step 2 of the Subject and Operator Test slightly, in
order to take account of (1) the frequent conflation of O and M in Processes of
'being' and (2) the use of a form of do as the Operator. So here is the improved
Subject and Operator Test:
6.2
1
The Subject and Operator Test (still not the final version)
Preparation: If the clause to be analyzed does NOT have the structure of an

information giver, first re-express it so that it has.
Example: re-express Will Ivy eat it? as Ivy will eat it.
18. I have added two ellipted Subjects in aquare brackets to bring out the pattern even more clearly;
see Chapter 19 for ellipsis.
72
Identifying the Operator (O) - if there is one. So far it is:

EITHER
OR
OR
(a) a modal verb such as may, might, will, would, shall, should
(there is a full list in Section 5 of Chapter 4),
(b) am, is, are, was or were, expressing a Process of 'being',
when it is always O/M (so far, but see Section 11 of Chapter 4
for O/X),
(c) do, does or did, as in polarity seekers such as Did you eat it?
Re-expression: If necessary, supply do, does or did to function as the

Operator, then re-express the clause as a polarity seeker, i.e. as seeking the
answer Yes or No.
Example: re-express Ivy ate it as Ivy did eat it - and then as Did Ivy eat it?
Identifying the Subject (S). The Subject is the word or words which, by
occurring before or after the Operator, shows whether the clause is an information giver or a polarity seeker. In other words:
S O or S O/M or S M means 'information giver' (95% reliable)
and
O S or O/M S means 'polarity seeker' (95% reliable).19
Example: Since did is the Operator, Ivy is the Subject.
The two lines above the example can also stand as a summary of what we have
learnt in this chapter about MOOD. While we have so far only identified two of the
many choices in MOOD, they are two of the most freqent ones - and they are the
basis on which we will develop a much more complete picture of both the meanings
of MOOD and the structures that realize them in Sections 2 to 4 of Chapter 5. Now,
however, it is time to study the most important basic patterns in the other main
strand of meaning that we are looking at here - TRANSITIVITY.
Up to this point, this chapter has been introductory, in the sense that the
goal has been to introduce (a) a number of important CONCEPTS that are the
foundations of the model of syntax presented here, and (b) a basic METHOD
for approaching the analysis of syntax. So naturally there has been no
attempt so far to provide anything approaching a full treatment for any of the
areas of grammar that have been covered,
But this will now change. In other words, from this point on, I will
provide a reasonably full treatment of each topic that we cover. So, even
though the next section wont be noticeably harder to work through than the
last six, it will in fact be possible to say at the end of it We have now
covered all of the main points about the syntax of TRANSITIVITY at the
level of form. And the same goes for all of the following chapters.
19. We will meet the cases which provide the 5% of exceptions in both cases in due course. One
major one will come in Chapter 5.
73
There are some apparent exceptions. There are, for example, two
chapters on the nominal group - Chapters 7 and 15, with the first describing
the basic grammar of the nominal group and the second providing more
on the nominal group. But I will in fact normally say all that needs to be
said about the elements that I introduce in Chapter 7 in that chapter, so that
you will not be asked to re-think your picture of those elements of the
nominal group when we come to Chapter 15. Rather, we will be adding
other elements in Chapter 15, and so enriching the picture of the nominal
group as a whole. And the same general principle applies throughout.
This means that, whenever you read or consult any section of this
Handbook after this point, you can be reasonably sure that you are reading
the Handbooks definitive statement on the part of the English language
that is being examined. This does not mean that it would not be possible to
go into more detail on the topic - because it always would. But it does mean
that you should feel confident that there are no misleading simplifications
that need to be replaced by a more adequate statement at a later stage. On the
very few occasions when there is a danger of approaching this situation, I
will say so.
7 More on TRANSITIVITY:
Participants as Subjects and Complements
7.1 Four questions about TRANSITIVITY
To analyze the syntax of a clause you need to be confident that you can
recognize a Subject and a Complement when you see one. The main purpose of
this section is therefore to give the clearest possible picture of what Subjects and
Complements are. And this in turn involves giving you a fairly complete
introduction to TRANSITIVITY. This section will therefore be the longest in this
chapter by some way - 15 pages long, in fact.
Let's begin by asking the following four questions:
1. What is a Subject - in addition to being an element that helps to define the
MOOD?
2. What are the criteria for labelling part of a clause as a Complement - rather
than as an Adjunct?
3. How many Complements can there be in a clause?
4. In identifying Complements, what sub-types is it useful to recognize?
However, before we can answer these questions, we must first have a clear picture
of what a Participant Role is.
74
7.2 How to identify a Participant Role

Till now, we have been using the term 'Participant' rather informally, without
defining it. Strictly speaking, the term 'Participant' refers to the representation of
something IN THE MIND OF THE PERFORMER. Let us call this the mental referent (or
referent for short).20 For the purpose of communicating about this mental
referent through language, the Performer must assign to it a semantic role - i.e.
one of the set that are recognized by the language being used (here, English). If the
referent is a 'Participant' in the Process, it will be given the type of semantic role
known as a Participant Role.
Other mental referents may be 'Circumstances' - and so in the semantics there
are Circumstantial Roles that correspond to them, just as Participant Roles
correspond to Participants. The abbreviation for Participant Role is PR, and the
abbreviation for Circumstantial Role is CR. We have already met two types of CR
earlier in this chapter. The word gently in He will simmer them gently (Example 1)
is a 'Circumstance of Manner', and the words now and yesterday in Is Alex happy
now? (4) and Fred visited Fiona yesterday (6) are both 'Circumstances of Time
Position'. Circumstantial Roles, as you will by now have guessed, are expressed
in syntax as Adjuncts. Here we will concentrate on PRs, but there will be more
about Adjuncts at various points in what follows, and especially in Chapter 6.
So we must now ask: What is a Participant Role (PR)?
The answer is: A PR is a role that is 'expected' by the Process.
Or, to express it more accurately:
A Participant Role is a role which we expect to occur in the
clause, as a result of knowing what the Process is.
I will explain later in this section why we say 'which we expect to occur' rather than
simply 'which occurs'.v
Let's now try to express the above statement in the form of a test. But because
no test for a PR works with 100% efficiency for every case, I will also introduce a
subsidiary test.
7.3 Two tests for Participant Roles
There are two useful tests for identifying Processes and Participant Roles.21
The main one helps you to identify both the Process and its associated PRs, and the
subsidiary one helps you with the specific problem of distinguishing between
Complements and Adjuncts (the 'C or A Test).
20. After the message has been successfully communicated, the referent will of course also be
identified in the mind of the Addressee. However, our perspective here is on what the Performer
puts into the message rather than on what the Addressee gets out of it.
21. A number of other tests have also been suggested, all of which are less satisfactory than those
described here in one way or another.
75
(a) The Process and PR Test (99% reliable)

Assuming that xxx stands for the Main Verb, and that someone/thing/
where stands for each possible PR, try saying:
In this Process of xxx-ing, we expect to find
someone or something
xxx-ing
(someone or something)
((to or from) someone or something or somewhere). w
The last line simply says that the possible second or third PR may be preceded
by to or from.
When a clause is re-expressed in one of these ways it won't sound completely
natural, but it may still make sense. If it does, each of the elements replaced by
someone or something or somewhere is very likely to be a PR, and so a
Subject or a Complement. This test provides for 99% of clauses, but you will
need to adapt it in minor ways for the last 1%.
Remember that it is the Process of xxx-ing that expects the
Complements - and NOT the situation as a whole.
Example: consider (1):
(1) Ivy will eat the pasta tomorrow.
Application of the test Try saying:
In this Process of eating, we expect to find someone eating something.
This makes sense; i.e. the someone is Ivy and the something is the pasta - so
Ivy and the pasta are almost certainly PRs, and so S and C. But the Process of
eating does not require that the Time Position should be expressed, so
tomorrow is not a PR, and is therefore an A. 22
Further examples
Ivy sneezed 'In this Process of sneezing, we expect to find someone sneezing.' (1 PR)
She is a doctor / happy 'In this Process of being, we expect to find someone being something.'23
(2 PRs)
She gave Fred the book -
22. It can rightly be argued that every clause is located in time and place, so that we expect the
Performer to tell us when and where the event that is expressed in the clause occurred. But that is
a different matter; here we are trying to identify those PRs that we expect to find when a particular
type of P ROCESS is used.
23. The fact that there is another type of being that is being somewhere, as in Ivy is in
Moscow, doesnt affect the validity of this conclusion, because the test is being applied to the
particular type of Process that is found IN THE PRESENT CLAUSE - as is shown by the words In
this Process of xxx-ing in the test.
76
'In this Process of giving, we expect to find someone giving someone

something.'
(3 PRs)
He took the snake out of the basket 'In this Process of taking, we expect to find someone taking something
from somewhere.'
(3 PRs)
HOWEVER - you may still be unsure whether an element is a C or A. If so,
use the following test:
(b) The C or A Test (99% reliable)
The purpose of this test is to supplement the Process and PR Test in cases of
doubt about whether an element is a Complement or an Adjunct.
1. Thematize the element to be tested (i.e. put it first in the clause),
2. Treat it a separate information unit (i.e. separate it by a comma).
If the clause sounds completely natural, it is probably an Adjunct.
But if it sounds odd it is probably a Complement.
Examples
Consider Example (1) again:
Re-express it as Tomorrow, Ivy will eat the pasta.
This sounds completely natural, so tomorrow is an Adjunct.
Contrast this with re-expressing (1) as The pasta, Ivy will eat tomorrow.
Some people may say that this is just possible, but we would need to remove
the comma to make it sound at all likely - and the presence of the comma is part
of the test.
However, the problem of distinguishing between a C and an A occurs most
often when the referent is a 'place'. So lets consider (2) and (3):
(2) Thomas bought this watch in Amsterdam.
(3) Thomas lives in Amsterdam.
The question is: 'What element is in Amsterdam in each of (2) and (3): a
Complement or an Adjunct?'
Re-express (2) as In Amsterdam, I bought this watch.
This sounds completely natural, so in (2) in Amsterdam is an Adjunct.
Re-express (3) as In Amsterdam, he lives.
This sounds very odd, so in (3) in Amsterdam is a Complement.
Finally, consider the case of the following three-role Processes:
(4) He marched the prisoner to his cell.
(5) He painted the shed green.
(6) She lent her car to Fred.
For (4), To his cell, he marched the prisoner sounds odd, so to his cell is a C.
For (5), Green, he painted the shed also sounds odd, so green is a C.
77
For (6), To Fred, she lent her car sound odd too, so to Fred is a C. 24
Almost certainly, the results from applying the second test will corroborate
those that you get from applying the first test. If it doubt, trust the second test.
Summary of the Process and PR Tests: The best general test for a PR is the
first one, but the second is particularly helpful for distinguishing between a
Complement and an Adjunct.25
WARNING However, while the two tests for PRs recommended here give clear
results in most cases, you are bound to find clauses occasionally when you are not
sure whether or not an element is a PR - and so a Complement rather than an
Adjunct. At that point it is useful to bring into the picture a knowledge of (1) the
particular configurations of PRs that are recognized in the grammar (and generated
from the language's system network for TRANSITIVITY), and (2) the full set of
possible types of Adjunct. These two major areas of the meaning potential of
English are covered fully in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Functional Semantics
Handbook. At the present relatively early stage of the Functional Syntax Handbook
you will have to make the best decision you can in terms of the above tests.
However, you will find that they work well, independently of the more detailed
understanding of their semantic role that is explained in the Functional Semantics
Handbook.
7.4 Two typical problems in TRANSITIVITY analysis
Lets now apply the Process and PR Tests to the sort of problem that arises
regularly when you are analyzing the text-sentences of a naturally occurring text - as
opposed to the examples that are carefully selected to illustrate a point in a book
such this.26 What would be your analysis of the PRs - and so the Subjects and
Complements - associated with the Process is 'buying' in each of (7) and (8)?
(7) I bought this car from a friend.
(8) I bought this car yesterday.
24. Example (6) sounds less odd than the others, but it still sounds odd. You have to envisage it
as NOT being spoken with a contrastive emphasis, and as NOT as continuing with ... and to Ike
she lent her bike. The addition of the comma, is important. To his cell he marhed the prisoner,
Green he painted the shed and To Fred she lent her car sound rather more acceptable, possibly under
the influence of the similar trio of It was to his cell that he marched the prisoner, It was green that
he painted the shed and It was to Fred that she lent her car. These last three are examples of the
experiential enhanced theme construction, for which see Chapter 23, while the first three are
examples of Complements as Marked Theme, for which see Section 6 of Chapter 6.
25. Other PR tests have been suggested by other linguists, e.g. substituting who or what for the
possible PR, but they do not cover cases where a place is a PR, as in Ivy is in Paris. And we
cannot extend the test by adding where to it, because the Place Adjunct answers the question
where.
26. See Section 4 of Chapter 1 for the reasons why many of the examples in this book are not, as
they stand, naturally occurring examples - though all are based on naturally occurring examples,
in the ways described there.
78
The questions to be resolved are:

