900 – Assignment # 2:

MOOD and TRANSITIVITY

Due: Wednesday ___ / v / 99

This second assignment is concerned with interpersonal grammar and with experiential grammar. First we review these parts of the grammar very briefly and then we turn to the tasks for this assignment.

Review of interpersonal and experiential clause grammar

With the completion of TRANSITIVITY, we have now surveyed the major clauses systems of English, metafunction by metafunction. The grammar of the clause comprises contributions from each metafunction:

And any clause drawing on these resources will show some particular combination of patterns from transitivity, mood and theme; for example:

MOOD

The interpersonal grammar is the grammar of exchanges, i.e. MOOD (including POLARITY), which is the foundation of symbolic interaction. By making selections in this area of the grammar, a speaker adopts a speech role and assigns a complementary role to the listener – roles such as offerer and accepter or rejecter of offer; commander and complier; questioner and answerer. A dialogue is constructed and moved forward through successive role adoptions and assignments of this kind and in the course of this propositions (information) and proposals (goods & services) are negotiated – they are put forward, accepted, rejected, and so on. From a semantic point of view, each move in the dialogue selects for a speech function and from a grammatical point of view each move is realized by a clause and its speech functional selection by a selection in the MOOD grammar. So for instance, in the following exchange –

Emma: What have you been doing?

Jerry: Walked through the park.

– Emma initiates the exchange with a move that demands information, i.e. with a question. She adopts the role of questioner and assigns the complementary role of intended answerer to Jerry. She realizes this question by means of a full (i.e., non-elliptical) wh-interrogative clause. Jerry accepts the role assigned to him and his move is a responding one; he complies with the demand for information and gives the information demanded, i.e. he makes a response statement. He realizes this response statement by means of an elliptical declarative clause: through ellipsis he presupposes the part of what Emma said that is constant across the two moves (although there is actually a switch in both person and mood but this switch is entirely predictable in the pairing of wh-interrogative + declarative): [I have] just walked through the park. Ellipsis is here a symbol of the sharing that takes place in dialogic interaction. While full clauses are typical of initiating moves, elliptical ones are typical of responding moves: when somebody responds, the initiation has already created a dialogic context. In this case, the ellipsis involves the two inherent elements of the Mood element in a declarative clause, i.e. Subject and Finite, and the Response is Residue. The analysis of the example is as follows:

The MOOD selection is realized through the Mood element of the clause plus, in a wh-interrogative clause, the Wh element, which identifies the focus of the demand. The Mood element consists of Subject + Finite; and potentially also of Mood Adjuncts that relate to the Finite. The Subject is the element that is up for argument (the element assigned modal responsibility) and the Finite is the element that determines the realm of arguability – time or modality (in indicative clauses); positive or negative.

The relevant sections in IFG are as follows:

Chapter 4: Clause as exchange. Note that you have a sample analysis in Section 4.8 of that chapter. Note also the discussion in Section 4.6 on the absence of elements in the modal structure. You can also read p. 318 on ellipsis in the clause in connection with Section 4.6. (Note that in addition to expressing a polarity value yes and no have a textual function as continuatives: see IFG, pp. 92-3.) – The Workbook contains additional pointers and discussion of how to read IFG.

Section 10.4.3 on interpersonal metaphors of MOOD. (You don't have to use this discussion in your analysis, but it's useful background.)

pp. 302 - 306 deal with TONE and KEY in spoken English. They are an important part of the total understanding of the interpersonal resources of the clause; but they won’t be involved in this assignment.

In Lexicogrammatical Cartography: English Systems, the relevant chapter is Chapter 5.

TRANSITIVITY

TRANSITIVITY is the experiential grammar of the clause for construing our experience of a quantum of change as a configuration of a process, participants directly involved in that process and attendant circumstances. The nature of the process and the participants involved in it is determined by the system of PROCESS TYPE, and the nature of attendant circumstances by the system of CIRCUMSTANTIATION.

PROCESS TYPE

(i) Material clauses construe doings & happenings. They can be probed in a number of different ways, all of which relate to their category meaning of happening & doing evolving through time and affecting one or more participants.

