Transitivity Systemic Functional Linguistics
static or dynamic location, possession, and quality of the participant through the process. It differentiates relational process from the material one. In relational
clauses the participants undergo static location, possession, and quality through the process while in material clauses they undergo dynamic ones 2004: 212. Halliday
presents the following examples to make the concepts clear:
1 She is in the dining room 2 She is walking into the dining room
Sentence 1 is an example of a relational clause and sentence 2 is a material clause. In sentence 1 the participant She is static in location while in 2 She is
dynamic since it moves from one place to the dining room. Those sentences show the different concepts of relational and material process.
By the nature of configuration, the participants of relational and mental clauses are compared. First, mental clauses require “conscious” participant as the
Senser, while relational clauses do not. The participants in relational clauses do not necessarily own consciousness. Thus, inanimate being might be a participant in a
relational clause without any attached “consciousness”. Second, the configuration of the process and participant in relational clauses convey attributive and
identifying relationship. Third, related to the second, the participants in relational clauses belong to the same domain. In other words, “something is said to ‘be’
something e lse” 2004: 213. It brings consequences that in relational clauses; there
are always two participants in one process. The identification of relational clauses into attributive and identifying seems
to be too broad. In each attributive and identifying process using relational clauses,
the process might have three types of relations namely “intensive”, “possessive”, and “circumstantial”. Intensive attributive clauses require participants namely the
Carrier and the Attribute. The relation of the process and participants in intensive attributive clauses might be classified into three categories namely; membership
specification, phase attribution, and domain of attribution. The followings are the exemplifications of those categories as mentioned by Halliday and Matthiessen
2004: 220-223:
3 He was an architect 4 The New Yorker is very generous
5 His face grew very flushed 6 It’s true the food down there it’s really fresh
Sentence 3 and 4 are examples of relational clauses showing membership specification. While sentence 3 shows the participants membership
to an entity, sentence 4 shows the membership to a quality. Sentence 5 represents the phase attribution in a relational clause. The process of attribution in sentence
5 undergoes o ver time. Halliday and Matthiessen define the process as “processes
of attribution unfold through time” 2004: 222. By sentence 6 Halliday and Matthiesen exemplify the semiotic domain of attribution rather than the material
one. They mention that the s emiotic domain “construe” the inner experience.
Intensive identifying clauses are different from the intensive attributive ones in terms of that in identifying clauses; one participant gives identity to the other
participants. Thus, the participants are called the Identifier and the Identified. Halliday and Matthiesen overcome the possible problem that “identifying” clauses
might be similar to intensive attribution ones. They propose four characteristics of
the “identifying” clauses to differentiate them from the attribution ones. However, two of them are easily identified. First, the nominal group as the Identifier is usually
definite. Second, the clauses are reversible, except for the process in be, and become and remain have passive forms 2004: 228.
The participants in “identifying” clause, the Identifier and the Identified, are distinguishable by the terms the Token and the Value. This is due to what Halliday
and Matthiessen mention, “the clause is not a tautology” 2004: 230. In other
words, the clause does not only present synonyms but it presents two different concepts. The Token refers to the participant of the expression while the Value to
the participants of the content. The circumstantial relational and the possessive relational clauses present
also the relation of identifying and being attributive. The participants in the circumstantial clauses are the Carrier and the Attribute. A transitivity analysis on
this type of relational clause has to be able to identify whether the clause has a circumstantial element as an attribute or as the process. Halliday and Matthiessen
exemplify those clauses by the following example:
7 My story is about a poor shepherd boy 8 My story concerns a poor shepherd boy
Sentence 7 is a circumstantial clause with the circumstantial element as an attribute introduced by the preposition about. In sentence 8, the circumstantial
element is represented by the verb group as the process in concerns. The “identifying” circumstantial relational clauses are also analyzable in the same
manner that the circumstantial elements might serve as the participants of the
clauses or as the processes. The circumstantial elements as the participants might be in forms of time, place, or other circumstantial elements.
The next type of relational clauses is the Possessive clauses. The clauses represents the relationship of ownership. In other words, one participant is owned
by the other. In the clauses, thus, the participants are defined as the Possessor and the Possessed. The att
ributive and “identifying” types of possessive clauses seem to be not distinguishable through the grammatical clues. The difference lies on the
interpretation of the clauses. In an example by Halliday and Matthiesen the piano is Peter’s, the clause can be interpreted as both attributive and “identifying”. As
Attributive clause, then, the piano is interpretable as one of the possessions of Peter. Whilst, as an “identifying” clause the piano is a thing that Peter possesses. Both in
Attributive and “Identifying” clauses, the possession might come as the process. However, different verb groups would represent them differently. In Attributive
clauses, the verbs are among others have, belong to, need, deserve, contain, etc. In “identifying” clauses, the verbs are such as possess, own, consist of, provide, afford,
etc. The fourth type of processes in transitivity analysis is behavioral process.