1. In (7), are the words from a friend a C or an A?
2. In (8), is there or is there not a covert PR?
(We will see what covert means in a moment.)
For (7), try saying In this Process of buying, we expect to find someone
buying something from someone. The fact that we can readily identify the
someone as I, the something as this car, and from someone as from a friend
suggests that all three roles are PRs. And if we apply the C or A Test we get From
a friend, I bought this car (the comma being part of the test), and the fact that this
sounds rather odd suggests that from a friend is C. So the second test supports the
result of the first.
For (8), we again begin by trying the words In this Process of buying, we
expect to find someone buying something from someone. But this time we cannot
identify an element in the clause that refers to the someone from whom the car is
being bought - and this presents us with a problem. Does the C or A Test help
here? Unfortunately it doesnt; it simply identifies that fact that both I and this car
are PRs, and that yesterday is not.
This leaves us with the following two possibilities. The first is that the role of
from someone is covert - i.e. it is expected by the Process but is not expressed
in the clause. (We will meet the concept of covertness again briefly in Sections
7.11 and 7.12, and it receives a fuller treatment in Chapter 5.) The second
possibility is that buying may be a type of Process which occurs with MORE THAN
ONE CONFIGURATION OF PR S - like a number of other Processes that we will meet in
Sections 7.8 and 7.9. In other words, we need to consider the possibility that there
are only two PRs in (8), just as there are only two PRs in Fred got a cold - where
getting does not necessarily expect the Performer to specify who Fred got a cold
from.
We have to face the fact that in TRANSITIVITY analysis we encounter
problems like this fairly often. In such situations the best strategy is:
Think systemically!
In other words, try to think of other Process types that are semantically related to
the that you are analyzing, and which are therefore likely (though not certain) to
occur in the same sub-network - and so to have a similar configuration of PRs.
Buying something is a Process of causing oneself to have something. If that
was all it meant, it would be like acquiring. But my interpretation of the meaning
of buying is that buying always involves someone from who one buys
something, so that the meaning is of buying is acquiring something from
someone in exchange for money - as in the case of (7).
We are now ready to answer the FIRST TWO of the four questions.
7.5 The answer to Question 1
The question was: What is a Subject - in addition to being an element
that helps to define the MOOD?
79
The answer is: Typically, the Subject (S) is a Participant Pole (PR)
(over 99% reliable).
As we will see in Chapter 6, any Subject that is a PR also has the meaning of
being the Subject Theme - so that it also has what we will term a 'thematic'
meaning.x So when the S is a PR - as it typically is - it has THREE functions: a
TRANSITIVITY function, a THEME function and, as we saw earlier, a MOOD
function - i.e. it tells us whether the clause is an information giver or a polarity
seeker, etc, through its relation to the Operator. (We will meet one exception to the
generalization that the Subject is typically a PR in a moment, and the others are
identified in Chapter 14.)
The question was: What are the criteria for labelling part of a clause
as a Complement - rather than as an Adjunct?)
The answer is: Any PR that is not S is a Complement (C).
(100% reliable when analyzing only elements of clauses, as in this chapter, but
this definition will be re-expressed later).y
In other words, a Complement is a PR because it 'complements' the Process - in the
sense that it is needed to 'complete' the meaning expressed in the Process.z
So any experiential role that is not a Complement - or a Subject - is an
Adjunct. (We will look at some of the enormous range of types of meaning that
are expressed in Adjuncts in Chapter 6.)
Now let's see if these guidelines work by trying them out on some clause-length
texts. Try analyzing (7) and (8).
(7) Ike is in Paris.
(8) I bought some perfume in Paris.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Cl
S O/M
(7) Ike
is
Cl
in Paris.
(8) I bought some perfume in Paris.
Figure 3.14: Complements and Adjuncts can both be 'places'

The analyses are as in Figure 3.14. These two examples remind us again that
an expression that refers to a 'place', such as in Paris or over there, can be either a
80
Participant (as in Processes such as 'being' and 'living') or a Circumstance (as in a

Process such as 'buying', and in a great many other types of Process). But you
can nearly always tell which it is, if you ask whether it is a PR that is 'expected' by
the Process. Clearly, the Process of 'being' expects a PR - which is in Paris in the
case of (7). The Process of 'buying' also expects a PR, and in (8) it is some
perfume. This leaves in Paris in (8) as an Adjunct. In other words, when you refer
to a 'buying' event there is no NECESSARY expectation that you will say WHERE you
bought something - through you might well wish to do so in any particular case.
If you are unsure whether an element is a Complement or an Adjunct, you can
apply the C or A test set out above. If we apply the test to (8) we find that In
Paris, I bought some perfume sounds quite natural, but In Paris, Ike lives sounds
very odd - so in Paris in (8) is an Adjunct.
The question was: How many Complements can there be in a clause?
But like Questions 1 and 2, Question 3 needs to be answered in terms of PRs, so
we will re-express it as Question 3a:
Question 3a: How many Participant Roles can be associated with a
Process?
Let's find out the answer by analyzing a few clauses. Analyze each of Examples
(9) to (13), using the criteria set out above for recognizing PRs.
(9)
The bridge collapsed yesterday.
(10) I enjoyed yesterday.
(11) It snowed yesterday.
(12) Fred put the money in the bank yesterday.
(13) Ivy asked him a question yesterday.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
As you will probably have discovered, the word yesterday is an Adjunct in all
of the examples - except in (10). In the Process of 'enjoying', there is an 'enjoyer'
and 'something that is enjoyed' - the 'something being, unusually, a 'time'. So
(10) has two Participant Roles, like the vast majority of clauses in English.
However, none of the other examples have two PRs. The analyses are as shown in
Figure 3.15.
81
Cl
Cl
(11) It snowed yesterday.
(9) The bridge collapsed yesterday.
Cl
Cl
(10) I enjoyed yesterday.
(12) Fred put the money in the bank yesterday.

(13) Ivy asked
him
a question yesterday.
Figure 3.15: Clauses with zero, one, two and three Participant Roles
As you have probably noticed, (11) has no PR at all, because there is no
referent for the Subject it. We know that there is no referent because you can't ask
What's snowing? So (11) is an example of one of the very few types of Process in
which there is no PR. Yet the Performer of this clause still needs to be able to show
its MOOD meaning - and for this English requires - as we saw in Sections 3 and 6 a Subject. It is this need to express the MOOD of the clause that explains the
presence of the word it in examples such as (11) that have an empty Subject.
Here, then, is an example of the first exception to the 99%-strong generalization that
the Subject is typically a PR.
The final fact demonstrated by these examples is that some types of Process
actually expect THREE PRs - and in (12) and (13) we have met two of the main
types. (Examples of ALL the main types are given in Figure 3.16 in Section 7.8.) It
is an interesting fact that the upper limit on the number of PRs in a clause appears
to be three. It seems that the human brain can cope with a Process and up to three
associated PRs - but not more. Any other semantic roles that are required have to
be fitted into the clause as Circumstances, and so be expressed as Adjuncts.
With the supportive evidence of the experience of analyzing Examples (9) to
(13) - and adding at the same time some useful information about the relative
frequencies of each type - we can say that the answer to Question 3a is as follows:
82
The vast majority of Processes have TWO associated PRs,

a small number have ONE associated PR,
a small number have THREE associated PRs - and
a very few - all about the 'environment' (typically the weather) have NO associated PRs
(e.g. It's raining, where it does not refer to anything).
Now we are in a position to answer the original Question 3. Because the
Subject is TYPICALLY a PR (over 99% reliable), we can say that, TYPICALLY:
The vast majority of clauses have ONE Complement,
a small number have NO Complement
- including those about the 'environment' - and
a small number have TWO Complements.
Figure 16 shows examples of clauses with one, two and three PRs - and so
with zero, one or two Complements. It shows the main types of Process with one
PR and with three PRs, and several of the many types with two PRs. In fact, the
two-role Processes shown here have all been chosen because they have an
interesting semantic relationship with the example in the neighbouring column. (A
much fuller and clearer picture of the many types of one-, two- and three-role
Processes will be given when we consider the DIFFERENT TYPES of PR, in Chapter 2
of the Functional Semantics Handbook.)
Finally, we turn to Question 4.
7.8 The answer to Question 4 in terms of examples
The question was: In identifying Complements, what sub-types is
it useful to recognize?
In Chapter 2 of the Functional Semantics Handbook, I set out a complete
framework for analyzing the twenty-eight different semantic types of Participant
Role, complete with a re-expression test to enable the analyst to identify each
type.27 But in the present Handbook we will limit ourselves to the FIRST stage of
TRANSITIVITY analysis. In other words, our present goal is to be able to
recognize when an element of a clause is a Participant Role - and so a Subject
or Complement - and when it is not a Participant Role - and so (at this early stage)
typically an Adjunct. We have met the C or A Test in Section 7.3, which is 99%
reliable in distinguishing between Complements and Adjuncts, but it is also very
useful to know what syntactic units are likely occur within the PRs that occur with
certain prominent Process types. Question 4 will e be answered in these terms.
However, I will set out the answer to this question in a different way from the
answers to the last three questions - i.e. by providing in Figure 3.16 the analyses of
a set of KEY EXAMPLES, and then commenting on them in a set of Notes. It is Notes
2 to 8 that address Question 4, but I will then go on to use Notes 9 to 14 a on
27. Of the twenty-eight PRs, seventeen are simple PRs and eleven are compound (i.e. they are
made up of two simple PRs).
83
Figure 3.16 to provide a summary of everything that we have learnt so far about
TRANSITIVITY.
So Figure 3.16 and its notes, taken together, provide A CRUCIAL FIRST STAGE IN
BUILDING AN ADEQUATE PICTURE OF THE TRANSITIVITY STRUCTURE OF ENGLISH
CLAUSES. Figure 3.16 provides in a single framework a set of templates that you
can use to guide this important aspect of your future analysis work. It is intended to
be used as a reference diagram. and you may find it useful to mark this page by
inserting a 'postit' tab, or some other quick way to locate it.
Please now take a few minutes to 'read' Figure 3.16 for yourself, before going
on to read the Notes that follow it.
(a)
(b)
ONE PR
TWO PRs
THREE PRs
Cl
Cl
Cl
(c)
(1) They died. Typhoid killed them.

(2) The door opened. Ivy opened the door.
(3) The snow melted. Rain melted the snow.
(4)
Ivan became very rich. The war made Ivan very rich.
(5)
Fred became chairman. They made Fred chairman.
(6)
Fred remained in Paris. Love kept Fred in Paris.
(7)
Ike
has
a dollar.
Ivy gave Ike a dollar.
(8)
Ivy gave a dollar to Ike.
(9)
Ivy knows he did it. Fiona told Ivy who did it.
(10)
She
saw it dying.
He showed her
it dying.
Cl
(11)
(12)
O/M
Ivan
Ivan
is
is
very rich.
in Paris.
(13) NB also, with NO PRs: It [S] snowed [M] {yesterday [A]}.