(a) If do, do to/with can serve as pro-verb, the clause is material. For instance: what she did with the ball was kick it, what she did was kick the ball, what they did to the garden was surround it with a fence (but not e.g. what she did with the leader was be her, what the fence did to the garden was surround it). Note that do to/with is possible with a Goal but not with a range so this probe also served to distinguish the two.

(b) If there is a circumstance (typically a spatial Locative) or an Attribute specifying the state resulting from the occurrence of the Process or if it is possible to add one, the clause is material. For instance: she drove the car hot, she painted the office grey, she ran into the house, they chased him into the cave, they shot him dead, he washed clean, the glass broke into a thousand pieces. (The potential result may be 'incorporated' into the process: repair, decay, die, kill, flatten).

(c) Present time is represented by means of the present-in-present tense (the so-called present progressive or continuous); with other process types, the simple present is the default. For instance: she is writing another novel, he's cleaning the car (but not he is liking Mozart, she's believing them, the watch is saying that it's half-past two, she's being the leader). The simple present is marked and means either general present (generalization, habit, etc.) – she writes novels – simultaneous report, as in demonstrations and sports commentaries – and now I add three eggs.

(ii) Mental clauses construe inert sensing – processes of consciousness. There are three subtypes: perception, cognition, and affection (in Lexicogrammatical Cartography, ‘affection’ is split into ‘desideration’ and ‘emotion’).

(a) There is a Senser, a participant involved in (inert) conscious processing, and it is endowed with consciousness (IFG p. 108) – he believed the story, she wanted another cup, she detests pettiness; the noise annoyed them, the news pleased us (but not, without personification, the children annoyed the old house, the wall regrets its colour). Participants in other types of process (Actors, Sayers, etc.) are not characterized by consciousness in the general case – it broke the window, it says that prices will increase. (Note that the Behaver of a behavioural process [treated as a type of material process in LexCart] is like a Senser in that it is endowed with consciousness: she's pondering the question.)

(b) There can always be a Phenomenon, a participant that enters into or is created by the Senser's consciousness; and it can be either a thing (entity, person, etc.), a macro-thing (and 'act') or a meta-thing (a fact) realized as a nominal group or a clause (either finite or non-finite). For instance: Ernest saw (Phenomenon: nominal group) the old man, Ernest saw (Phenomenon: clause) the old man fishing; Ernest believed the old man, Ernest believed the claim that the old man had caught a marlin; Ernest didn't regret his story, Ernest didn't regret (the fact) that he had written the story, the fact that he had written another story impressed them, Ernest forgot (the fact) that he had written the story.

(c) Mental clauses can 'combine' with clauses representing meta-things (facts, ideas) either through embedding, in which case the meta-phenomenal clause serves as Phenomenon in the mental clause (see (b) above) or through projection in a clause complex, in which case the meta-phenomenal clause serves as a dependent clause (see IFG Chapter 7): he believes that the earth is flat ('that the earth is flat' is brought into existence -- projected – as an idea by his belief [substitute: so – 'she believes so too']; contrast: he believes (Phenomenon:) the claim that the earth is flat, where the claim exists as a claim independently of his belief [substitute: it]), they think the problem can be avoided, he dreamed/ imagined/ hoped/ wished the moon was a balloon. (Verbal clauses may also project a clause in a clause complex in this way – he said that the moon was a balloon, but this clause represents a locution rather than an idea.)

(d) Mental clauses are reversible (IFG p. 110): like : please; fear : frighten. (This is particularly common with reactive ones, and much less common with perceptive ones.)

(iii) Verbal clauses construe processes of saying.

(a) There is a Sayer, a participant that serves as symbol sources, either actively as a speaker or inertly as a document, instrument, etc.: he/ the thermometer/ the paper says it's very cold.

(b) There can be a Receiver, the participant addressed through the process of verbalization. The realization depends on the particular verbal process; with some, the Receiver can be either a nominal group or a prepositional phrase (to, of), with others it is one or the other: she said to him that he would have to leave; she told him that he would have to leave; she begged of him to leave.

