The Processes and Participants

2.6.1 The Processes and Participants

In this system, meaning is established toward the process involved in a clause. The focal point is that a clause consists of process or a flow of events Halliday, 2004. The continuous flow of event with its variation experienced and intended by the writers is captured and transferred into a clause. Simultaneously, the process affects the choice of grammar and vocabulary in a clause by determining the way it encodes an experience of the real world into the realm of language system Thompson, 2004. Basically, there are two distinguished classes of process types, the process of the external world outer experience and the process of consciousness inner experience. Halliday 2004 describes the grammatical categories for these experiences as material process clauses and mental process clauses. However, in order to construct a coherent theory of experience, there is an additional component in the system which is relational process clauses that signify relation of one fragment of experience toward another for the purpose of identifying and classifying. Aside those three main components, there is a component which shares the characteristics of both material and mental process clauses indicated as behavioural processes that represent the outer demonstration of inner workings, consciousness and psychological states processes. The fifth category of process which identifies the symbolic relationships in the human consciousness resulted in the form of language —having the characteristics of mental and relational categories—is construed as verbal processes. Finally, existential process is included in the process type which is situated between the relational and material processes as the process related to existence. The components of each process type are summarized in Table 2.1 below. Table 2.1 The characteristics of process types Halliday, 2004 : 260 Process type Category meaning Participants, directly involved Participants, obliquely involved material: action event doing doing happening Actor, Goal Recipient, Client; Scope; Initiator; Attribute behavioural behaving Behaver Behaviour mental: perception cognition desideration emotion sensing ‗seeing thinking ‗wanting’ ‗feeling’ Senser, Phenomenon verbal saying Sayer, Target Receiver, Verbiage relational: attribution identification ‗being’ attributing identifying Carrier, Attribute Token, Value Attributor, Beneficiary, Assigner existential existing Existent 2.6.1.1 Material clauses: processes of doing-and-happening The first primary system in the process type that defines the outer experience is the material clauses. It accounts for a quantum of change in processes of happening through the expense of energy Halliday, 2004. The focus in this process is the concrete changes happening in the participants resulted from the action. Consequently, these processes involve concrete and tangible actions Eggins, 2004. The actions are done by an entity which may be directed toward other entities. The active participant that contributes the energy in the action is recognized as the Actor. Thus, it indicates that this participant is an inherent participant that takes the action of changing which leads to a different outcome of the initial phase of the action in this process Halliday, 2004. Meanwhile, the participant to whom the action can be extended is the Goal Halliday, 2004. Therefore, the Goal does not always appear in this process type which makes it an oblique participant. Related to the two participants, there are two types of clauses which address the issue of the one in which the outcome is registered to. The process which indicates the confinement of the outcome of the process to the Actor is intransitive clause which represents a ―happening‖ process Halliday, 2004. It stresses that ‗an entity does something’, thus, it does not require the existence of the Goal. It is usually proven by asking what did x do? probe. The type of process which includes the Goal participant is called transitive clause which represents a ―doing‖ which can be probed by a question, ―what did x do to y?‖ Halliday, 2004. Hence, the outcome is registered on the Goal. For instance, ―the lion sprang Halliday, 2004‖ indicates a happening or intransitive clause in which it implies that the Actor or the lion did the action of sprang . The outcome of the action is confined to the Actor itself which is the inherent participant. On the othe r hand, in ―the lion caught the tourist‖ Halliday, 2004, the Actor did something to the other participant which is the Goal or the tourist . Hence, the Goal undergoes the outcome of the process which indicates a doing or transitive clause. Regarding the final phase of the unfolding process in one of the participants in the clause, there are additional subtypes which are deemed important to be discussed. Halliday 2004 presents two subtypes to distinguish the nature of the outcome. The first one is creative clause which implies that the Actor or the Goal comes into existence as the result of the process conducted. Ergo, the outcome of the process is the participant itself. For example, ―I’ve just made the Christmas pudding Thompson, 2004.‖ The Goal or the Christmas pudding is brought into existence through the process conducted by the Actor. The second subtype is transformative clause which brings the notion of different final phase condition of the initial one of the participant. Instead of coming into existence, the participant undergoes changing which is the effect of the process. It should be noted that the participant has already existed before the action is conducted. However, Halliday 2004 argues that it can also suggest maintaining the condition of initial phase of the participant because it still has a connection with the condition of the existing participant. For example, ―My mum never eats Christmas pudding Thompson, 2004.