Figure 3.16: A summary of some major types of Processes and Participant Roles
7.9 Notes on Figure 16: the answer to Question 4
The following notes refer to the examples in Figure 16 by their 'row' - the numbers
(1), (2), (3), etc. - and their 'column' - the letters (a), (b) or (c). Notice that the
examples in Column (a) all have one Participant Role, those in Column (b) all have
two, and those in Column (c) all have three.
84
In general, the examples in Figure 3.16 are arranged to show semantic

correspondences. For example, (1a) is to (1b) as (2a) and (3a) are to (2b) and
(3b). Similarly, (4b) is related to (4c), and each of the examples below (4b) is
related to an example in Column (c) (and in one case to two examples). We
will return in Notes 9 to 12 below to consider the nature of these relationships.
In Rows (1) to (3) the referents of S and C are all things of one sort or
another, e.g. they, typhoid, them, the door, Ivy, the snow, rain. However, the
examples in Row (4) remind us that with some types of Process a Complement
can be a quality, such as very rich. (We met examples of this type of
Complement with be in Section 5.) Note that (4c) shows that a third Participant
can be a brought into such a Process as an 'agent of change', who brings about
the state of 'Ivan being very rich' - so making it a three-role Process. And, as
(4c) shows, the agent of change isnt necessarily a human being.
If you now compare Row (4) with Row (5), you will see that the pattern with a
quality at C occurs also with a thing at C. The PRs are the same for both though there are certain Processes which practically always occur with a quality
rather than a thing, and vice versa. For example, the Process of 'turning' (in
this sense) strongly predicts a quality, as in The leaves have turned red, while
the Process of 'electing' equally strongly predicts a thing, as in They elected
Ivy (as) chairperson.
Consider Row (6). This illustrates the important fact that a place can be a PR,
as well as a thing (an object or person) or a quality. So a PR can, in (6b) and
(6c) and in the type shown in (11), answer the question 'Where?' and well as
Who? and What?
Now compare the two examples in each of Rows (4) and (6) with the ones in
Rows (11) and (12). The example in Row (11) is like those in Row (4) in
having a quality at C. And the one in Row (12) is like those in Row (6) in
having a place at C. In other words, Examples (11) and (12) are like all those
above them in Column (b) in being Processes that expect two roles - and the
only reason for not including them with the rest of the two-role Processes is that
their M is a form of be. The word is is therefore also an Operator in these
examples, and so requires the label O/M. Note too that, while their Subjects
are typically things, their Complements vary greatly - they may be 'things',
'qualities', 'places' and even 'situations' - for which see the next note. In
some cases the 'place' is a 'place in time', as in Her birthday is in November.
Note that in Example (7c) the form of the new 'possessor' of the dollar is
simply Ike, while in (8c) it is to Ike. Yet the element is clearly a PR in the
Process of giving in both cases, so it is a C in both.
An important extension to the concept of a Complement is that some Processes

predict clauses as their Complements. These are particularly frequent with
'mental process' clauses such as those shown in Rows (9) and (10). Note that
the Cs in both examples in Row 9 could have been filled by an 'abstract thing'
instead of a clause, as in Ivy knows the answer and Fiona told Ivy the answer.
85
The clause (that) he did it and the nominal group the answer are both
expressions that tell us 'what is known' (in (9b) or 'what is told' (in (9c).
Embedded clauses also occur quite frequently with 'relational process' clauses
with a form of be (e.g.(e.g. the underlined Subject in To err is human). This
crucial concept of a 'clause within a clause' is a major source of the richness and
complexity of syntax, and we will cover its various patterns in Chapter 11.28
8
Note the example of a Process with no PR at all in (13). There are only a few
such 'environmental' Processes, the most common being Its raining.29
That ends the notes that specifically answer Question 4 - i.e. the guidance on the
range of meanings and forms that may be found WITHIN Complements.
7.10 Further notes on Figure 16: an overview of TRANSITIVITY
The following notes make additional important points about the TRANSITIVITY of English. These will provide an overview of this central area of the
grammar of English, and so help you when analyzing clauses.
9
Rows (2) and (3) illustrate a fact about English that is sometimes a source of
difficulty for the syntax analyst. This is the fact that the same verb form may
occur with differing numbers of PRs. This is illustrated here for open in (2a)
and (2b) and for melt in (3a) and (3b). Such verbs are therefore ambiguous in
this respect. Compare each of these pairs with (1a) and (1b) in Row (1).
Example (1a) stands in the same semantic relationship to (1b) as (2a) does to
(2b) - and yet there is a different verb for each in Row 1, depending on whether
there is one PR or two, and the same verb form in Row 2. There are in fact
many lexical verbs that can occur with EITHER ONE OR TWO P ARTICIPANT ROLES and so with no Complement or one Complement. Some frequent types include:
(a) most cooking verbs, such as boil, bake and simmer; (b) most verbs that
express the idea of 'destroying', e.g. break, tear and crack (but not,
interestingly, destroy itself); and (c) others such as grow, shrink, alter and
28. A large proportion of many types of text contain sentences with embedded clauses, so you will
not be able to analyze all the clause elements of such texts until we reach that point. This is an
unfortunate but necessary consequence of the goal of providing a comprehensive framework for
analyzing texts.
29. If Its raining and other such environmental Processes have an empty Subject, examples
such as Its sunny and Its cloudy should surely have one too. This raises the question of the role
the word sunny. Is it, as it at first appears, a Complement? If it was, we would expect there to be
something as the Subject, so that we could say, in the words of the Process and PR Test, In this
Process of being, we expect to find something being something. But this example does not pass
this test, because it has no referent. So is Its sunny perhaps an extremely unusual type of onerole clause - i.e. one with an Attribute but no Carrier, in terms of its Participant Roles? No,
because an Attribute must be an Attribute of something, i.e. of a Carrier. So here the preferred
solution is to treat sunny and windy as types of Main Verb Extension, so that the Process is seen
as one of being sunny, being windy etc. In this analysis, then, there is no Complement, and so
no PR - and this shows its partial similarity to Its raining. (The simple forms of the Main Verb
Extension are introduced in Chapter 5, and the type needed here is covered in Chapter 14.)
86
ring. 30
What they all have in common is that they are all Processes of
'changing'. The examples in Column (a) simply specify the type of changing
that has occurred, but those in Column (b) additionally have a PR which tells us
who or what brought about the Process, so that the general meaning is cause to
change. The PR in these Processes is an Agent. So, in the examples in
Column (b) of Rows (2) and (3), Ivy and rain are both Agents. The problem
for the analyst is that we often find the same verb form being used to mean
EITHER 'something changing' OR 'something causing something to change'.
However, this is a type of ambiguity that the analyst can learn to deal with,
drawing on a combination of knowledge of the semantic classes that these verbs
fall into and the textual context.
9
The concept of Agent also helps in understanding many other central types of
TRANSITIVITY. An Agent is an entity that the Performer is presenting to the
Addressee as THE P ARTICIPANT THAT CAUSES SOME SITUATION - either a changing
situation, as in the cases that we have been considering, or a 'state' - as in the
examples that we will consider in the next note. The most typical 'causer' of
change is a person, or a social group of persons such as a committee. But
sometimes the Agent is an animal, or some object that is presented as acting in
the way that animate beings do (such as a car), something that is perceived as a
natural source of change, such as typhoid in (1b) and rain in (3b), or an event,
such as the war as in (4c) or love (i.e. the fact that someone loved someone) in
(6c). So an Agent is typically but not necessarily a living creature and, within
the set of living creatures, typically a human.
10 The examples in Column (c) of Rows (4) to (10) show six of the main types of
TRANSITIVITY which have THREE PRs - but NOT, of course, all of the many
verbs associated with each type. It is an interesting fact that each type has an
equivalent Process with TWO PRs - as the diagram shows. What do these threerole Processes all have in common? It is that, in each case, an Agent enters the
situation as, in a sense, a 'third party', and CAUSES the situation described in
Column (b). (In the cases of (4c) and (6c), Column (b) expresses a process of
'change', and the resulting 'state' is expressed through the verb be, and so is
shown in (11) and (12). What would be equivalent to (5c) with be as the Main
Verb? It would of course be Fred was chairman.
In the light of these equivalences, we can go on to explain certain examples
that lead to additional structures in other grammars, such as John painted the
shed green and The heat turned the milk sour. Consider the illustration of the
generalization in (4c), in which the war causes the situation of Ivan being
rich. Similarly, in John painted the shed green John brings about the
30. However, this ambiguity of semantic structure does not occur with all possible meanings of
each verb form, e.g. we can say both Ivy opened the door and The door opened, but while we can
say Ike opened the wine it would be unusual to say The wine opened. The indicates that the sense
of opening in opening a door is not the same as that of opening some wine - even though there is
clearly some common ground between the two. (The exception to this claim ts the sense indicated
by adding easily, but this is a different matter because most two-role Processes of this action type
are open to this semantic option.)
87
Process of 'making the shed green'. The difference between (4c) and He
painted the shed green is that made in (4c) doesn't tell us anything about how
the change was brought about, whereas painted in He painted the shed green is
lexically richer and does give us this information. This pattern of variation in
the semantic specificity of a verb is a common phenomenon that can be found
elsewhere in Figure 3.16. For example, the verb made in (5c) could be replaced
by semantically richer words, such as elected or appointed. In this way the
present approach allows a single framework to be used to explain a number of
otherwise problematical examples.aa
11 We can summarize what we have learnt from examining rows (4) to (10) by
saying that, in each case, there is an Agent in Column (c) that causes
something (or someone) to 'be' something or somewhere, or to 'have' or to
'know' or to 'see' something. However, with the type of Process shown in
(7c) - and in a few others - there is an alternative sequence of elements: compare
(7c) with (8c).31
12 In Note 8 above I pointed out one type of ambiguity to look out for. There are
others, as the word made in (4c) and (5c) reminds us, because there is also a
TWO-role sense of make, as in They made a cake. Many other high frequency
verbs (such as get, go, keep, leave, put and send) are equally ambiguous sometimes with different numbers of PRs. In text analysis, therefore, it is
important to decide first on the meaning of the verb, ON THE EVIDENCE OF ITS
LINGUISTIC CONTEXT. This is much less of a problem with sentences that occur in
their natural setting in real texts than it is with isolated examples such as those
we have been considering here.
14 The final point concerns Adjuncts. The examples in Column (a) are perfectly
grammatical, but the fact is that such one-role Processes are more likely than
two- or three-role Processes to occur with an Adjunct, e.g. They died last night
and The door slowly opened. However, Adjuncts occur regularly with all
configurations of PRs. The point to be emphasized is that such Adjuncts are
NOT predicted (or expected) by the specific types of Process, in the sense
described earlier. The curly brackets round yesterday in (13), for example,
show that this item is not expected by the Process, and that the example in fact
illustrates two examples on one line, i.e. It snowed and It snowed yesterday.
All of these points are highly relevant to understanding the structure of English
clauses. I have illustrated the wide range of variation in the INTERNAL semantics of
Complements - i.e. that they can be 'things', 'qualities', and 'places' etc, and also
that they can sometimes be full 'situations' and so clauses that are embedded
within the present clauses.32 However, all this information, useful as it is, should
31. I should perhaps mention that there are a number of Processes with three PRs (e.g.
'reminding') which have three PRs but which may not at first be easy to match with the examples
given in Figure 3.18. But most do in fact use the same PRs.
32. See Chapter 11 for the embedding of clauses within clauses.
88
in a functional grammar be treated as subsidiary to the main criterion in identifying a