(c) It is usually possible to specify the subject matter of the verbalization, as the circumstance Matter (about, on, of, regarding, concerning): she told him about his friend that he had been arrested.

(d) Verbal clauses can project clauses in clause complexes, either as reports (indirect speech) or as quotes (direct speech): she said "I'm famished' / that she was famished; she said "Leave at once"; he promised them to leave. (Note that behavioural processes can be brought into projecting service in certain genres -- she sighed "I'm hungry".) A verbal clause that projects a quote often has the structure Process ^ Sayer -- "I'm famished", said the little girl (narratives); Said the Senator: "These issues have been overlooked for far too long" (journalism).

(iv) Relational clauses construe processes of being and having.

In addition, IFG recognizes two minor process types – behavioural and existential.

Participants and circumstances

(i) The basic principle is that participants are realized by nominal groups and circumstances are realized by prepositional phrases of adverbial groups. For instance, in we had breakfast with Tiffany in the afternoon, the participants are we (Actor), breakfast (Range); and the circumstances are with Tiffany (Accompaniment), in the afternoon (Locative-time). However, the basic principle may be departed from under certain conditions:

(a) Participants that are marked Theme or late news in the clause are marked by a prepositions (IFG pp. 149-50):

Agent (in a receptive ['passive'] clause): by (sometimes with)

Medium (in a receptive clause): by

Recipient: to

Client: for

Range: at, up, over, ...

For instance: he jumped the fence : he jumped clumsily over the fence; he baked her a cake : he baked a cake for her; she gave him the book : she gave the book to him; she played tennis with him : she played him at tennis

(b) Circumstances of location may be realized by nominal groups when they are related to the time of speaking as 'last', 'next', or 'this'; for example: they went to the desert [Location: time:] last Friday; let's go to the desert [Location: time:] this Friday. But: the went to the desert [Location: time:] the following Friday. Similarly with Extent: they worked [for] five hours – including frequency: the shot at him five times.

(c) Participants in relational clauses may be adverbial groups as well as prepositional phrases: (identifying:) on the twelfth is the best time; by train is the only way (ascriptive:) the meeting is on the twelfth.

(ii) Participants can serve as Subject, but Circumstances cannot. For instance: she drove here there by car, he was driven there by car; but not car was driven there by, there was driven by car. Departures from this principle include:

(a) The Attribute of a relational clause cannot serve as Subject (it is not a prototypical participant in any case).

(b) Certain circumstances can serve as Subject (in middle clauses in particular; IFG p. 152); for instance: this hall has always been danced in on Saturdays.

(iii) Participants are interrogated by means of who, what, which; circumstances by means of when, where, why, how (plus prepositional phrases such as with whom/ who ... with, since when/ since ... when, for whom/ who ... for).

CIRCUMSTANTIATION

Each type of circumstance is realized by a particular set of prepositional phrases and/ or adverbial groups; prepositions include:

Location: at, by, on, in, to, towards, from, onto, into, out of, through; above, below, in front of, behind, over, under; after, before, since, ago ['post-position': ten years ago]

Extent: for, along, across, throughout

Manner: by, with; like, unlike, as; in [a ... way/manner/fashion] (Note that certain prepositional phrases which appear to be locative serve as Manner: how did he walk? – he walked on all fours. How did he leave? – He left in a huff.)

Cause: for, for the sake of, on behalf of; through, of, because of, as a result of, thanks to, for want of

Matter: about, on, of, regarding, concerning

Accompaniment: with, without; as well as, besides, instead of, except [for]

Role: as, by way of, in the role/ shape/ guise/ form of

Many prepositions have two or more uses – for instance with (Accompaniment, Manner-means), on (Location, Matter), by (Locative, Manner-means), for (Extent, Cause-purpose/ behalf), as (Role, Manner-comparison). These can be probed by paraphrasing by means of another preposition or, in the case of Accompaniment, coordination.

The relevant reading is IFG Chapter 5, Working with Functional Grammar Chapter 4 (and LexCart Chapter 4). Two other passages in IFG are also relevant: Section 7.5, which discusses verbal and mental processes in relation to projection; and Section 10.3 on grammatical metaphors involving TRANSITIVITY.