‖ The sentence implies that my mum or Christmas pudding has already existed before the action. Consequently, it indicates that the outcome of the process is to maintain the condition of the participant of never consuming the dessert. Aside of the inherent participants, there are also oblique participants that contribute significant meaning in the clause. The roles included in the system are Beneficiary and Scope. The Beneficiary participant includes the one which gains benefits from the process. In traditional grammar, it is recognized as the indirect object which can be realized with or without preposition depends on its position whether it precedes or follows the Goal Thompson, 2004. The Scope, as the term indicated, is an independent entity in the process which signifies the domain of the existed process. It is highly restricted to intransitive clause in which it follows the verb. Consequently, it can cause confusion whether it should be interpreted as a Scope or a Goal. Hence, in order to highlight the differences, Halliday 2004 emphasizes several indicators of Scope: i related to its independent notion, the Scope does not receive any effect performed by the process, ii the Scope can act as the actual process in the clause, iii it cannot be probed by do to or do with question, iv it cannot be followed by a resultative Attribute a resultant qualitative state of the Actor or the Goal of a completed process, v it is regulated to the participant of non- personal pronoun, and vi possessive modification cannot be implemented in this element. 2.6.1.2 Mental clauses: processes of sensing In contrast with the previous clause, the Mental processes possess a focal point toward the inner experience as the term itself refer to. Its major concern is the quantum of change in the experience or process in the realm of consciousness Halliday, 2004. The focus is on the working of the inner self of a conscious being on the surrounding event, belief, entity, and so on. Hence, the effect is mainly directed at the participant who conducts the process himself rather than other participant mentioned in the clause or something triggers the working of consciousness of someone which marks the contrast with the material process. In this process, there are usually two inherent participants involved. The first participant is the Senser which is always recognized as human-like entity that bears the consciousness characteristic Halliday, 2004. It is a highly isolated role which is occupied by an entity that is acknowledged to possess abilities of feeling, thinking, wanting or perceiving. This role is followed by the Phenomenon as the element that the process of consciousness is being reflected Halliday, 2004. It denotes the participant which is being projected to be felt, thought, wanted or perceived. These participants can be identified from this sentence ― She could hear his voice Thompson, 2004.‖ The participant she is considered as the Senser who is able to perceive the process of hearing whereas his voice – the things which are perceived as being heard by the Senser – is put under the Phenomenon category. Regarding the Phenomenon characteristics, its similarity with the Goal in the material processes is quite high. However, Halliday 2004 argues that the Phenomenon, in fact, has a far greater range of elements than the Goal. Instead of regarding the participant as a tangible thing, the mental workings can project it further into abstract entity, such as action and cognition. Hence, he has proposed two types of embedded Phenomena: Acts and Facts. The Act is usually projected into the mental processes of perception and realized by a non-finite clause which is considered as a noun phrase. For instance, ―I saw the operation taking pla ce Eggins, 2004.‖ The second type of embedded Phenomenon, the Fact Phenomenon, is often found in the form of a finite embedded clause introduced by that explicitly or implicitly and treated as a noun phrase. For example, ―She didn’t realize that it was a bomb Eggins, 2004.‖ Furthermore, it can be examined by adding the word fact before that . For instance, ―She didn’t realize the fact that it was a bomb Eggins 2004.‖ The processes of sensing endowed with by the conscious beings can be manifested into different preferences of mental actions. Therefore, Halliday 2004 projects those variants into four subcategories: perceptive, cognitive, desiderative, and emotive. The processes included in the perceptive subcategory are the mental actions of feeling, such as sad and happy . The processes of thinking, such as decide, know, and understand , are categorized into cognitive subcategory. The processes related to senses, for example see and hear , are put under the perception subcategory. Meanwhile, the final mental workings which describe the processes of desiring something are classified into desideration subcategory, e.g., want and need . 