PR - which is to ask about its function in the higher unit of the 'situation', i.e. to
ask whether it is or is not predicted by the Process.
7.11 A preview of some major patterns of Participant Roles
We have mentioned a number of types of Participant Role in the preceding
discussion - especially the Agent. To give a full introduction to the complete range
of Participant Roles is a major undertaking. It involves the full semantics of
TRANSITIVITY, and building an adequate model of this is a far more demanding
task than that of modelling the syntax of TRANSITIVITY - and it the latter that is
our task here.
You will find a comprehensive framework for analyzing the Participant Roles of
English in Chapter 2 of the Functional Semantics Handbook, including a test for
each PR and many examples that are designed to help the analyst. In the present
Handbook, however, we will restrict ourselves to analyzing clauses in terms that
simply show whether an element is or is not a Participant Role - i.e. whether it is,
on the one hand, a Subject or a Complement (to slightly oversimplify) or whether,
on the other hand, it is an Adjunct. We will leave the much trickier task of
analyzing clause examples in terms of the different types of PRs for the Functional
Semantics Handbook.33
However, you may at this point be interested to get a first impression of the
range of PR types that is needed to provide systematically for all possible cases.
This is not the place to provide a full summary, and instead I will reproduce below
the fairly comprehensive set of examples that were introduced in Figure 3.16. I
shall group them under their broad Process types (action, relational, mental and
environmental), and this results in the occurrence of (11) and (12) after (3b). For
each PR I show first the analysis of the element as a Subject or Complement, and
then, conflated with each, its associated Participant Role (with the relationship of
conflation shown, as always, by a forward slash). A key to those illustrated here is
given at the end. The Main Verb, which always expresses the Process, is simply
shown as M. There is no need to show it also as Pro (for Process), since a
Main Verb always expresses the Process (or a part of it; see Section 8 of Chapter
5).
action Processes
(1a) They [S/Af] died [M].
(1b) Typhoid [S/Ag] killed [M] them [C/Af].
(2a) The door [S/Af] opened [M].
(2b) Ivy [S/Ag] opened [M] the door [C/Af].
(3a) The snow [S/Af] melted [M].
(3b) Rain [S/Ag] melted [M] the snow [C/Af].
33. In the Functional Semantics Handbook, the biggest single task is that of learning how to
recognize the different types of Participant Roles - both when they are overtly present and when
they are covert. So it is not surprising that Chapter 2, which covers these matters, is the longest
in the book.
89
relational Processes
(11) Ivan [S/Ca] is [O/M] very rich [C/At].
(12) Ivan [S/Ca] is [O/M] in Paris [C/Loc].
(4a) Ivan [S/Af-Ca] became [M] very rich [C/At].
(4b) The war [S/Ag] made [M] Ivan [C/Af-Ca] very rich [C/At].
(5a) Fred [S/Af-Ca] became [M] chairman [C/At].
(5b) They [S/Ag] made [M] Fred [C/Af-Ca] chairman [C/At].
(6a) Fred [C/Ag-Ca] remained [M] in Paris [C/Loc].
(6b) Love [S/Ag] kept [M] Fred [C/Af-Ca] in Paris [C/Loc].
(7a) Ike [S/Ca] has [M] a dollar [C/Pos].
(7b) Ivy [S/Ag] gave [M] Ike [C/Af-Ca] a dollar [C/Af-Pos].
(8)
Ivy [S/Ag] gave [M] a dollar [C/Af-Pos] to Ike [C/Af-Ca].
mental Processes
(9a) Ivy [S/Cog] knows [M] he did it [C/Ph].
(9b) Fiona [S/Ag] told [M] Ivy [C/Af-Cog] who did it [C/Ph].
(10a) She [S/Perc] saw [M] it dying [C/Ph].
(10b) He [S/Ag] showed [M] her [C/Af-Perc] it dying [C/Ph].
an environmental Process
(13) It [S] snowed [M] yesterday [A] (no PRs).
Key
Ag = Agent
Af =Affected
At = Attribute
Loc = Location
Perc = Perceiver
Cog = Cognizant
Ag-Ca = Agent-Carrier
Af-Pos = Affected-Possessed
Af-Perc = Affected-Perceiver
Ca = Carrier
Pos = Possessed
Ph = Phenomenon
Af-Ca = Affected-Carrier
Af-Cog = Affected-Cognizant
There are in fact a number of other PRs that are not illustrated here,
including a few more compound PRs. One of the most frequent of the simple PRs
is shown in (14a) and (14b): the Destination (Des). As the examples show, it
patterns very like (6a) and (6b) - with Des replacing Loc:
(14a) Fred [S/Ag-Ca] went [M] to Paris [C/Des].
(14b) Love [S/Ag] took [M] Fred [C/Af-Ca] to Paris [C/Des].
Other PRs include the two other directional PRs of the Source (So) and Path
(Pa). There is also the Created (Cre), as in the second PR in He wrote Anna
Karenina, and the Range (Ra), as in the second PR in He climbed the Matterhorn.
There are two-role perception Processes that have an Agent, as in (15), and there
is a third major type of mental Process that patterns like (9a) and (10a), in which
the Process realizes an emotion and the PR that typically comes first is the Emoter
(Em), as in (16). But it can also com second, as in (17). These are both examples
of the 'emotive' type of 'emotion' Process, but there is also the 'desiderative' type,
as in (18).
90
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
She [S/Ag-Perc] watched [M] it dying [C/Ph].

Ike [S/Em] likes [M] ice cream [C/Ph].
That sort of thing [S/Ph] annoys[M] me [S/Em].
I [S/Em] want [M] him to win [Ph].
There are quite a few types of Process that have not been illustrated here, and a
few other PRs that have been left out, but the set of examples shown above will be
sufficient for our present purposes. Here, then, our goal is simply to be able to
distinguish Participant Roles from the other elements in clauses - and NOT to be able
to recognize the different types of PR.bb
Now we will turn briefly to a problem with PRs that explicitly affects the
analysis of syntax.
7.12 A first note on 'overt' and 'covert' Participant Roles
Let's assume for the moment that we are able to recognize which 'things' in a
clause are 'expected' by the Process. Unfortunately there is one further complication that we have to learn to deal with. It is that THE EXPECTED PR IS QUITE OFTEN
NOT ACTUALLY PRESENT AT THE LEVEL OF FORM.
When a PR is PRESENT at the level of form in the clause - i.e. when words that
refer to it are actually spoken or written - we say that the PR is overt. And in such
cases it is usually a straightforward task to identify it as S or C. But when a PR is
ABSENT from the clause, it is said to be covert - and it is not always easy to spot
covert PRs.
Lets take a straightforward example. Consider the fictitious news item in (19).
(19) The President of Ruritania has been assassinated.
Here the Process of 'assassinating' expects two PRs: a 'assassin' and an
'assassinated' - but the person composing this news item has decided not to specify
who the 'assassin' is - perhaps because he/she hasn't been identified yet. 34
However, on the principle of dealing with one problem at a time, we will for the
present continue to work only with clauses in which all the PRs are OVERT. We will
meet two frequent types of covert PR in Chapters 5 and 6, including the type used
in the example above, and at that point we will see how examples such as above is
to be represented in a syntax diagram.
7.13 A summary of TRANSITIVITY so far
TRANSITIVITY is the system network of meanings that get expressed as
Processes and Participant Roles. But we can also use the term to refer to the
manifestations of these meanings in syntax. From the semantic viewpoint, then,
TRANSITIVITY is concerned with:
1. the TYPE of Process,
34. One type of clause in which the second PR is nearly always overt is the type with being as
the Process, as in (11) and (12). This generalization is 99% reliable, the main exception being the
type of conversational ellipsis when A says, for example, He's very rich, and B replies Is he?).
91
2. the NUMBER of Participant Roles in each type of Process,

3. the TYPES of Participant Roles, and
4. whether the PRs are overt or covert (covered in Chapters 5 and 6).
But from the syntactic viewpoint, the key points are:
1. ALL clauses have at least one PR - which is typically the Subject UNLESS M is an 'environment' Process, when the S is not a PR.
2. MOST clauses have TWO PRs - so a Subject and a Complement.
3. SOME clauses have THREE PRs - so a Subject and TWO Complements.
4. A Subject or Complement is quite frequently covert.
From the viewpoint of using the internal meanings and forms to help in
recognizing PRs, the key points are:
1. Subjects are typically 'things' (including 'persons') - and occasionally
'situations'.
2. Complements may be:
EITHER (a) 'things' (including 'persons')
OR
(b) 'qualities' (such as happy and amazing)
- with Processes of 'being', 'becoming' and 'making', etc.
OR
(c) 'places' (such as there or to/from Paris) and occasionally
'times',
- with Processes of 'being', 'going' and 'sending', etc.
OR
(d) 'situations' (such as that she was here)
- with Processes of 'knowing', 'saying', 'wishing' etc.
This section has given you the essential criteria for recognizing Participant
Roles, and so Complements. Essentially, a Complement is a PR that is not the
Subject. You will find that Figure 16 is a helpful SUPPLEMENT to the following Guidelines, and you are likely to find it helpful to consult it regularly especially in the early stages of learning to analyze the TRANSITIVITY of clauses
We can now say - as I promised in the note at the start of this section - that we
have covered all of the basic points about the syntax of TRANSITIVITY at the level
of form. cc
8 Guidelines 1
The following Guidelines are intended as an introductory guide, just to get you
started. There will be revised versions in later chapters, culminating in the final set
of Guidelines in Chapter 21. As you will see, the present Guidelines are mainly
concerned with TRANSITIVITY and MOOD, with the section on MOOD incorporating the Subject and Operator Test.
Remember the three tips for drawing syntax diagrams:
1 When you write down the clauses to be analyzed, you should LEAVE FOUR OR
FIVE LINES OF SPACE ABOVE THE TEXT itself, for the analysis diagram.
92
(However, we will need more space for the full analysis of sentences, later in
the book.)
2 You can often save space by writing two or more sentences side by side.
3 It is best to WORK IN PENCIL, with an ERASER ready in case you change your
analysis.
Guidelines 1 - brief version
1 Preparation: Make the clause an information giver.
2 Find the Process, and so the Main Verb.
Also pencil in the probable PRs as S? and C?.
3 Find the Operator - if there is one. (It helps to show the MOOD.)
4 Find the Subject (which also helps to show the MOOD).
5 S is probably a PR. Confirm any Complements (0, 1 or 2).
6 Find any Adjuncts.
M
O
S
C, C
A, A ...
Guidelines 1 - full version

1
Preparation Most clauses are information-givers. If the clause to be

analyzed is NOT of this type (so NOT S O or S M), first re-express it so that it is
(either in your mind or on a piece of paper). This is because most of the tests
used here depend on the clause having this structure. To do this, give the clause
the MOOD structure of S O, S O/M or S M.
Worked example: The example analyzed in these Guidelines is Ivy is here
now, so there is no need to re-express it.
But if the example was Is Ivy here now? you would now re-express it as Ivy is
here now. Then you would apply the tests below to Ivy is here now, either
mentally or on paper, and transfer the results to the original text-sentence of Is
Ivy here now?.
Find the word that expresses the Process, and at the same time have a
first guess (to be confirmed later) at the Participant Roles that it
expects. (The term 'Process' includes 'states' such as 'being' and 'liking'.)
The Process is expressed in a lexical verb at M, so the main task is to find
M, which is OBLIGATORY (99.9% reliable).
2.1 The Process and PR Test (99% reliable)
Assuming that xxx stands for the Main Verb, and that someone/thing/
where stands for each possible PR, try saying:
In this Process of xxx-ing, we expect to find
someone or something
xxx-ing
(someone or something)
((to or from) someone or something or somewhere).
(The last line says that the possible second or third PR is sometimes preceded
by to or from.)
93
If the result corresponds to the test clause (even though some PRs may not be
expressed), the item corresponding to xxx is M. So you can now lightly pencil
in all of the following:
1 M above xxx,
2 Cl above the M, and so the line to link Cl with M,
3 S? and C? above the elements that you think are PRs in the Process.
Worked example:
Try saying: 'In this Process of being, we expect to find someone or something
being someone or something or somewhere'. To match the example, we can
slim this down to 'In this Process of being, we expect to find someone being
somewhere'. This makes sense. So is is the M, and Ivy and here are probably
PRs, so Ivy is probably the Subject and here is probably the Complement.35
The analysis at this point is as follows - where S? and C? indicate the
tentative assignment of S and C:
Cl
S? M
C?
Ivy is
here
now.
If in doubt, go to 2.2.
2.2 A supplementary check
As a check on your analysis, consider the following examples and find the one
most like the clause you are analyzing. Then try re-expressing it on the model
of the test beneath each. If the result of the test makes sense, the item
corresponding to xxx in (b) above is M.
Examples
Ivy sneezed This clause is about someone sneezing.
She is a doctor / happy This clause is about someone being something.
She gave Fred the book This clause is about someone giving someone something.
He took the snake out of the box This clause is about someone taking something from somewhere.
(1 PR)
(2 PRs)
(3 PRs)
(3 PRs)
But note that you will need to confirm which of them is S in a

later test - and that occasionally NONE of the PRs is S.
35. The fact that there is another type of being that is being something, as in Ivy is clever,
doesnt make this conclusion invalid, because the test is being applied to the particular type of
Process that is found IN THE PRESENT CLAUSE and not to all cases of being (as the words In this
Process of xxx-ing in the test indicate).
94
2.3 Problems to watch out for

1 Do not make the mistake of assuming that if an element is important in the message it is
a PR. All elements are potentially important. A PR is an element that is EXPECTED by
the Process, i.e. by M.
2 Some verb forms may co-occur with TWO OR MORE patterns of PRs, e.g. (a) open in he
opened the door (2 PRs) and the door opened (1 PR); and (b) make in he made a sand castle
(2 PRs) and Racial prejudice makes him angry (3 PRs). Figure 3.16 in Section 7.7
illustrates many of the main patterns.
3 When the item it occurs at S, it may be EITHER an 'empty Subject' expounded directly by
it, OR it may be a normal referring expression. To test which it is, try re-expressing the
clause, replacing it by what. Does it still make sense? If so, it is a PR. Example: It's
here can be re-expressed as What's here?, but It's raining cannot be re-expressed as What's
raining? And by extension we also analyze it in It's sunny as an 'empty Subject'.
4 In It's sunny, the Process is 'being sunny', and the word sunny is treated as a MEx.
5 As we have seen, somewhere is used in the test for a PR. But occasionally some time is
needed instead, e.g. in testing That war was in the 1960s. But note that somewhere and
some time can also replace Adjuncts (expressing 'Place' and 'Time Position'), so you
should apply the C or A test in such cases.
3 Find the Operator (O) - if there is one. This is the first half of the
Subject and Operator Test. On the evidence of what we have covered so far,
the Operator is:
(a) a modal verb such as may, might, will, would, shall, should, etc.
(but see Chapter 4, Section 2.2, Tables 1 and 2 for the full list),
- when it is O;
(b) am, is, are, was or were as a Process of being - when it is O/M;
(so far, but Chapter 4 shows they can also be O/X),
(c) do, does or did
- when it is O.
EITHER
OR
OR
We will meet the other forms that may expound the Operator in Chapter 4.
Examples:
(a)In Ivy will / may go to Paris, the word will or may is O.
(b) In She was here, the word was expresses a Process of 'being',
so it is M as well as O - and so is O/M.
(c)In Did Ivy go to Paris? the word Did is O.
Worked example: The analysis is:
Cl
S? O/M C?
Ivy is
here
now.
The second half of the Subject and Operator Test in 7 below should corroborate
this decision.
95

Problems to watch out for
1 Forms of the verb be occur as several different elements:
(a) very frequently as M or O/M,
(b) very frequently as X, and so also as O/X (as we will see in Chapter 5),
(c) occasionally as O (as in He is to leave now, as we will see in Chapter 4).
2 Forms of the verb have occur as several different elements:
(a) very frequently as M (but not O/M), and
(b) very frequently as X, and so also as O/X (as we will see in Chapter 4).
3 Forms of the verb do occur as two different elements:
(a) frequently as O (e.g. Did in Did he do it?),
(b) occasionally as M (e.g. do in Did he do it?).
Find the Subject (S). To do this:

(a) If the clause has no Operator, supply the test version of the clause with do,
does or did to function as O. Then re-express the clause as a polarity
seeker (seeking the answer Yes or No).
(b) The Subject is the word or words which, by occurring before or after the
Operator, shows whether the clause is an information giver or a
polarity seeker. In other words:
S O or S O/M or S M means 'information giver' (95% reliable)
and
O S or O/M S
means 'polarity seeker'
(95% reliable)
Problem to watch out for: 'environmental Processes', such as It's raining and It's sunny,
have no PRs. The S is NOT a PR, but an 'empty Subject'.
Worked example: Re-express Ivy is here now as Is Ivy here now?