Tasks

Your tasks in this assignment will all be based on one text – a casual conversation from a tea-break at a work place in Sydney. It comes from a corpus of casual conversations in the work place collected by Diana Slade in the 1980s. This particular conversation is a gossip text involving three women working as supervisors (J, S and D). We have given you the text in Section 3 below. The text is set out with Di Slade’s analysis generic stages and with a thematic analysis.

Task 1: MOOD analysis of select examples from "A classic affair" [5 marks]

Analyse the following selection of clauses from "A Classic Affair" in terms of their interpersonal structures – that is, Mood + Residue (+ Moodtag) and any Adjuncts outside the Mood + Residue structure. You can analyse I mean, I think/ I don’t think as interpersonal Adjuncts: see IFG pp. 354-6 (see especially Figure 10-11).

5. J: I mean she'd come over.

16. S: Did she know?

19. J: I don't think she was that cluey.

30. J: Then all of a sudden she started wearing make-up.

33. S: And what happened in the end?

34. S: Are they still together?

37. S: They're still together?

41. S: Gosh!

44. J: She'd be ringing up on the weekend

61. D: Actually, it's really ridiculous

70. D: Been careful, have they?

Task 2: Division of labour in MOOD selections among the three interactants [2 marks]

The three interactants, J, D and S, make complementary contributions to the gossip. In particular, S’s contribution differs from those of S and D. You can see this in how they contribute to the different generic stages; but you can also see this in differences in their MOOD selections. Consider these contributions in terms of their MOOD selections –

– and comment briefly on the division of dialogic labour among the interactants. You do not have to fill in the table with all the different contributions, but only comment on the tendencies you find by reviewing the examples you analysed in 2.1 and by scanning the whole conversation.

Task 3: MODALITY in substantiating behaviour [2 marks]

The generic stage of "Substantiating behaviour" is where the interactants provide evidence against the "third person" who’s the target of the gossip. They have to build up evidence that can support the Pejorative evaluations in the gossip text. This is in fact reflected in the choice of MODALITY in many clauses within the Substantiating behaviour elements, given below with the Finite in bold:

Identify the type of MODALITY that is selected in most of these clauses and discuss very briefly why it is selected within Substantiating behaviour.

Task 4: TRANSITIVITY analysis of select examples from "A classic affair" [5 marks]

Analyse the following selection of clauses from "A Classic Affair" in terms of their experiential, transitivity structures – that is, process + participants + circumstances. Note that a clause may contain elements that serve an interpersonal (e.g. mood Adjuncts) or a textual function (e.g. Continuatives) but which are not part of its transitivity structure.

4. There was an affair

5. I mean she'd come over.

9. I mean, it was the laughing stock of the whole hospital.

16. Did she know that you knew?

42. Oh, it's pretty sad.

45. We could hear her voice on the phone all through the week.

55. He's on holidays at the moment.

65. I quite often used to pick up the phone.

73. She left her husband for him.

Task 5: Pejorative evaluation [3 marks]

The generic stage of "Pejorative Evaluation" is central to gossip. Di Slade (1996, The texture of casual conversation: a multidimensional interpretation) characterizes it as follows: "Evaluative meanings occur throughout gossip texts but at each Pejorative Evaluation stage there is a peak of evaluative prominence ... . It is in these stages that the judgements, which have been fuelled by the Substantiating Behaviours, are made explicit. The two aspects of functional motivation of gossip, that is, as a form of social control and as an indicator of in-group membership, are reflected in the semantic and linguistic strategies of the Pejorative Evaluation.

When we explore how a generic stage such as Substantiating Behaviour, Pejorative Evaluation or Wrap-up is realized linguistically, we find that there is semantic consistency in the realization but that there is some lexicogrammatical variation. Hasan (1996, Ways of saying: ways of meaning, ed. by C. Cloran, D. Butt & G. Williams, London: Cassell) demonstrates this in her chapter on the nursery tail described as a genre for the generic stage "Placement". In gossip, the generic stage Substantiating Behaviour is also lexicogrammatically fairly varied. However, the stage Pejorative Evaluation is simpler; the lexicogrammatical realizations are quite consistent within one text and from one text to another. Below you can find a sample of most of the instances of Pejorative Evaluation in Di Slade’s gossip texts, starting with those in "A Classic Affair".

