Cover not available
Article published In:
Functions of Language
Vol. 21:2 (2014) ► pp.139–175

Extending the description of process type within the system of transitivity in delicacy based on Levinian verb classes

| The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
In this paper, I report on a long-term research project concerned with the elaboration of the description of the system of PROCESS TYPE (within the overall system of TRANSITIVITY), extending this description in delicacy, or degree of detail. I discuss the background to the research and different approaches that have been taken to the development of more delicate descriptions of PROCESS TYPE. Then I introduce the approach that I have taken — to classify Levin’s (1993) verb classes in terms of the systemic functional description of the system of PROCESS TYPE (Halliday 1967/8, 1985). Having outlined the approach, I summarize the outcome of the classificatory project, and go on to identify all the instances where it was necessary to split verb classes and all the cases where it was necessary to add verb classes. I characterize the classification in terms of the cline of delicacy (the continuum between grammar and lexis); in fact, the result of the classificatory project provides strong evidence in favour of Halliday’s (1961) hypothesis that lexis can be described as delicate grammar — what he called ‘the grammarian’s dream’. In addition, I indicate how the result of the classification can be used as a resource in the development of more delicate systemic descriptions of the type pioneered by Hasan (1987) in her pursuit of the grammarian’s dream.
Published online: 22 August 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.21.2.01mat
References (87)
Anderson, John M. 1971. The grammar of case: Towards a localist theory. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Baker, Collin F. & Josef Ruppenhofer. 2002. FrameNet’s frames vs. Levin’s verb classes. In Julie Larson & Mary Paster (eds.), Proceedings of the 28th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society , 27–38. Berkeley, CA: University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
Bateman, John, Robert Kasper, Johanna Moore & Richard Whitney. 1989. A general organization of knowledge for natural language processing: The Penman upper model. Technical Report. Marina del Rey, CA: Information Sciences Institute.Google Scholar
Beavers, John, Beth Levin & Shiao Wei Tham. 2010. The typology of motion expressions revisited. Journal of Linguistics 461. 331–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caffarel, Alice, James R. Martin & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen (eds.). 2004. Language typology: A functional perspective. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 253) Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cheng, Winnie, Chris Greaves, John McH. Sinclair & Martin Warren. 2009. Uncovering the extent of the phraseological tendency: Towards a systematic analysis of concgrams. Applied Linguistics 30(2). 236–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chow, Ian & Jonathan J. Webster. 2008. Supervised clustering of the WordNet verb hierarchy for systemic functional process type identification. Proceedings of the 1st international conference on global interoperability for language resources (ICGL) , Hong Kong, PRC, 9–11 January 2008, 51–58.
Cook, Walter A. 1977. Case grammar: Development of the matrix model (1970–1978). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Cross, Marilyn. 1992. Choice in lexis: Computer generation of lexis as most delicate grammar. Language Sciences 14(4). 579–607. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dang, Hoa Trang, Karin Kipper, Martha Palmer & Joseph Rosenzeig. 1998. Investigating regular sense extensions based on intersective Levin classes. Coling/ACL-98 36th Association of Computational Linguistics conference (Montreal (Canada), August 11–17), 293–300. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufman.Google Scholar
Davidse, Kristin. 1999. Categories of experiential grammar (Monographs in Systemic Linguistics). Nottingham: University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1979. Word meaning and Montague Grammar: The semantics of verbs and times in generative semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fawcett, Robin P. 1987. The semantics of clause and verb for relational processes in English. In M.A.K. Halliday & Robin P. Fawcett (eds.), New developments in systemic linguistics: Theory and description, 130–183. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case. In Emmon Bach & Robert T. Harms (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, 1–88.New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
. 1970. The grammar of hitting and breaking. In Roderick A. Jacobs & Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar, 120–133. Waltham, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
. 1977. The case for case reopened. In Peter Cole & Jerry Sadock (eds.), Syntax and semantics: Grammatical relations, vol. 81, 59–81. New York, NY: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. & Collin F. Baker. 2001. Frame semantics for text understanding. Proceedings of WordNet and other lexical resources workshop, 59–64. Pittsburgh, PA: NAACL.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. & Paul Kay. 1987. The goals of construction grammar. Berkeley Cognitive Science Program Technical Report no. 50. Berkeley, CA: University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
Francis, Gill, Susan Hunston & Elizabeth Manning (eds.). 1996. Collins COBUILD grammar patterns 1: Verbs. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gruber, Jeffrey S. 1965. Studies in lexical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT PhD thesis.Google Scholar
. 1976. Lexical structures in syntax and semantics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Haiman, John. 1985. Natural syntax. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Hale, Austin. 1974. On the systematization of Box 4. In Ruth Brend (ed.), Advances in tagmemics, 55–74.Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. 1961. Categories of the theory of grammar. Word 17(3). 242–292.Google Scholar