The change in the sequence of the words Ivy and is reflects the change in
sequence of S and O, and so the change of MOOD. This confirms that the
tentative S? is indeed S, so you can join it to Cl. The analysis is therefore
now:
Cl
S O/M C?
Ivy is
5
here
now.
Find the full configuration of Participant Roles (PRs), i.e. those elements
that are EXPECTED by the Process at M.
Any PR that is not S is a Complement (C). Most Processes expect two
associated PRs (around 90%). But some expect one and some expect three (and
some environmental Processes expect none), so look for 0, 1 or 2 Cs.
If you are in any doubt about whether a word or words is a Complement or
Adjunct, apply the following test:
96
The C or A test (99% reliable)

1 Thematize the element to be tested (i.e. put it first in the clause),
2 Treat it a separate information unit (i.e. separate it by a comma).
If the clause sounds natural with the element first, it is almost certainly an
Adjunct. But if it sounds odd it is almost certainly a Complement.
Worked example:
To test here, re-express Ivy is here now as Here, Ivy is now.
This sounds very odd, so here is almost certainly a Complement.
To test now, re-express Ivy is here now as Now, Ivy is here.
This sounds natural, so now is almost certainly an Adjunct.
Two further examples:
Consider the element in Paris in Ike lives in Paris.
In Paris, Ike lives sounds odd, so in Paris is almost certainly a Complement.
Now consider the element in Paris in I saw Ike in Paris.
In Paris, I saw Ike sounds natural, so in Paris is almost certainly an Adjunct.
For further examples using this test, see Section 7.3.
You can also re-run the Process and PR test from Step 2.1.
Worked example: As we saw in Step 2, it makes sense to say In this
Process of being we expect to find someone being somewhere. So Ivy and
here are the two PRs and, since Ivy has just been confirmed as S, here can now
be confirmed as C. So the analysis at this point is:
Cl
S O/M C
Ivy is
6
here
now.
Find any Adjuncts (A). So far, we have only met Adjuncts that express
either the 'Manner' or the 'Time Position' of the event - but we will meet many
other types in the next few chapters. Use the C or A test to distinguish
Adjuncts that express experiential meanings (such as these) from
Complements. (We will add further tests in Chapter 6.) There are over 60
functionally distinct types of Adjunct in English, but it is rare to find more than
two or three in any one clause.
Are you unsure about whether a string of words is one A or two As? If so,
test them by re-expressing the clause (i.e. its test version as a positive
information-giver) version) as follows. Place each possible A in turn in a
position that separates it from the other possible A. Usually you can do this by
97
thematizing one of them. Most As can occur in several different places (99%
reliable).
Worked example: In Ivy is here now, the word now does not express one of
the two PRs expected by the Process of 'someone being somewhere', so it is
probably an Adjunct. Now check this by the C or A Test of re-expressing the
clause as Now, Ivy is here. This sounds reasonably natural, so confirming that
now is an Adjunct. The full clause analysis of our worked example is therefore
like this:
Cl
S O/M C
Ivy is
here
A
now.
Summary so far: we may find, in their most typical sequence:

(a)
(b)
(c)
of each of S, M, and often O (with O/M for forms of be),

Cs,
ONE OR MORE As (only one in the examples so far - but we will soon find
that there can be more),
(d) either S O or S O/M or S M,
or O S or O/M S.
ONE
UP TO TWO
There will be an increasingly complete Guidelines at the end of each of the next
three chapters, and other partial Guidelines in later chapters. Chapter 21 provides
the nearest possible thing to a full, definitive set of Guidelines.
9 Analysis Task 1
9.1 The task
Here are some clauses to analyze. They will give you practice in all of the main
points covered in this chapter. Before you start, remember the three tips for
drawing syntax diagrams given in Section 2:
98
When you write down the clauses to be analyzed, you should LEAVE
FOUR OR FIVE LINES OF SPACE ABOVE THE TEXT itself, for the analysis
diagram. (However, we will need more space for the full analysis of
sentences, later in the book.)
You can often save space by writing two or more sentences side by side.
It is best to WORK IN PENCIL, with an ERASER ready in case you change your
analysis - as you should expect to, sometimes.
Four of the examples for analysis contain words which are very minor extensions to
what has been covered so far, but they are so minor that you may not even notice
them. They will be commented on in the notes on the solutions to the analyses.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Plastic would break immediately.

Fred broke it accidentally.
Fiona is happy now.
She might give Fred ice-cream tomorrow.
Might it make him ill?
Ivan was here.
Ike made cakes yesterday.
Ivy put candles on them. (NB on them is a single clause element.)
Fred coughed loudly.
Fiona will tell you the answer.
Does Fiona give ice-cream to Fred often?
(NB to Fred is a single clause element.)
12 Is Fred well?
13 He has flu today.
14 Did he sneeze much?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
99
9.2 Solutions
Cl
(1) Plastic would break

immediately.
(2) Fred
broke
it
accidentally.
(4)
She might
give
Fred icecream
tomorrow.
(7)
Ike
made
cakes
yesterday.
(8)
Ivy
put
candles on them.
(9)
Fred
coughed
loudly.
(10) Fiona will
tell
you the answer.
(13)
He
has
flu
today.
Cl
(5) Might
it make
him
ill?
(11) Does Fiona give icecream to Fred often?
(14) Did
he sneeze
much?
Cl
O/M
Cl
(3) Fiona is happy now.

(6) Ivan was here.
O/M
(12) Is
Fred well?
Figure 3.17: The analyses of fourteen clauses

9.3 Comments on the analyses
1
Clauses (1) and (2) illustrate Note 1 on Figure 3.16. 'Breaking' is like
'opening' and 'melting', in that it can occur with one PR or with two.
The 'minor extensions' are in (1), (10), (11) and (14). In (1) you need to
reason that, if will and might are Operators, would is probably one too especially as we find that it functions as O when we apply the Subject and
Operator Test. And in (10) you need to decide that may is an Operator, for
similar reasons. I will give a full list of these modal verbs in the next chapter.
100
In (11) and (14) two new types of Adjunct are introduced, and we will say
more about these later - first in Chapter 6 and then, more thoroughly, in the
Functional Semantics Handbook.
If you are only interested in syntax and do not want to know about the
alternative ways to model language, you can skip to Chapter 4.
10 Two summaries of the grammar so far (1)

10.1 The purpose of this section
At the end of this chapter and Chapter 5 I give summaries of the grammar on
which the descriptive framework presented here is based. Each summary will be
limited to what has been covered so far, so each will be very far from being a
complete grammar of English. My purpose of doing this is to try to give you a
sense of what the very large overall grammar of English from which the syntax
framework presented here is derived is like. This section and the last one in
Chapter 5 will therefore give you an informal introduction to the 'core' portions of a
systemic functional grammar. After Chapter 5, however, the grammar (which
is technically a 'generative systemic functional lexicogrammar') becomes too
complex to be summarized in a book where the emphasis is on the functional
structure of language, and we will concentrate wholly on building a sound
framework that helps with the practical problems of analyzing sentences in English
text.
It is an interesting experiment to try to express the same grammar in two forms,
and I have done this in what follows here. This 'twin track' approach will enable
you to consider the advantages and disadvantages of simple grammars that represent
the two basic approaches to explaining the structure of language. The first approach
is centred on the structure of language (as in formal grammars). Surprisingly,
perhaps, there is an essentially equivalent concept in Systemic Functional
Linguistics, which it termed in the Cardiff Grammar a potential structure. dd
This approach to representing a grammar represents the 'structuralist' tradition. The
second approachhas at its heart a system network, and this represents the
'systemic functional' approach to explaining language.ee
The little grammars presented here will be far too limited for us to be able to
draw from them firm conclusions as to which type of grammar is superior, but
when we come to consider the slightly larger versions at the end of Chapter 5 some
clear patterns will have emerged. In the present chapter the main goal is simply to
give you the 'feel' of the two major alternative approaches to understanding syntax,
and a sense of why systemic functional grammarians build the sort of grammars that
they do. If you wish to make a full study of the main alternative approaches to
language, you will need to read far more widely, and to consult introductions to a
dozen or so alternative linguistic theories..
101
The two approaches are:

1
2
a potential structure, and

a systemic functional grammar, i.e. as a system network
and its associated realization rules (the true form for SFG).
I will now present introductory examples of these two approaches, and then to add
explanatory comments.
10.2 The grammar so far as a potential structure
'Potential structures' have not so far been used much in systemic functional
linguistics within the lexicogrammar. But if you find it helpful as a way of
summarizing what we have learnt about the structure of the clause in this chapter,
you may begin to be persuaded that it is a good way of summarizing this set of
ideas.ff
We will now compare the two approaches, and as we do so we will learn
something important about the nature of language. Please start by considering
Figure 3.18.
A: if M is not a form of be:

Cl = <O> S
<O> M (C) (C) (A)
B: if M is a form of be:
Cl = <O/M> S <O/M>
(A)
Key: ( ) = optional element

< > = optional and mutually exclusive elements
(i.e. if one occurs, the other cannot )
Figure 3.18: Syntax as potential structures (Version 1)
At this point, the 'potential structure' approach may well seem to be an
attractively simple way of summarizing the syntax - but we will in fact soon
discover that it becomes inadequate when we begin to expand the grammar.
The first point to note is that the effect on the sequence of the elements when we
choose to have a form of be as the Main Verb is so drastic that we need to divide the
little grammar into two parts. Part A is for clauses when the Main Verb is not a
form of be, and Part B is for clauses when it is. (The elements have been arranged
in the diagram in the way they have in order to bring out the similarities and
differences between the two potential structures.)
The result is that we are forced to repeat much of the grammar in the two
potential structures - i.e. the relations between S and O to express MOOD and the
optionality of the Adjunct.
102
Notice, however, that this type of grammar is seriously incomplete, in that it

only specifies the structure of the clause at the level of syntactic form. It says
nothing about the meanings that the structure of a given clause expresses. Yet, in
a functional approach to language, we would expect a grammar to give us some
indication of the meanings that the syntax is there to express.
10.3 The grammar so far as a system network and realization rules
The small grammar shown in Figure 3.19 gives a far more insightful picture
- though it is still of course only a grammar for the small part of the structure of
English dealt with so far (and not even for quite all of that).36 In Figure 3.19 I
have represented in ONE diagram the TWO components of a lexicogrammar (e.g. as
shown in Figure 3.2 in Chapter 2 and then exemplified for the nominal group in
Figures 3 and 4). First, Figure 3.19 summarises the main choices in 'meaning
potential' that have been introduced - i.e. the main choices in a system network
that expresses the relations between the semantic features. It also shows the
overall probability of one feature in the network being selected rather than another e.g. the much greater probability that a clause will have two PRs than one or three.
Second, it provides informal realization rules for them (one under each of the
two features [situation] and [two participants], and the others in the right half of the
diagram). These show how the meanings are expressed at the level of form here, all in syntax. Finally, the potential structure shows the Places in the unit
of the Clause at which the elements will appear, if they are generated.
As you can see, the entry condition to the system network as a whole is the
feature [situation], and this indicates that the network is at the level of meaning.gg
Notice that the realization rule for [situation] is shown directly below it (rather
than in the right hand column, as with all the others). The rule says: 'Insert in the
structure being built of which this may be the highest unit) (a) a clause and (b) its
Main Verb'. So in this diagram the material from the realization component is
placed for convenience at the appropriate points in the network itself - even though
it is in principle a separate component of the lexicogrammar, as shown in Figure 3.2
of Chapter 2hh The way that the rest of the grammar works should now be clear.
(If in doubt, re-read Section 5 of Chapter 2.)
36. This little grammar lacks provision for the type of clause with no PRs (the 'environment'
Processes such as Its snowing). Nor does it include the system by which modal verbs are
introduced - in part because we have not covered them properly yet, and in part because we would
need to add other systems to the network before that one could be correctly placed. Finally, while
it provides for the two MOOD options introduced so far, it places them in the same system though in fact the polarity seeker is just one type of information seeker. (This will be rectified in
Section 14.2 of Chapter 5.)
103
SEMANTICS
(MEANINGS)
REALIZATIONS
(IN FORM)
95%
information giver . . . . . . .
O or O/M @ 3
5%
polarity seeker . . . . . . . .
O or O/M @ 1
5%
one participant
20 %
being . . . .
two participants
80%
5%
C@5
other process .
three participants . . . . . . .
90%
situation
Cl,
S@2
O/M @ 1 or 3
M@ 4
C @ 5, C
@6
90%
no time position
10%
time position . . . . . . . . .
Key:
A@7
= enter all systems to the right

= choose between the features to the right
= is realized by
@
= locate this element at Placc X
Potential structure: Places: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7.