Consider these examples in terms of TRANSITIVITY and identify the transitivity patterns that are favoured as a strategy for realizing Pejorative Evaluation. Also comment briefly on how the interpersonal metafunction contributes to the clauses that are used here. (Note that examples such as I consider/ find/ think her very bright are relational clauses with Attributor + Process: consider/ find/ think + Carrier + Attribute: see IFG p. 171 for the function of Attributor.)

Gossip text: A Classic Affair

Gossip text: Tamara

Pejorative Evaluation 1: ...

Pejorative Evaluation 2: She’s pretty insecure, that girl.

Pejorative Evaluation 3: She’s a tart.

Gossip text: Richard

Pejorative Evaluation 1: Richard’s not a very nice person, anyway; he just doesn’t fit into the system in general.

Gossip text: Joanne

Pejorative Evaluation 1: She gets really pushy.

Gossip text: Clara and Stephen

Pejorative Evaluation 1: Which is like what a thing to do!

Pejorative Evaluation 3: He sounds like the most crooked ...

Pejorative Evaluation 4: I think he’s really nice just to talk to but I’d hate to have to depend on him.

Gossip text: Harry

Pejorative Evaluation 1: He’s pretty mean and nasty, that guy, isn’t he?

Pejorative Evaluation 2: He’s a bit of a bastard.

Gossip text: Olive Swanson

Pejorative Evaluation 1: [Olive Swanson] got up my nose.

Pejorative Evaluation 2: Well, I think she’s a bit up herself, I reckon.

Pejorative Evaluation 3: I find her a bit arrogant, you know

Gossip text: Annabel

Pejorative Evaluation 1: I spoke to her about an hour ago; she was cool. [here cool = distant, cold]

Pejorative Evaluation 2: For some reason, she has the shits yet again.

Pejorative Evaluation 3: Annabel’s impossible to live with, right, as much as I love her.

Task 6: Probe # 1 – the three metafunctions together [3 marks]

In Probe 1, all three interactants make contributions to the development of the dialogue. Discuss this development very briefly in reference to THEME, MOOD and TRANSITIVITY:

THEME: What are the thematic choices made, how do they relate to choices in MOOD and TRANSITIVITY and how do they relate to the development of the Probe?

MOOD: What’s the nature of the exchange, what are the main propositions and what is the move within the Proposition in mood type?

TRANSITIVITY: What kind of experience is construed – what are the main choices in process type?

Generic and thematic analysis of "A classic affair"

Interactants: D (Di), J (Judy) and S (Sue) – in mid to late 20s, supervisors of the kitchen staff at a large hospital.

Context: Judy and Di tell Sue, who’s new to the work place, about a fellow working who is having an affair with a cook. Coffee room, morning coffee break.

The generic stages in gossip are characterized by Eggins & Slade (1997: 285-) as follows [Analysing casual conversation, London: Cassell]:

Third Person Focus: "functions to introduce the third person and in most cases to frame the deviant behaviour. It is this stage which establishes the ‘we’ versus ‘they’, the ‘us’ versus ‘them’."

Substantiating Behaviour: "the speaker provides evidence of information which enables the participants to make a negative evaluation. The speaker describes an event which highlights some departure from normality and this is then used as a hook on which to hang the evaluation."

Pejorative Evaluation: "The text is given meaning by the negative evaluation which runs throughout. This negative evaluation is also realized discretely where the events outlined in the Substantiative Behaviour are evaluated and commented on ... It is these Pejorative Evaluations which motivate the gossip and drive the text forward."

Probe: "Probes are stages in the talk where participants probe for more details, for more gossip."

Wrap-up: "This optional element provides a thematic summation of the event or behaviour outlined in the text. It often picks up on the deviant behaviour mentioned in the Third Person Focus".