. 1966. Some notes on ‘deep’ grammar. Journal of Linguistics 2(1). 57–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1967/8. Notes on transitivity and theme in English. Journal of Linguistics 3(1). 37–81, 3(2). 199–244 & 4(2). 179–215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1969. Options and functions in the English clause. Brno studies in English 81. 81–8. Reprinted in Halliday, M.A.K. 2005. Studies in English Language. Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday, vol. 7 (edited by Jonathan Webster), 154–163. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
. 1975. Learning how to mean: Explorations in the development of language. London: Arnold. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1976. System and function in language, edited by Gunther Kress. London: OUP.Google Scholar
. 1985. An introduction to functional grammar, 1st edn. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
. 1992. Some lexicogrammatical features of the Zero population growth text. In Sandra A. Thompson & William C. Mann (eds.), Discourse description: Diverse analyses of a fund-raising text, 327–358. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. On grammar and grammatics. In Ruqaiya Hasan, Carmel Cloran & David Butt (eds.), Functional descriptions: Theory into practice, 1–38. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Reprinted in Halliday, M.A.K. 2002. On grammar. Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday, vol. 1 (edited by Jonathan Webster), 384–417. London: Continuum. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. On the grammar of pain. Functions of Language 5(1). 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. The language of early childhood. Collected Works of M.A.K. Halliday, vol. 41, edited by Jonathan Webster. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 1999. Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
. 2004. An introduction to functional grammar, 3rd edn. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1985. Lending and borrowing: From grammar to lexis. Beiträge zur Phonetik und Linguistik 481. 56–67.Google Scholar
. 1987. The grammarian’s dream: Lexis as most delicate grammar. In M.A.K. Halliday & Robin P. Fawcett (eds.), New developments in systemic linguistics: Theory and description, 184–211. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, Louis. 1935/37. La catégorie des cas: étude de grammaire générale, 2 vols. Acta Jutlandica VII(1). xii–184 & IX(2).viii–78.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 561. 251–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hori, Motoko. 2006. Pain expressions in Japanese. In Geoff Thompson & Susan Hunston (eds.), System and corpus: Exploring connections, 206–225. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Hornby, A.S. 1954. A guide to patterns and usage in English. London: OUP.Google Scholar
Huang, Chu-Ren, Nicoletta Calzolari, Aldo Gangemi, Alessandro Lenci, Alessandro Oltramari & Laurent Prévot (eds.). 2010. Ontology and the lexicon: A natural language processing perspective. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard A. 1976. Arguments for a non-transformational grammar. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Hunston, Susan & Gill Francis. 2000. Pattern Grammar: A corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hunston, Susan & Geoff Thompson (eds.). 2006. System and corpus: Exploring connections. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lascaratou, Chryssoula. 2007. The language of pain. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 2011. Lexical conceptual structure. In Claudia Maienborn, Klaus Von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol. 11, 420–440. Berlin: Mouton. DOI logo DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Longacre, Robert. 1976. Anatomy of speech notions. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press. DOI logo DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John. 1968. Theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Martin, J.R. 1996. Metalinguistic diversity: The case from case. In Ruqaiya Hasan, Carmel Cloran & David Butt (eds.), Functional descriptions: Theory into practice, 323–375. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, J.R. & Robert Veel (eds.). 1998. Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mason, Ian. 2003. Text parameters in translation: Transitivity and institutional cultures. In Eva Hajicova, Peter Sgall, Zuzana Jettmarova, Annely Rothkegel, Dorothee Rothfuß-Bastian & Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast (eds.), Textologie und translation (Jahrbuch Übersetzen und Dolmetschen 4/2), 175–188. Tübingen: Narr. Reprinted in Lawrence Venuti (ed.). 2004. The translation studies reader, Second edition. 470–481. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 1987. Notes on the organization of the environment of a text generation grammar. In Gerard Kempen (ed.), Natural language generation, 253–278. Dordrecht: Nijhof. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1995. Lexicogrammatical cartography: English systems. Tokyo: International Language Sciences Publishers.Google Scholar
. 1996. Tense in English seen through systemic-functional theory. In Christopher S. Butler, Margaret Berry, Robin Fawcett & Guowen Huang (eds.), Meaning and form: Systemic functional interpretations, 431–498. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
. 1999. The system of transitivity: An exploratory study of text-based profiles. Functions of Language 6(1). 1–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Descriptive motifs and generalizations. In Alice Caffarel, James R. Martin & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen (eds.). Language typology: A functional perspective. 537–673. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Frequency profiles of some basic grammatical systems: An interim report. In Susan Hunston & Geoff Thompson (eds.), 103–142.Google Scholar
. 2007. The lexicogrammar of emotion and attitude in English. Published in electronic proceedings on CD based on contributions to the Third international congress on English Grammar (ICEG 3), Sona College, Salem, Tamil Nadu, India, January 23–27, 2006.
Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. & John Bateman. 1991. Text generation and Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M., Kazuhiro Teruya & Wu Canzhong. 2008. Multilingual studies as a multi-dimensional space of interconnected language studies. In Jonathan J. Webster (ed.), Meaning in context, 146–221. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Mel’chuk, Igor. 1982. Lexical functions in lexicographic description. Proceedings of the eighth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society , 427–444. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Mortensen, Lynne. 1992. A transitivity analysis of discourse in dementia of the Alzheimer’s type. Journal of Neurolinguistics 7(4). 309–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neale, Amy. 2002. More delicate transitivity: Extending the process type system networks for English to include full semantic classifications. Cardiff: Cardiff University PhD thesis.Google Scholar
. 2006. Matching corpus data and system networks: Using corpora to modify and extend the system networks for transitivity in English. In Susan Hunston & Geoff Thompson (eds.), 143–163.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ruppenhofer, Josef, Michael Ellsworth, Miriam R.L. Petruk, Christopher R. Johnson & Jan Scheffczyk. 2006. FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. [URL]Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1985. Lexicalisation patterns. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Volume III. Grammatical categories and the lexicon, 57–149. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
. 2007. Lexical typology. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Volume III. Grammatical categories and the lexicon, 2nd edn, 66–168. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Teruya, Kazuhiro. 1998. An exploration into the world of experience: A systemic-functional interpretation of the grammar of Japanese. Sydney: Macquarie University PhD thesis.Google Scholar
. 2007. A systemic functional grammar of Japanese, 2 vols1. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien. 1959. Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Thompson, Geoff. 2004. Introducing functional grammar, 2nd edn. London: Hodder & Stoughton Educational.Google Scholar
Tucker, Gordon H. 1997. The lexicogrammar of adjectives: A systemic functional approach to lexis. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
Tucker, Gordon. 2007. Between grammar and lexis: Towards a systemic functional account of phraseology. In Ruqaiya Hasan, Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen & Jonathan Webster (eds.), Continuing discourse on language: A functional perspective, 953–977. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. 2006. Some universals of verb semantics. In Ricardo Mairal & Juana Gil (eds.), Linguistic universals, 155–178. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Viberg, Åke. 1984. The verbs of perception: A typological study. In Brian Butterworth, Bernard Comrie & Östen Dahl (eds.), Explanations for language universals, 123–162. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Swedish verbs of perception from a typological and contrastive perspective. In María de los Ángeles Gómez González, J. Lachlan Mackenzie & Elsa M. González-Álvarez (eds.), Languages and cultures in contrast and comparison, 123–172. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wanner, Leo. 1997. Exploring lexical resources for text generation in a systemic functional language model. Saarbrücken: Universität des Saarlandes PhD thesis.Google Scholar
Whorf, Benjamin Lee. 1956. Language, thought and reality, edited by J.B. Carroll. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1987. English speech act verbs: A semantic dictionary. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wu, Canzhong. 2000. Modelling linguistic resources. Sydney: Macquarie University PhD thesis.Google Scholar
Cited by (12)

Cited by 12 other publications

Hu, Jian
2023. The Lexical and Syntactic Properties of MM. In A Constructional Approach to Interpersonal Metaphor of Modality [Peking University Linguistics Research, 7], ► pp. 67 ff. DOI logo
Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M., Jorge Arús-Hita & Kazuhiro Teruya
2021. Translations of Representations of Moving and Saying from English into Spanish. <i>WORD</i> 67:2 ► pp. 188 ff. DOI logo
Martinec, Radan
2020. Linguistic Rhythm and its Meaning. Linguistics and the Human Sciences 14:1-2 ► pp. 70 ff. DOI logo
Ng, Anthony
2020. The construal of requests for action: Expounding indeterminancy for socio-communicative risks and failures in public health. <i>WORD</i> 66:3 ► pp. 194 ff. DOI logo
Su, Hang
2020. Synergising Corpus, Functional and Cultural Approaches to Critical Discourse Studies: A Case Study of the Discursive Representation of Chinese Dream. In Corpus-based Approaches to Grammar, Media and Health Discourses [The M.A.K. Halliday Library Functional Linguistics Series, ], ► pp. 157 ff. DOI logo
Martin, J. R. & Priscilla Angela T. Cruz
2019. Relational Processes in Tagalog: A Systemic Functional Linguistic Perspective. In Discourses of Southeast Asia [The M.A.K. Halliday Library Functional Linguistics Series, ], ► pp. 225 ff. DOI logo
Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M., Bo Wang, Isaac N. Mwinlaaru & Yuanyi Ma
2018. ‘The axial rethink’ – making sense of language: an interview with Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. Functional Linguistics 5:1 DOI logo
Fontaine, Lise
2017. Lexis as most local context: towards an SFL approach to lexicology. Functional Linguistics 4:1 DOI logo
Kashyap, Abhishek Kumar & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen
2017. FIGURE and GROUND in the construal of motion: a registerial perspective. <i>WORD</i> 63:1 ► pp. 62 ff. DOI logo
Kashyap, Abhishek Kumar & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen
2019. The representation of motion in discourse: variation across registers. Language Sciences 72 ► pp. 71 ff. DOI logo
Peña-Cervel, M. Sandra
2016. Cognitive Mechanisms Underlying Fake Reflexive Resultatives*. Australian Journal of Linguistics 36:4 ► pp. 502 ff. DOI logo
Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. & Abhishek Kumar Kashyap
2014. The construal of space in different registers: an exploratory study. Language Sciences 45 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.