2.6.1.3 Relational clauses: processes of being and having This type of process is considered as the third category of the main processes accompanies the previous process types, the Material and Mental processes. It features the characterization and identification processes of an existence resulting from the relation of one aspect with the others Halliday, 2004; Eggins, 2004. This tenet suggests that in a relational clause two inherent participants construe an abstract relationship that share the same domain or being. This abstract relationship is configured into two distinct mode of being, namely the processes of characterization and identification, which are labelled as attributive and identifying clauses, along with three main types of relational processes: intensive, possessive, and circumstantial. Table 2.2 The principal categories of ‗relational’ clause Halliday, 2004: 216 i Attributive ‘a is an attribute of x’ ii Identifying ‘a is the identity of x’ 1 intensive ‗ x is a ’ Sarah is wise Sarah is the leader; the leader is Sarah 2 possessive ‗ x has a ’ Peter has a piano the piano is Peter’s; Peter’s is the piano 3 circumstantial ‗ x is at a ’ the fair is on a Tuesday tomorrow is the 10 th ; the 10 th is tomorrow In the attributive mode which is categorized into the intensive relation, an entity, which is known as the Carrier, is ascribed to some quality labelled as the Attribute. This type of relational clause is used to characterize an entity Carrier by assigning an evaluative characteristic Attribute which in turn classifying it into a class Halliday, 2004. From table 2.2, Sarah as the participant who has the characteristic of wisdom is the Carrier whereas the Attribute is the assigned characteristic, wise . This type of clause typically uses a Predicator be to signify the relationship between the Carrier and the Attribute Thompson, 2004. However, other verbs, such as seem, are commonly found in this type as long as they keep the essence of assigning an evaluative Attribute to the Carrier. It should be noted that this mode of being is usually irreversible and the article assigned to the nominal group is typically indefinite. Furthermore, it can be probed by what? , how? or what... like? questions Halliday, 2004; Thompson, 2004. Halliday 2004 divides the intensive attribution further based on the membership specification, whether it is entity or quality. When the Attribute refers to the entity that constitutes the class by realizing the nominal group with Thing as Head, it is the entity Attribute, for example He was an architect Halliday, 2004. On the other hand, when the class of the Attribute is constituted by referring to a quality or qualities, as in Sarah is wise , it is identified as the quality attribution. An Epithet is used as the Head instead of the Thing in the nominal groups in which the Thing in nominal group can be considered as general and inferred from the context. The Epithet is realized by an adjective or participial verbal form, which is frequently accompanied by adverbs of degree. On the contrary, a clause can have an entity which is equivalent with another entity. This clause will be classified into the identifying mode in which the participants are assigned as Token and Value and the focal point is on assigning a certain identity to an entity, ― x is identified by a ‖, Halliday, 2004. The function of this type of clause is to establish certain uniqueness, define technical names, and assess evidence Halliday, 2004. In determining the Token and Value in an intensive clause, the crucial factor is in distinguishing whether it is a specific realization or the general one Thompson, 2004. From Table 2.2, Sarah in ―Sarah is the leader‖ can be considered as the specific entity realizes or embodies the general category of the leader . Hence, Sarah is labeled as the Token whereas the leader fills the role of Value. In order to strengthen the assessment, the clause can be paraphrased into ―Sarah fills the role ofrepresents the leader.‖ Halliday 2004 elaborates it further by stating that the Token is the member whereas the Value is the exclusive status or role assigned to it. This mode of being is reversible in which the Predicator or lexical verb acts as an equivalent sign of the two participants. In addition, the nominal group in this type of clause is usually realized by a definite article as well as a proper noun or pronoun which can be probed by ―WhatWhoWhich is x the Identified?‖ Thompson, 2004. Aside of CarrierAttribute and TokenValue participants, there may be an additional ―third‖ participant in the equation. This third role represents the entity that assigns the relationship of these two modes Halliday, 2004. In the case of identifying, it is labelled as the Assigner; in the case of attributing, it is labelled as the Attributor. Other types of relational clause are the possessive and circumstantial clauses. The possessive type deals with the matter of ownership Halliday, 2004. Hence, it marks a possession of an entity toward another entity. The circumstantial type – as the name indicates – relates an entity with circumstance elements, such as time, place, manner, cause, accompaniment, role, matter or angle Halliday, 2004. The salient feature is the utilization of background information to point out the relational aspects in the clause. The possessive clause of the attributive mode can be expressed in two ways, the role of the Attribute and the process. In the first type, the Carrier is the thing owned by the possessor or the Attribute, e.g.: ― This [Carrier] is yours [Attribute] Eggins, 2004.‖ In the latter type, the possessing is encoded through the process, the possessor is the Carrier, and likewise the Attribute is the possessor. Halliday 2004 suggests assessing the ascribing of the Attribute to mark out the differences using this example, ― Peter [Carrier] has a piano [Attribute].‖ The Carrier is labelled to Peter because it conveys the meaning that the piano-ownership is the ascribing Attribute. It differs with: ― The piano [Carrier] belongs to Peter [Attribute].