Figure 3.19: An informal systemic functional grammar for the syntax so far
Let's come back now to the reason why we are making this comparison. It is to
demonstrate the fact that a Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG) makes no attempt
to summarize in one diagram THE POTENTIAL STRUCTURE OF THE CLAUSE AS A WHOLE
(as some form-based types of grammar try to do). The reason is that SFG linguists
recognize that, when certain meanings are chosen in the system network, they are
expressed by small CONFIGURATIONS OF ELEMENTS - in the way that we have seen for
TRANSITIVITY and MOOD, for example, throughout this chapter (e.g. in the
diagram at the end of Section 3). If you examine the elements that get generated as
a result of choices in the network the same picture emerges. Thus if you were to
choose the features [situation] and [three particpants] you would generate a clause
with S C C. And if you chose [situation] and [polarity seeker] you would generate
O S (or O/M S if you also chose [being]). It is the specific configurations of
elements, such as S C C or S O, that express the different types of meaning.
Thus S O and S M express the MOOD meaning of [information giver] and S C C
expresses the TRANSITIVITY meaning of [three participants]. (Note that the M,
which is also needed for TRANSITIVITY, is supplied by [other process] or as
being conflated with the Operator as O/M if the Process is being.)
104
10.4 Summary
Like the little grammar that we met in Section 5 of Chapter 2, the little grammar
shown in Figure 3.19 is too small to be useful for any practical purpose.ii But it
illustrates the essential characteristics of language structure which have led systemic
functional grammarians to use the combination of system networks and realization
rules for modelling language. Surprisingly, perhaps, this meaning-oriented
approach captures the facts of syntax more naturally than a purely structural
approach.
The attempt to use a 'potential structure' to specify all of the possible cooccurring elements of a clause may at first seem adequate- and attractively simple.
But this is only because it is being applied to a very small range of clause types.
Ultimately it will fail (as we will see by the end of Chapter 5 - essentially because it
places too much emphasis on syntax and too little on meaning. Specifically, the
problem for the 'potential structure' model is that there are just too many variations
in (a) which elements will occur together in any one clause, and (b) their position in
sequence. This is especially true of the Adjuncts, when we come to add them in
Chapter 6, but there is in fact no element of the clause that (a) is always present and
(b) is always in the same position in the clause. We will find that it is simply not
possible to capture all these variations in a single string of elements in an way that is
at all insightful.jj By the end of Chapter 5 there will be no doubt at all that the
'potential structure' is not a helpful route to understanding the structure of the
English clause.
System networks and realization rules, on the other hand, capture the facts very
elegantly, and they have proved highly successful in building very large computer
models for language generation. This is precisely because they are designed to
handle relations between meanings as well as to generate the correct syntactic
forms.
Endnotes
These endnotes provide 'follow-up' comments and references for readers with
prior knowledge and experience of linguistics. They include occasional brief
comparisons with other approaches - including the 'traditional' approach to
grammar and, within systemic functional grammar, comparisons with the proposals
of Halliday and others.
a. The term social context is used here in the sense in which Halliday uses it in his important
paper Text as semantic choice in social contexts (1977/78). Bradly speaking, it is the context
of situation in which the texts occurs, and this can itself be regarded as a semiotic product
(Halliday 1977/78:196-7). It is aspects of the context of situation that determine the register of the
text, i.e. aspects of its style that we refer to as its tenor, mode, technicality, etc. (There are
difficulties in the excessive breadth of coverage of Hallidays term field.) And these variables in
register are in turn reflected directly in choices in the lexicogrammar (for an overview of which see
Chapter 2). In a fuller model, however, one might wish to include what has been termed the
context of culture and other aspects of the belief system of a use of the language as a part of the
social (and so socio-cognitive) context.
105

b. The 'multifunctional principle' only applies fully to NATURAL languages. It is only partly
applicable to most ARTIFICIAL languages (these being the programming languages used in
computers and 'logic languages'). However, it is necessary to apply the principle fully in any
'logic' that is to used in conjunction with natural language, because otherwise important aspects of
meaning are simply omitted. A 'logical form' for the representation of inputs to and outputs from
the language processing components is being developed in the COMMUNAL framework at Cardiff
that is intended to provide a representation of all the kinds of meaning that are recognized in the
strands of meaning covered in this book.
The correspondences between the eight strands of meaning recognized in the Cardiff Grammar
and the four in the Sydney Grammar is discussed briefly in Chapter 4, and again at the start of the
Functional Semantics Handbook.
c. As we saw in Chapter 2, the core component of the model of language is seen in SFG as a
vast 'system network' of semantic features. The usual practice is to give a name to each major area
of meaning in the network, and to write this name in upper case letters. But in any one clause in
an actual text (such as She will simmer them gently) we do not find all of the AREA of meaning of
the language, but just a small 'strip' of that total area of meaning, i.e. the selection expression that
has been chosen from it in the present case (as described in the example of a working grammar in
Section 5 of Chapter 2). So here we are extending the use of a word that is essentially the name of
a whole area of meaning for use when referring to the particular pathway through that area of
meaning that is found in a given example.
d. Each network has its own set of realization rules, as explained in Section 5 of Chapter 2, with
the result that TRANSITIVITY is the grammar of both the meanings and the forms of
processes and participants. Fuller accounts of TRANSITIVITY, using essentially the same
framework as that used here, can be found in Fawcett 1980:134-54, 1987 and Fawcett, Tucker &
Lin 1993, but for the system networks that complement the structural description of English given
here, see Fawcett (in press). For Halliday's current view of TRANSITIVITY, see Halliday 1985
and Halliday 1994, and for the Sydney Grammar's system networks see Matthiessen 1995. To see
the way in which this description differs from Halliday's earlier descriptions, compare them with
Halliday 1967a, 1968, 1976, and 1970b. A fairly full overview of developments in TRANSITIVITY in the period up to 1985 is provided in Butler 1985.
e. In this book the simple term 'situation' is the name, at the level of semantics, for 'the
situation that is being talked about'. We do NOT use it to refer to the 'situation in which the
interaction occurs', which is here termed, following Firth and Halliday, the 'context of situation'.
This is in turn part of the wider 'social context'.
f. This statement is presented as one that is 100% reliable, and in this grammar it is - so long as
we allow for the concept of covert participants. Here - as in most though not all grammars we analyze an example such as They considered Ivy a genius as containing an embedded clause, i.e.
Ivy a genius. The item Ivy would be its Subject and a genius its Complement - and the Main Verb
would be considered to be the Process of 'being' - even though it is not realized overtly at the level
of form. This analysis has the advantage of bringing out in syntax the semantic similarity of They
considered Ivy a genius to They considered Ivy to be a genius and, less closely, They considered
that Ivy was a genius (for which see Chapter 11). This concept of a 'covert Process' is similar to
the approach that we will take to Participants that are covert, such as the referent of you in
(You] read it! See Chapter 6 for the introduction of 'covert roles' and Chapter 11 for a fuller
discussion of covert Processes, e.g. in what have been called by some scholars 'small clauses'.
g. There are two major reasons for the caution that has led to evaluating this useful statement as
only 90% reliable. The first is that a clause's Process is quite regularly expressed in other elements
IN ADDITION TO the Main Verb. (We will meet the most important type in the next chapter.)
The second reason will be taken up in Chapter 17, where we will meet the concept of'
'incongruence'. In one type of incongruence a nominal group is used to express a situation, and
the Process is expressed in its head.
h. The generalisation that each clause contains just one Main Verb is central to the model of
language presented here. It is an assumption that is shared by many grammarians outside Systemic
Functional Grammar (SFG), but - so far - by only by some within it. It seems likely that this is
106

because Hallidays own grammar allows for more than one Main Verb per clause - and in terms of
both of what he terms paratactic and hypotactic relations. The consequence is that since most
textbooks in SFG are written as introductions to Halliday's ideas, most of them assume that a
clause can have two (and in principle more) Main Verbs (e.g. Berry 1975; Eggins 1994; Bloor and
Bloor 1995; Thompson 1996; and Martin, Matthiessen and Painter 1997). See Fawcett (XXX) for
the reasons why I think that a Systemic Functional Grammar is in fact better off without
Hallidays concepts of the paratactic and hyptactic verbal group complexes.
There is in fact a second major difference here from Halliday. This is because - for Halliday
and for those who follow him on this matter - the Main Verb is not - as it is here - an element of
clause structure. Halliday introduces a clause element called a 'Predicator', which is in turn filled
(to use a Cardiff Grammar term) by a type of group not recognized in the Cardiff Grammar, called a
'verbal group'. There are very many compelling reasons, both formal and semantic, for treating all
the elements of what would for Halliday be the 'verbal group' as direct elements of the clause, but
this is not the place to state them. (See Fawcett 2000b and c for the differences between the
Sydney and Cardiff approaches to these matters, and for four independent sets of reasons for taking
the position assumed here rather than Hallidays.) Indeed, many of the insights of the analysis
proposed in this chapter and the next two would be lost if we were forced to build into the structure
a Predicator and verbal group, in the way that Halliday does. Here I will simply suggest that those
who doubt the value of the central principle expounded here might consider the advantages that it
brings to the practical problems of text analysis. It enables us to handle, in a manner that is both
simple and satisfying, the many complexities in syntax analysis that are covered in the following
chapters.
i. The term Operator' is used here in the sense established by Firth (1956/68:104-5), and taken
up by Quirk, Leech and their colleagues - e.g. in Quirk et al 1985 and in their many related
publications, and in derived publications such as Biber et al 1999. In Halliday 1985 and 1994 the
nearest equivalent concept is the Finite' element, but it would be a mistake to equate Hallidays
Finite' with our Operator. The differences between the two - and the problems with the Finite as
it is described and used in IFG - are explained fully in Fawcett 2000b. Since the Operator is seen
here as an element of the syntax of the clause, it is an element at the level of FORM. Its function
is to express various meanings from the level of SEMANTICS - and one of these is the TIME
REFERENCE POSITION to which the event referred to in the clause is anchored, i.e. past,
present' and future'. This anchoring' is called finiteness' in traditional grammar - hence Hallidays use of the term Finite as the short form for his Finite verbal operator (1994:76).
So, in the framework of a model of lexicogrammar which distinguishes the two levels of form
and meaning, (a) we treat the Operator is an element at the level of FORM, and (b) we treat
finiteness (i.e. the potential to enter the system of past vs. present vs. future) as one of the
meanings at the level of SEMANTICS that may be realized in the Operator. So the nearest concept
in the present framework to Hallidays Finiteness is in fact NOT the Operator itself, but the
presence of one of the realizations of the semantic feature of past or present (future being
typically realized in the modal verb will). And while the realizations of these do frequently occur
in the Operator, they occur even more frequently in the regular and irregular past and present forms
of lexical verbs that expound the Main Verb - often in what Lamb (1966) terms a portmanteau
realization (e.g. ran realizes, in one fused item, the meanings of both running and past).
Finally, I should perhaps also point out that what is sometimes termed Subject-verb
agreement is treated here as an aspect of the realization of the meanings of finiteness. In
Subject-verb agreement there is no choice - and so no meaning (with one very minor exception),
and such cases are most appropriately handled by realization rules. Put informally and in the terms
of traditional grammar, we can say that the relevant rule states that if the referent of the Subject is
third person singular, then the form of the Operator or Main Verb must also be third person
singular - in those cases where the distinction is expressed in form. (The minor exception is the
case exemplified in The committee has/have decided to resign.)
To summarize: here we regard the role of the Operator as a key element in realizing meanings
of MOOD as more central than is the concept of finiteness. We therefore, like Firth and Quirk et
al, prefer to treat the finiteness of what Halliday terms the Finite (but also the Finite verbal
operator) as just one of its many meanings. So here this element is simply termed the Operator.
See Fawcett (1999) and (2000b and c) for a full discussion of the theory and description of the
forms and meanings of the Subject and the Operator in English.
107

