And often no variation at all is possible, if there is only one element that can have these functions; for example I ran away, where Iis inevitably Theme, Subject and Actor. (Even here there is a possibility of thematic variation, as in run away I did orthe one who ran away was me;seeChapter 3.) On the other hand, while explaining all these variants, we also have to explain the fact that the typical,unmarked form, in an English declarative (statement- type) clause, is the one in which Theme, Subject and Actor are conflated into a single element. That is the form we tend to use if there is no prior context leading up to it, and no positive reason for choosing anything else.
(ii) The Subject functions in the structure of the clause as exchange. A clause has meaning as an exchange, a transaction between speaker and listener; the Subject is the warranty of the exchange. It is the element the speaker makes responsible for the validity of what he is saying.
(iii) The Actor functions in the structure of the clause as representation. A clause has meaning as a representation of some process in ongoing human experience; the Actor is the active participant in that process. It is the element the speaker portrays as the one that does the deed.
These three headings — clause as a message, clause as an exchange, clause as a representation — refer to three distinct kinds of meaning that are embodied in the structure
T h r e e l i n e s o f m e a n i n g i n t h e c l a u s e
(a)
I caught the first ball
Theme Subject Actor (b)
I was beaten by the second
Theme Actor
Subject (c)
the third I stopped
Theme Subject
Actor (d)
by the fourth I was knocked out
Theme Subject
Actor
Fig. 2-15 Narrative embodying different conflations of Subject, Actor and Theme
of a clause. Each of these three strands of meaning is construed by configurations of certain particular functions. Theme, Subject and Actor do not occur as isolates; each occurs in association with other functions from the same strand of meaning. We have not yet introduced these other functions; they will be presented in Chapters 3–5. But one example was given in Figure 2-9 on p. 52 above: that of Actor + Process + Goal. A configuration of this kind is what is referred to in functional grammars as a structure (as opposed to a syntagm of classes: see Halliday, 1966a).
The significance of any functional label lies in its relationship to the other functions with which it is structurally associated. It is the structure as a whole, the total configuration of functions, that construes, or realizes, the meaning. The function Actor, for example, is interpretable only in its relation to other functions of the same kind — other representational functions such as Process and Goal. So if we interpret the nominal group I as Actor in I caught the first ball, this is meaningful only because at the same time we interpret the verbal group caughtas Process and the nominal groupthe first ballas Goal. It is the relation among all these that constitutes the structure. In similar fashion, the Subject enters into configurations with other functional elements as realization of the clause as exchange; and similarly the Theme, in realizing the clause as message (Fig. 2-5).
By separating out the functions of Theme, Subject and Actor, we have been able to show that the clause is a composite entity. It is constituted not of one dimension of structure but of three, and each of the three construes a distinctive meaning. We have labelled these
‘clause as message’, ‘clause as exchange’ and ‘clause as representation’. In fact, the threefold pattern of meaning is not simply characteristic of the clause; these three kinds of meaning run throughout the whole of language, and in a fundamental respect they determine the way that language has evolved. They are referred to in systemic accounts of grammar as metafunctions (see Chapter 1, Section 1.3.5, p. 29), and the concept of ‘metafunction’ is one of the basic concepts around which the theory is constructed.
We shall not pursue the concept of metafunction in further detail at this stage; rather, it will be built up step by step throughout the book. But there is one thing to be said here about how the metafunctions relate to constituent structure, because this will arise as soon as we begin to consider the various specific dimensions of meaning in the clause. So far, we have referred to constituent structure as if it was something uniform and homogeneous (as in Chapter 1, Section 1.1.3, p. 7); but as we embark on the detailed analysis of clause structures this picture will need to be modified. The model of constituent structure that we presented — the rank scale — is the prototype to which all three metafunctions can be referred. But the actual forms of structural organization depart from this prototype, each of them in different ways.
(1) The general principle of exhaustivenessmeans that everything in the wording has some function at every rank (cf. Halliday, 1961, 1966c). But not everything has a function in every dimension of structure; for example, some parts of the clause (for example, interpersonal Adjuncts such as perhapsand textual Adjuncts such as however) play no role in the clause as representation.
(2) The general principle of hierarchymeans that an element of any given rank is constructed out of elements of the rank next below (as in Figure 1-3, p. 20). This is a feature of the constituent hierarchy made up of units and their classes: clause,
verbal group and so on. But the configurations of structural functions show further ramifications of this general pattern. Thus in the clause as exchange, there is slightly more layering in the structure, whereas in the clause as message there is rather less.
(3) The general principle of discretenessmeans that each structural unit has clearly defined boundaries. But while this kind of segmentalorganization is characteristic of the clause as representation, the clause in its other guises — as message, and as exchange — departs from this prototype. In its status as an exchange, the clause depends on prosodicfeatures — continuous forms of expression, often with indeterminate boundaries; while in its status as message it tends to favour culminativepatterns — peaks of prominence located at beginnings and endings.