‖ Here, the Carrier serves as the possessed one which underlines the attribution of Peter . The possession type for the identifying mode is almost similar to the previous case. However, rather than being ascribed to an entity, the ownership is in the form of relationship between two entities which can be expressed either by the participants themselves or the processes Halliday, 2004. In signifying the notions of possession located in the participants, the Token serves the role of possessed whereas the Value takes the role of the possessor to indicate a property of the possessor, as in ― The piano [Token] is Peter’s [Value].‖ Unfortunately, it is fairly visible that it has equal sense with the one in the attributive clause which makes Thompson 2004 gives an epithet of problematic to this type. Moreover, Halliday 2004 strengthens this issue by stating that the difference is in a very delicate level which is on the shifting of the point of view. If it signifies a membership of certain class, in this case the group of P eter’s possession, it is the attributive one. On the other hand, if it embodies the issue of the owner-owned relationship, the identifying one is more appropriate. The second embodiment, which is the process, is encoded in the verbs of possessing which is typically realized by the verb own . The owner participant is the Token whereas the possessed participant is the Value. In further discussion, the ownership construing is not limited to tangible participants only. Halliday 2004 argues that in construing the sense of ‗owning’, the relationship can be extended to an abstract level. Therefore, some verbs, such as include and involve , are included in the possessive clause. In the attributive mode of circumstantial type, the possible occurrences are similar to the possessive one, the Attribute and the Process. The first circumstantial process construes the Attribute by utilizing a circumstantial element which is usually expressed by a prepositional phrase: ―my story is about a poor shepherd boy ‖ Halliday, 2004 or an adverbial group: ―she was there with three Zen master ‖ Halliday, 2004. In the latter one, on the other hand, the circumstance is construed as the process, thus it is realized by a lexical verb: ―My story concerns a poor shepherd boy‖ Halliday, 2004. As expected, the circumstantial type of identifying mode is similar to the possessive case. The circumstantial element relates two entities which can be expressed either by the participants themselves or the processes Halliday, 2004. When it features as the participants, both of them are in the same type of circumstantial element, for instance a circ: time = x circ: time, as in tomorrow is the 10 th . On the contrary, the circumstantial processes are featured in the verbs to construct the relation between the participants Halliday, 2004 , for example, ―this situation is apparently caused by anomalous low temperatures Halliday, 2004 .‖ Simultaneously, it follows the nature of identifying clause which is reversible. 2.6.1.4 Behavioural clauses These clauses are considered as the first ancillary clauses in process type which are situated on the borderline between the material and the mental clauses. These human-like processes are characterized as physiological and psychological behaviour Halliday, 2004. The conscious being who is conducting the behaviour is bracketed into the Behaver accompanied by the Behaviour as the action which appears as a participant rather than a process. Table 2.3 Examples of Process in behavioural clauses Halliday, 2004: 251 [near mental] processes of consciousness represented as forms of behaviour look, watch, stare, listen, think, worry, dream [near verbal] verbal processes as forms of behaviour chatter, grumble, talk, gossip, argue, murmur, mouth physiological processes manifesting states of consciousness cry, laugh, smile, frown, sigh, sob, snarl, hiss, whine, nod other physiological processes breathe, sneeze, cough, hiccup, burp, faint, shit, yawn, sleep [near material] bodily postures and pastimes sing, dance, lie down, sit up, down 2.6.1.5 Verbal clauses In Table 2.4, behaviour clauses can represent seemingly verbal processes in the classes, such as chatter, grumble and so forth. These circumstances are possible caused by the similarity of these two types of processes which involve the mental and material clauses. In verbal processes, though, the mental type is realized in verbal attitudes Halliday, 2004. Such clauses are usually detected in the creation of narrative in the dialogic passages. Analogously, these clauses contain several participants: the Sayer, the Receiver, the Verbiage and the Target. As the name indicated, the Sayer is the participant who initiates the verbal processes. Along with the Verbiage, the Receiver is clustered as oblique participants in which to whom the saying is addressed. The Verbiage functions as a class of thing which marks the content or nature of the verbal processes. The last participant is the Target which is typically constituted in sub-type clauses of verbal that forms the targeted entity in the verbal processes. 2.6.1.6 Existential clauses These clauses complete the types of processes in the experiential line of meaning. These hybrid products of the material and relational processes depict an existence of something Halliday, 2004. The entity of being stated as exist is categorized into Existent though this category is not listed as participant due to the null function in transitivity. The example of these clauses is in there are books on the table in which books are considered as the Existent.

2.6.2 Circumstances