j. A more technical term for the 'function of language' that is frequently used by systemic
functional linguists is metafunction. But because we will introduce here a rather different set of
major types of meaning from those proposed by Halliday, I prefer to use the term strand of
meaning, in order to avoid confusion. Broadly, my eight strands of meaning can be grouped
within Hallidays four metafunctions. See Section 6 in Chapter 2 for a summary diasgram, and
Section 14 of Chapter 4 for a fuller discussion of these concepts.
k.
See Fawcett (1999) for a full examination of the concept of the Subject.
l. There are several types of clause in which the Subject is it or there, and in which it is not even
a Participant, e.g. It [S] is raining, It [S] was good to see you, It [S] seems that he isn't coming,
It [S] was Peter that did it and There [S] is a fox in the garden. We know that these Subjects are
not Participants because you cannot ask *What was raining, *What was good to see you?, *What
seems that he isn't coming?, *What was Peter that did it? or *Where is a fox in the garden? (Here I
am using a very informal test for a Participant, which in fact will be superceded by the tests
described in Section 7.2.)
m. In Fawcett (1999), I set out and evaluated two sets of answers - those given in each of the
Sydney and Cardiff Grammars - to the two questions (1) What test can be used to recognize the
Subject of an English clause? and (2) What is the meaning of being the Subject? There I give
my reasons for finding Hallidays account in IFG unpersuasive. I am not alone in this. In their
reviews of IFG, two former systemic linguists write as follows. Hudson (1986:798-9) says that in
IFG the concept of the Subject is so vaguely defined that I could not reliably define instances of
them, and Huddleston (1991:107) points out, quite justifiably, that his explanation rests too
heavily on offers and commands. I disagree with certain other aspects of their reviews of IFG,
(espcially Huddlestons, as a reading of Fawcett (2000a: 316-24) clearly shows) but on this matter
they are right.
n. Many grammar books, including those that reflect the Sydney Grammar, use the terms
'declarative' for our 'information giver', and 'interrogative' for our 'information seeker'. But there
are two good reasons for preferring the terms used here. First, for many linguists the terms
'declarative' and 'interrogative' refer to particular sequences of clause elements (e.g. Quirk et al
1985). But in a functional grammar we give priority to function over form, so we need terms that
are not already associated with contrasts at the level of form. For example, some linguists talk
about the declarative syntax of examples such as Who ate it?, whose syntax has the sequence S
O. And there are a number of non-typical but relatively frequent cases of what are clearly, in
semantic terms, 'information givers' such as So did John and Seldom have I heard such rubbish,
both of which have the sequence O S.
The second reason for preferring the terms 'information seeker' and 'information giver' is that
they express in simple language the meanings that we wish to convey. These two terms are taken
from the semantic features that are found in the Cardiff Grammar's system network for
MOOD - i.e. they are part of the specification of the meanings available in English in this area of
the semantics. The terms 'declarative' and 'interrogative', together with 'indicative' and 'imperative',
are still regularly found in most systemic functional grammars that are based on Hallidays network
for MOOD, which has nbot changed significantly since the early 1960s. In my view his MOOD
network needs be 'semanticized' in a manner that is parallel to the semanticization, by Halliday
himself and others, of the earlier system networks for TRANSITIVITY. (Fawcett (1980)
represented my first attempt to semanticize the MOOD network, but I have significantly revised
and extended those proposals in later publications.
One might ask why we do not use the even simpler terms 'statement' and 'question' for the
semantic equivalent of 'declarative' and 'interrogative'. It is tempting to do this, and Quirk et al
(1985:78) do in fact do so when discussing the semantics of MOOD. But we do not do so in the
Cardiff Grammar, because these terms are also often used as names for the classes of act in the
structure of discourse. It therefore seems safer to use the clear terms employed here, so avoiding
any danger that these terms will be equated with either any model of discourse structure (e.g.
Sinclair and Coulthard 1975) or with speech act theory (e.g. Searle 1969). Thus in the present
approach there are THREE relevant levels of representation to take into account: (1) the discourse act
(which is outside the lexicogrammar), and (2) the semantics of MOOD and (3) the syntax of
MOOD (both of which are in the lexicogrammar).
108

o. At this point it may be helpful to add a note about the place of 'word class' labels such as
'modal verb' in this framework. In traditional grammars there are widely used names for several
'word classes' of this sort, such as common noun, adjective, modal verb and lexical verb.
But there are also many gaps in any such set of categories, as well as 'ragbag' terms such as
'adverb', 'particle' and 'conjunction'. each of which is frequently used to cover several functionally
distinct elements. This presents something of a problem for grammars that are built around the
concept of 'word class' (as many are) - especially when they are extended to cover examples other
than the most canonical ones. In the present approach, as I have emphasized throughout, the
grammar is built around a different concept: that of the function that an item serves in the
structure of the unit above. As we explore further the functional model of syntax presented here, it
will become increasingly clear that in this framework there would be no point in ADDITIONALLY
trying to show the 'word class' of each item in the analysis of sentences. The nearest equivalent to
the concept of 'word class' that is found in the tree diagrams presented here - and so in the present
theory of syntax - is the element at which a word (or morpheme) occurs. As Halliday points out
(1994:28f.), the emphasis in a functional grammar on elements (or 'grammatical functions') rather
than on classes is a natural consequence of taking an approach to understanding language that asks
of every item 'What is its function?' Here we take this principle to its logical conclusion, and
make the 'element' label the lowest in the tree diagram. In principle, thn, the theory makes no use
of the concept of word class. In practice, however, this does not mean that there is no place at all
in the linguists vocabulary for 'word class' labels. It is often useful - as it is here - to use the
names of word classes (such as 'noun', 'adjective', 'adverb of manner', 'modal verb' and 'lexical verb'
- as convenient labels for SETS OF WORDS WHICH (1) EXPOUND A PARTICULAR ELEMENT AND (2)
SHARE THE SAME BROAD TYPE OF MEANING. For example, 'common nouns', 'proper nouns' and
'pronouns' (and also several other categories without well-established names) all occur as the 'head'
of a nominal group. We will therefore happily refer to the set of words that includes might and
will as 'modal verbs', and simmer and boil as 'lexical verbs', since there are established terms for
these - but SUCH TERMS PLAY NO ROLE IN THE THEORY ITSELF. So this is a theory of syntax in
which we can use the label for a word class when it is convenient to do so, but which does not
demand that every item should be categorization terms of one word class or another. This is a great
advantage, in practical terms, because there are many items for which there is no established 'word
class' label. (As just one example, consider the traditional dictionary's uninsightful classification
of very as an 'adverb'.)
p. See Fawcett (1999) for a full presentation of the view taken here of the meaning of the
Subject, ans a critique of the position taken by Halliday in IFG.
q. The approach to the concept of the 'Subject' in English that is presented here is essentially a
refinement of that found in many earlier standard systemic writings, such as Berry (1975:77).
However, in IFG (1985, 1994) Halliday introduces a different test for the Subject from the one used
here. He writes (1994:73) that 'the Subject ... is that element which is picked up by a pronoun in
the tag.' For example, in Fred was visited by Ivy, we are asked to add a tag to produce Fred was
visited by Ivy, wasn't he? In Halliday's test, the acceptability of wasn't he shows that Fred is the
S. The result of his test is therefore the same as the present test, but it has two disadvantages.
The first is that it only identifies the S indirectly, i.e. it depends on first asking the tester to
supply an ADDITIONAL CLAUSE (filling a Confirmation Seeking Tag Adjunct, as I will suggest in
Chapter 14), and then asking to tester to recognize that the Subjects of the two clauses are 'the
same'. There are potential problems here, with examples such as There were five men in the room,
weren't there? and They say he's doing a good job, don't they / isn't he? The test used here has the
advantages of (1) being more direct, in that its criteria are stated in terms of the existing main
clause and (2) using for its criteria a more central part of the grammar, i.e. the core of the MOOD
system.
On the question of the meaning of the Subject, Halliday writes (1994:30) that the Subject is
'that of which something is being predicated'. This description recalls the traditional 'subjectpredicate' description of a clause structure, where the subject is said to be 'what you are talking
about' and the predicate 'what you are saying about it'. The equivalent of these concepts in a
modern functional grammar is the pair of concepts for which the terms 'theme' and 'rheme' (or
'topic' and 'comment') are used. Again, I find the earlier systemic functional approach to the
Subject in English more insightful. The interpersonal meaning of the Subject is simply its
contribution, together with the Operator or Main Verb, to the MOOD meaning of the clause as an
'information giver' or an 'information seeker', etc. (For a fuller account of the meanings in the
109

MOOD network, see Chapters 5 and 14, and Chapter 6 of the Functional Semantics Handbook.)
For a full critique of Hallidays position on the Subject in IFG, see Fawcett (1999).
r. There is in fact one other clause element which is filled by a unit (the Vocative), and we will
meet that in Chapter 14. It too is a unit that refers to a 'thing' - the addressee, in fact, as we will
see. The possibility that the Binder (or 'subordinating conjunction', in traditional grammar) also
occasionally requires a unit to fill it is discussed in Chapter 10.
s. In such cases, what is happening is that two meanings are being realized in one word, in such
a way that we cannot easily show which part of the word expresses which meaning. Following
Lamb (1966), we may call these portmanteau realizations.
t. This is a different approach to the 'copular' type of clause from the one taken in some
grammars. In that approach it is typically implied that, in They are reporters, the words they and
reporters refer to 'the same thing'. In Quirk et al (1985:54) the description of such clauses is in
terms of traditional categories that reflect this assumption (though the authors are careful not to
adopt it temselves). Indeed, it is on this assumption that the distinction between 'Objects' and
'Complements' of traditional grammars (including this part of Quirk et al 1985) is based. But I
have shown here that, while this assumption may reflect the facts of the world (i.e. as P believes
them to be), it would be a mistake to analyze the MEANING of such clauses in this manner. This
is because it fails to take into account the fact that the semantics of a clause must be seen in terms
of that clause's role as an act of communication - i.e. here THE WAY IN WHICH P CHOOSES TO
PRESENT TO A THE REFERENTS AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THEM .
The same principle holds for 'identifying' clauses, such as Frege's widely cited example of The
morning star is the evening star (i.e. both are the planet Venus - so not a 'star' at all in fact).
'Identifying' clauses are simply the limiting case of the 'member of class and class' approach to
attributive clauses described here, i.e. the Attribute in an 'identifying' clause is simply a onemember class, and the well-known facts about the 'reversibility' of such clauses - at least when M
is a form of be - simply follow from this fact.
u. In effect, then, I am claiming here that the meaning of a referring expression that refers to a
class of objects such as reporters or lions is 'members of the class of reporters' or 'members of the
class of lions' - or, slightly more formally, 'members of class x') This is true not only of
examples that have a plural form such as lions, but also of examples with a singular form such as
A lion / the lion / your lion is a noble creature. (The only adjustment to this gloss for the
meaning of a 'class' referent that is required is to say that, in a cases such as That is a lion, the
meaning of a lion is 'a member of the class of lions' rather than 'members of the class of lions'.
This minor oddity arises because we are expressing the gloss in English; if we used a language that
did not mark plurals morphologically we could simply say that the meaning of 'class x' is 'member
of class x'.)
v. It is tempting to say that it is the Main Verb (rather than the Process) that 'expects' the PRs and in around 70-95% of cases (varying with different types of text) it would do no harm to work
on this assumption. But if we did we would find that we had two additional problems. The first is
that quite a few verb forms are ambiguous, so that ONE FORM CAN CO-OCCUR WITH TWO (OR
MORE) SETS OF PRS. As we will shortly see, Figure 3.16 provides examples of this - as does the
verb simmer in our very first example. So it is the Process - i.e. the MEANING of the lexical verb
at M rather than its FORM - that must be our guide. The second problem is that the expression of
the Process is frequently spread over M and one or even two other elements. There are termed
'phrasal verbs', 'prepositional verbs', and 'phrasal-prepositional verbs' in transitional grammar, and
we will deal with the most important of these in the next chapter, since it occurs very frequently in
texts. But for the present we will stick to examples where the Process is expressed solely in the
M.
w. This test, which is already fairly complex, would have to be even more complex if it was not
for the fortunate fact - which is of course not a coincidence - that the prepositions to and from are
used both in two- and three-role directional Processes such as going and sending, and also in
three-role possession Processes such as giving and taking. The test therefore covers the two
most frequent directional PRs of Destination and Source, but not Path. (This could have enn
included it I had expanded the wording in the test from to or from to to or from or via, but it
110