It is not yet clear how far English is typical in these particular respects; but the evidence so far suggests that it is (see Caffarel, Martin and Matthiessen, forthc.) and it is certainly true that, while the kinds of structure found in language are rather varied, the realizations of the different metafunctions tend to follow certain regular principles (see Halliday, 1979;
Matthiessen, 1988; Martin, 1996). It may be helpful to try and summarize the picture as it is in English, so (with apologies for the terminological overload!) Table 2(7) introduces the technical names for the metafunctions, matches them up with the different statuses of the clause and shows the kind of structure favoured by each. It will be seen that there is a fourth metafunctional heading, which does not show up in the ‘clause’ column because it is not embodied in the clause but in the clause complex — clauses linked together by logico- semantic relations to form sequences; this will figure as the topic of Chapter 7.
Table 2(7)Metafunctions and their reflexes in the grammar Metafunction
(technical name) Definition (kind of meaning) Corresponding status in clause Favoured type of structure experiential construing a model of clause as representation segmental (based on
experience constituency)
interpersonal enacting social relationships clause as exchange prosodic textual creating relevance to context clause as message culminative
logical constructing logical relations — iterative
It is the segmental kind of structure, with clearly separated constituent parts organized into a whole, that has traditionally been taken as the norm in descriptions of grammar; the very concept of ‘structure’, in language, has been defined in constituency terms. This is partly because of the kind of meaning that is expressed in this way: experiential meaning has been much more fully described than meaning of the other kinds (see Martin, 1990).
But there is also another reason, which is that constituency is the simplest kind of structure, from which the other, more complex kinds can be derived; it is the natural one to take as prototypical — in the same way as digital systems are taken as the norm from which analogue systems can be derived, rather than the other way round.
For both these reasons, in the remaining chapters of Part I (Chapters 3–5) we shall use constituent-type descriptions of structure, merely pointing out now and again where
T h r e e l i n e s o f m e a n i n g i n t h e c l a u s e
meaning in the clause will be described independently in its own terms. This in itself will involve some sleight of hand, since although there are clearly these three motifs running side by side in every clause, a clause is still one clause — it is not three. It is a familiar problem for functional grammarians that everything has to be described before everything else; there is no natural progression from one feature in language to another (when children learn their mother tongue they do not learn it one feature at a time!).
We have chosen to start with the clause as message, because we find that the easiest aspect of the clause to discuss in its own terms and because it provides a window on the other two metafunctional strands within the clause; but even here it will be necessary to make some forward references to other parts of the book. These will be kept to a minimum; in general, we have tried to turn the exploration of grammar into a linear progression. Each chapter will presuppose the chapters that have gone before, and will only rarely have recourse to matters that are yet to come.
In conclusion, we present an overview of the lexicogrammatical resources of English in the form of a function-rankmatrix see Table 2(8). Each cell represents the semiotic address of one or more systems. This address is defined in terms of metafunction (columns) and ranks (rows); group/phrase rank systems are also differentiated according to primary class.
For example, the matrix shows that the system of THEME is a textual system operating within the clause, whereas the system of TENSE is a logical system operating within the verbal group. We shall confine ourselves to systems at clause rank and group/phrase rank;
systems at word rank and at morpheme rank are also part of the overall meaning-making resources of lexicogrammar, but their systems are, in a sense, subservient to the higher- ranking systems. We have also included the highest-ranking phonological systems — the systems of the tone group, since these systems realize patterns of wording directly, and will be discussed in this book. Note, finally, that we have also included the information unit, placing it next to the clause (cf. Chapter 1, Section 1.3.1, p. 20).
63
Table 2(8)Function—rank matrix: the systems of lexicogrammar
stratum rank class logical experiential interpersonal textual
lexico-grammar clause TAXIS and LOGICO- – TRANSITIVITY [Ch. 5] MOOD [Ch. 4] THEME [Ch. 3]
SEMANTIC TYPE [Ch. 7]
info. unit – KEY [Ch. 4] INFORMATION [Ch. 3]
group or phrase nominal [Ch. 8] MODIFICATION THING TYPE, nominal MOOD, DETERMINATION
[Ch. 6] [§ 6.2] CLASSIFICATION, PERSON,
EPITHESIS, ASSESSMENT QUALIFICATION
verbal [§ 6.3] TENSE EVENT TYPE, ASPECT POLARITY, MODALITY CONTRAST, VOICE adverbial [§ 6.4] MODIFICATION CIRCUMSTANCE TYPE COMMENT TYPE CONJUNCTION TYPE
prepositional – minor TRANSITIVITY minor MOOD
phrase [§ 6.5]
word DERIVATION DENOTATION CONNOTATION
morpheme
phonology tone group TONE SEQUENCE; TONE [Ch. 4] TONICITY [Ch. 3]
TONE CONCORD [Ch. 7]
complexes simplexes