In behavioral clauses, the process represents physiological and psychological behaviors. They are for example breathing, smiling, dreaming, etc. Behavioral
process is partly material and partly mental Halliday and Matthiesen, 2004: 250. The participants of this process are the Behaver and the Behavior. Further, Halliday
and Matthiesen note that particular types of circumstance are related to behavioral processes. Those types are Matter and Manner circumstance. The Matter
circumstances are as in dreaming of you and grumbled about the food while the Manner circumstance are as in breathe deeply and sit up straight 2004: 251.
The fifth type of processes in transitivity analysis is verbal process. This process represents the process of Saying. The participants of this process are the
Sayer, the Verbiage, the Target, and the Receiver. The Sayer is the participant that make the process of Saying into realization. Halliday and Matthiessen mentions that
the process of Saying “has to be interpreted in a rather broad sense” 2004: 253. What they mean is that in practice, the verb groups representing the process are not
limited to verbs as speak, say, tell, or mention but they also include the other verb groups denoting to process of “symbolic exchange of meaning”. Thus, the verbs
such, among others, point out, suggest, assert, might be included into verbal processes. In short, Halliday and Matthiessen introduce the Receiver and the
Verbiage as obligatory participants while the Target is not. The Receiver is the participant that receives the saying. The Verbiage might refer to the content of what
is said or the name of the saying. The Target is the entity that is targeted by the process of Saying. The Target does not necessary receive the verbiage directly.
The last type of processes in transitivity analysis is Existential process. In this process, there is only a participant namely the Existent. The Existential process
represents the existence of something. Grammatically the clauses in this process must have Subject even though the Subject of the clause does not represent any
representational function. It serves as the theme or, interpersonally, the subject of the sentence. Usually the word serves as the subject is there. The Existent is the
entity or the event “which is being said to exist” 2004: 258. It has a special category to differentiate from material processes, namely meteorological processes
such raining, blowing, thundering, etc. The following table shows the summary of the transitivity processes and their participants:
Table 2.1. Transitivity Processes and Their Participants
Material Processes
Mental Processes
Verbal Processes
Relational Processes
Behavioral Processes
Existential Processes
a. Actor b. Goal
c. Recipient d. Beneficiary
a. Senser b. Phenomenon
a. Sayer b. Verbiage
c. Addresse a. Carrier
b. Attribute c. Possessor
d. Possessed e. Token
f. Value a. Behaver
b. Behavior
Existent
Transitivity analysis focuses also on another internal component of clauses namely the circumstances. Halliday and Matthiesen 2004: 262-263 categorize the
circumstances into four major types and then they break down the types into nine detailed types of circumstances. The nine types of circumstances are namely:
Extent, Location, Manner, Cause, Contingency, Accompaniment, Role, Matter, and Angle.
Extent and Location expand processes with time and space expansion. While Extent adds processes with the distance over time or place, Location serves
expansion in time or place. Manner as a circumstance adds the information on the way processes undergo. Manner is divided into four types, namely Means, Quality,
Comparison, and Degree. Means refers to the way or the channel that processes carry on. Quality represents the expansion of processes by adverbial groups ended
with suffix –ly. Comparison acts like a metaphor or a simile in terms that it presents
comparison of the participants to similar or different things. Degree is a circumstance that shows the degree of which processes carry on. Halliday and
Matthiessen exemplify types of circumstantial Manner, i.e. the Means, Quality, Comparison, and Degree, by the following clauses:
9 The pig was beaten with the stick 10 Morgan calmly surveyed the scenery from the top of Rock Island
11 As you well know, we sometimes work like devil with them 12 I enjoyed it so much
Circumstances might also come in form of Cause. By definition, this circumstance expands the process in a clause by providing reasons. However,
further, Halliday and Matthiessen divide this type into three categories, namely Reason, Purpose, and Behalf 2004: 269-270. The other circumstance is
Contingency. It gives further expansion to an element in a clause that the process depends on. Accompaniment is a circumstance that combines the participants in a
clause. It is subcategorized into the comitative and additive ones. The difference between them lies in the number of processes. In the comitative accompaniment,
the process is a single process while in additive accompaniment, the process is actually two occasions or “instances” Halliday and Matthiesen, 2004: 273. The
next circumstance is the Role. As the Guise, the circumstance is preceded by a preposition as and as a Product it is introduced by preposition into. The last two
types of circumstances are Matter and Angle. Matter is the expansion of verbal process. The expansion contains the message of the verbiage. It might answer a
question of what about?. The Angle is a circumstance related to the Sayer in verbal clauses or the Senser in mental clauses.