seems better to keep the test simpler and to leave this relatively infrequent type of Process to the
1% that are not covered by the test.)
x. This is a different position from the one that Halliday takes in IFG. For Halliday, a PR that
is the Subject ceases to have a 'thematic' meaning if there is a preceding experiential Theme of any
sort, such as a 'scene-setting' Adjunct expressing the Time or Place of the event. The position
taken in the Cardiff Grammar - and implemented in the GENESYS generator - is that these are
independent variables. In other words, if a PR is made the Subject, it thereby acquires the
additional meaning of being the of Subject Theme. See Chapter 6 for a fuller justification of this
position.
y. This important modification is needed because, in cases such as Ivy was seen by Ike and Ivy
looked at Ike, the PR is in fact not conflated with the C, but with the 'completive' of the
'prepositional group' that fills the C. These cases will be covered in Chapter 8 (and briefly, for the
type in Ivy was seen by Ike, in Chapter 6).
z. The one exception is the 'empty' it found in examples such as Ike resented it that Ivy had
visited Fred - and it is this that accounts for the fact that the guideline is only 99.99% reliable.
aa. See Fawcett (1987) for my fullest statement of the rationale for this approach to 'relational'
Processes, and see Chapter 2 of the Functional Semantics Handbook for an improved version of
those ideas The principle change is the decision to treat the three types of directional PR as
different from the Location, introducing the three additional PRs of Destination, Source and Path.
bb. It will be clear to anyone who has tried to use the approach to anlyzing clauses in terms of
their Participant Roles using Hallidays Introduction to Functional Grammar that the framework
developed here both owes a great deal to Hallidays pioneering work in the area of grammar and that
it differs from it in significant ways. This approach is based on the second of Hallidays two
approaches to TRANSITIVITY - the ergative approach - and this is seen as superseding the
transitive approach. Major differences are the recognition in the Cardiff Grammar of major
differences within the mental processes (and the introduction of three different PRs for the three
major types), the simplification of some parts of Hallidays approach to relational Processes and
the expansion of other parts to incorporate many types of Process that Halliday treats as material
(or doesnt include at all), and the additional of two new major Process types: influential and
event-relating Processes. See Chapter 2 of the Functional Semantics Handbook for a full account
of this enlarged framework - an account which at the same time shows why these extensions are
necessary if we are to be able to handle natrual texts in a comprehensive manner.
cc. The traditional approach to grammar (e.g. as in Quirk et al 1985) makes a distinction between
'Objects' and 'Complements' and, within 'Objects', between 'Direct Objects' and 'Indirect Objects'.
Some grammars also make a further distinction between 'Subject Complements' and 'Object
Complements'. Yet so far this handbook has simply treated them all as 'Complements'. So this
question arises: 'Does SFG recognize such distinctions, and, if so, where?' The answer is that
SFG recognizes instead a much fuller and finer set of distinctions. These are the Participant
Roles, which we have introduced here as a general concept, and which we will cover in full detail
in Chapter 2 of the Functional Semantics Handbook. Once you introduce PRs to the description
of English, they make concepts the traditional contrasts between Objects and Complements and
between 'Direct' and 'Indirect Objects' and so on completely redundant. The set of PRs is the
logical conclusion towards which the earlier approach can be seen as a first step. (I am talking here
of English; in a language such as German which has reflexes at the level of form that reflect case
concepts other than those provided for by the set of PRs, the situation is very different.)
However, the work of learning to recognize the full set of PRs at a level of skill where you
can analyze all the clauses in natural texts in those terms is a major task. There is little point in
learning to recognize only a few of them - because any analysis of a text is likely to need to
compare the use of the various types. This handbook is therefore planned in such a way that you
can work your way as quickly as possible to a position where you have the ability to analyze quite
complex texts, in terms of distinguishing between Participant Roles and Circumstantial Roles and so between Subjects and Complements, on one hand, and Adjuncts on the other. After these
general skills in analyzing the structure of English have been learnt you will be able to add to them
the specific skill of analyzing PRs.
111

dd. The concept of the potential structure entered the theory by two (probably independent)
paths. I first introduced it in Fawcett (1973/81:158) under the name of a starting structure originally for use in modelling the lexicogrammar. Specifically, it was to help in modelling the
sequence of elements in the clause, insofar as this is possible, and for groups. Later I changed its
name from starting structure to potential structure, because the former could be interpreted as
implying that it was all in some sense present in the generation of every instance of a given unit.
A discussion of the position of the place of the concept in a SFL theory of syntax can be found in
Fawcett (2000a:178-9 and 223-4).
However, Ruqaiya Hasan had meanwhile introduced to the theory a similar concept with a
similar name - but as a tool for describing the genre structure of texts at the level of discourse.
Her name for it is structure potential (Hasan 1980/85/89). (It seems possible that, even though
she is using the concept at a different level of description, I may well have been influenced at an
unconscious level by her name for it.) However, linguists working in the framework of the
Sydney model appear NOT to have recognized the value of this concept for modelling the structure
of groups in the lexicogrammar, as in the Cardiff Grammar. (I should perhaps add that - as a result
of using the concept of the potential structure of groups in building large computer models for
natural language generation - I am now sure of the value of the concept in the lexicogrammar.
However, I also think that it is too rigid for use in modelling the structure of genres at the level of
discourse.
ee. In very broad terms, a potential structure is the same general concept as the 're-write' rules of a
'phrase structure grammar' such as is usually assumed to be needed in formal linguistics. In this
way, then, this is a comparison - at a very simple level - between the formal and the systemic
functional approaches to understanding language.
ff. The main uses of potential structures by systemic functional linguists has been to represent
the structure of genres (such as a 'service encounter' in a shop). but problems of variation in the
sequence of elements of genre structure and recursive 'loop-backs' have stretched this form of
representation beyond what it can insightfully handle, so that a flowchart representation now seems
more appropriate to many researchers. Sometimes we will use diagrams that summarise the most
frequent patterns of structure in a unit as a handy aid to text analysis, but this is not, strictly
speaking, a potential structure.
gg. In the Sydney Grammar, the equivalent entry condition is shown as 'clause'. I find this odd,
since the whole purpose of entering and traversing the network is precisely to select features, the
application of whose realization rules will generate a clause. The clause is (part of) the OUTPUT
from the use of the lexicogrammar, and cannot therefore also be its INPUT . See Fawcett (2000a)
for a full comparison of the Cardiff and Sydney Grammars.
hh. In a grammar in which conditions on realization rules plays a part, as they must in a full
grammar and as they do even in the little lexicogrammar for the nominal group in Section 5 of
Chapter 2, this apparent simplification is not possible. In principle it can be done, but only at the
cost of adding to the diagram additional and potentially confusing 'wiring'. And it brings the
further problem that it can allow the researcher - and so the reader of the network - to lose sight of
the key distinction between systemic relations and realizational relations.
ii. It is extremely simple, for example, in comparison with the very large grammar implemented
in the COMMUNAL Project (Fawcett, Tucker & Lin 1993).
jj. For the reader familiar with the approach to syntax of 'phrase structure rules' (whether though
Chomsky's transformational generative grammar or one of the various models that are descended
from it), it may be useful to say that, in very broad terms, a potential structure is the same general
order of concept as the 're-write' rules of a 'phrase structure grammar'. In other words, a potential
structure and a re-write rule both say what 'parts' a unit may have, and what sequence they occur in.
In this limited way, then, this section offers an informal comparison - at a very simple level between the formal and the systemic functional approaches to understanding language.
It is interesting that a concept which is assumed - axiomatically - to capture the essential
nature of grammar in one school of linguistics (formal linguistics) should be treated in another
(systemic functional linguistics) as a secondary phenomenon. It is secondary in SFL in two ways.
Firstly, because the system network of 'meaning potential' constitutes the 'core' of the model, the
realization component is - though a necessary complement to it - its servant. And secondly,
112

within the realization component, potential structures that sequence elements play only a limited
role. They are only useful for groups and clusters - and the potential structure for the clause
consists simply of Places - and no elements.
However, in this handbook we will occasionally use something that looks at first like a
potential structure, when summarizing the elements of structure of a clause or group in THEIR
MOST FREQUENT POSITIONS, AS AN AID TO TEXT ANALYSIS . But this is a different matter. And
in such summary presentations we allow ourselves to introduce the same element - e.g. the
Operator or an Adjunct - twice or even more often,, in each of its various positions. In such cases
the string of elements can be thought of, from the viewpoint of the conceptual framework of a
phrase structure grammar, as roughly equivalent to an amalgamation of the right hand sides of
several re-write rules.
113

Ba CH 3 CL

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ba CH 3 CL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3

How to analyze the elements of clauses:

THE BASIC GRAMMAR OF TRANSITIVITY AND MOOD

1.2 The multifunctional principle

THE BASIC GRAMMAR OF TRANSITIVITY AND MOOD

TRANSITIVITY is in fact one of the major strands of meaning in the clauses of

At the level of MEANING:

THE BASIC GRAMMAR OF TRANSITIVITY AND MOOD

Figure 3.1: the relations of Process and Main Verb

THE BASIC GRAMMAR OF TRANSITIVITY AND MOOD

(1a) He will simmer them gently.

THE BASIC GRAMMAR OF TRANSITIVITY AND MOOD

(1a) He will simmer them gently.

at the level of MEANING: the interpersonal semantics of MOOD;

Here we are concerned only with first two levels of description.

THE BASIC GRAMMAR OF TRANSITIVITY AND MOOD

expressed in the unit of:

THE BASIC GRAMMAR OF TRANSITIVITY AND MOOD

1.6 Putting TRANSITIVITY and MOOD together

(1a) He will simmer them gently.

THE BASIC GRAMMAR OF TRANSITIVITY AND MOOD

(1a) He will simmer them gently.

2 Introducing the Pre-Guidelines

THE BASIC GRAMMAR OF TRANSITIVITY AND MOOD

2.2 The Pre-Guidelines

Find the Process.

WARNING These Pre-Guidelines are greatly oversimplified, and the five

THE BASIC GRAMMAR OF TRANSITIVITY AND MOOD

(2a) Ivy might visit Fred.

(2b) Might Ivy visit Fred?

2.4 Three tips for drawing syntax diagrams

with an ERASER ready in case you change your

THE BASIC GRAMMAR OF TRANSITIVITY AND MOOD

(2a) Ivy might visit Fred.

(2b) Might Ivy visit Fred?

Figure 3.7: The clause analysis of (2a) and (2b)

2.6 What criteria did you use?

AT THE LEVEL OF MEANING,

The Process is clearly one of visiting, so visit is the Main Verb.

THE BASIC GRAMMAR OF TRANSITIVITY AND MOOD

The Process in (2a) is 'visiting', so visit is the M. In (1a) we saw that we

THE BASIC GRAMMAR OF TRANSITIVITY AND MOOD

THE BASIC GRAMMAR OF TRANSITIVITY AND MOOD

3 MOOD and the test for the Subject and Operator

Preparation: if the clause to be analyzed does NOT have the structure of an

THE BASIC GRAMMAR OF TRANSITIVITY AND MOOD

Re-expression: re-express the clause as an information seeker.13 (In a

3.3 Information seekers and polarity seekers

= 'If I expressed this as a full clause it would be positive.'

THE BASIC GRAMMAR OF TRANSITIVITY AND MOOD

(2b) Might Ivy visit Fred?

4 Words, elements and units: keeping things simple

THE BASIC GRAMMAR OF TRANSITIVITY AND MOOD

- exactly as in Figure 3.9.

4.3 Can all clause elements be filled by units?

THE BASIC GRAMMAR OF TRANSITIVITY AND MOOD

5 Conflating the Main Verb with the Operator (O/M):

THE BASIC GRAMMAR OF TRANSITIVITY AND MOOD

(3) They are reporters.

THE BASIC GRAMMAR OF TRANSITIVITY AND MOOD

THE BASIC GRAMMAR OF TRANSITIVITY AND MOOD

Analysis task: discovering a new type of Complement

We will approach the new type of Complement to be introduced here by