Appunto su discourse analysis

The transitivity model

The transitivity model allows us to understand and study the ideation of metafunction (MF) in systemic function linguistics (SFL): it is a way of analysing how this metafunction is achieved textually.

Elements of experience in systemic function linguistics (SFL)

In systemic function linguistics (SFL), experience consists of three elements:

• Processes: it refers to what kind of event or state is being described in the text;
• Participant or participants: they are simply the entities involved in the process (for example, we can distinguish between the Actor, the Sayer, the Senser, etc.);
• Circumstances: specify the when, where, why and how of the process.

So, if you have a look at this sentence: “The postman bit the dog yesterday” we have the participant (“the postman”), the process (“bit”) (which is, more specifically, a material process), another participant (“the dog”), and the circumstance, the when (“yesterday”). More specifically, since the “bit” is a material process, the postman is the actor, while the dog is the goal of the transitive process.

Types of processes

• Material (processes of doing): kick, run, paint, repair, send, etc.;
• Mental (processes of experiencing, of sensing): see, hear, know, like, etc.;
• Verbal (processes of saying): say, tell, warn, argue, ask, etc.;
• Relational (processes of being or becoming): be, have, become, own, etc.;
• Behavioural: laugh, talk, cry, breathe, etc.;
• Existential: exist, there is…, etc.

Some scholars do not accept this further specification (the addition of Behavioural and Existential) because they say that behavioural processes are nothing but processes that are in-between material and mental processes. So, they specify further how an action is carried out. For instance, why do we have “talk”? “Talking” is a specific kind of speaking; they say talking sometimes involves informal talks among friends. “Laughing” is a specific kind of reaction you have in a specific moment. So, that’s why some scholars don’t accept these further specifications: we can just use the four main types. The same goes for existential processes. They express the existence of something and that’s why sometimes you don’t find these other two categories in systemic function approaches.

Material processes and their participants

As said before, material processes describe processes of doing, so concrete actions that have a material result or consequence (kick, run, drive, paint, kill, burn, etc.). Participants in material processes are:

• The actor: the entity who does the action;
• The goal: the one who is affected by the action;
• The recipient: the one who receives something;
• The beneficiary: the one for whom something is done.

Here we have some examples: Why, in the second sentence, is Mary not Beneficiary? Because the actor is not doing something for Mary, he’s only transferring one property to another, even if it’s a gift, so it’s permanent; but the action itself is not done for Mary.

Question from a student

John gave Mary a book for her birthday? “What if the second sentence had been: Would Mary be beneficiary?”

Teacher's answer

“No, again she would be recipient. If you write something like John bought Mary a book, in that case I would say that Mary is the Beneficiary, because John is carrying out the action for Mary. In the case of John gave Mary a book you see there’s a subtle semantic difference: it’s just a transfer of property of an object from one entity to another, but in itself the action is not done for Mary. The last one is clearer. The purpose of the house to be built is Mary.”

Always start from the verb phrase, because the verb phrase allows you to understand what type of process we’re dealing with (in the 3 cases of the examples it was material). Then, start looking for the participants: if it’s a material process, I need to find the actor, the goal, the recipient or the beneficiary.

Mental processes

Mental processes describe processes of sensing. We have, within this group:

• Mental process of cognition (verbs of thinking, knowing, or understanding)
• Mental process of affection (verbs of liking, disliking, or fearing)
• Mental process of perception (verbs of seeing, hearing, or perceiving)

The participants in mental processes are the senser and the phenomenon. The first one is the one who does the mental action (think, know, like, hear, etc.); whereas the second one is the thing that is perceived, thought, like or disliked, etc.

Here we have some examples. Always start from the verb! In the second sentence, we can also recognise another process within the phenomenon: “was coming” is a material process and Mary is the actor. This also happens in the third sentence, where “liked” is another mental process of affection and “he” is the senser.

This is a different way of analysing how sentences are structured, rather than analysing the constituents of the sentence, we are more interested in the meanings that the sentence builds and conveys.

Verbal processes

Verbal processes describe processes of communication. The verbs are: say, tell, explain, warn, argue, ask, state, maintain. Participants:

• Sayer (the one who communicates)
• Addressee/Receiver (the one receiving the message)
• Verbiage (what they say)

SENTENCE 1: The Verbiage can be further analysed. We have, inside Verbiage, a relational process and this type of process is also the most difficult one to analyse. SENTENCE 3: Even though we have a passive construction, the participants can still be analysed, disregarding whether the verb has been used in the active or passive form. What we focus on are the meanings that are expressed, that is the choices made by the speaker when creating this sentence and attributing specific roles to the participants that are part of these phrases.

Relational processes

Relational processes describe meanings about states of being, where things are stated to exist in relation to other things (be, have, become…). There are three main types of relational process:

• Intensive relational process: X = (equals) Y. For example, the construction to be/seem + an adjective/noun phrase or adverb.
• Possessive relational processes are processes where we have X owns Y. Y is the property of X. We find this type of processes in construction “to have/own+ Noun Phrase”.
• Circumstantial relational processes are processes where X, a given entity, is at/on/in/with/about Y. Typically we find these processes in construction “to be+ Prepositional Phrase”.

There are 2 subcategories: attribution and identification, which are important because they allow us to identify the different participants. Indeed, in attributive intensive, possessive, circumstantial relational processes we have the following participants:

• Carrier
• Attribute

So, relational process describes meanings about states of being and we can distinguish between Intensive, Possessive and Circumstantial relational processes. Each one of these can be further entailed if they convey attribution or identification. So, in the Attributive relational processes the participants are the Carrier and the Attribute.

In the Identifying (intensive, possessive, or circumstantial) relational processes the participants are:

• Identified/Token (an entity being defined by another)
• Identifier/Value: the thing that defines the entity (that which defines the entity)

How can we distinguish attributive and identifying relational processes?

In attributive relational processes, the Carrier is always a noun or a noun phrase while the Attribute expresses a quality, classification or description. The test to see if we are in the presence of an attributive relational process is “Are the 2 elements reversible? Can we switch the 2 elements?”. In this case, they cannot be switched around.

In identifying relational processes the elements (Identified/Token and Identifier/Value) are reversible, that is they can be switched around. There is a further specification. In possessive relational processes, we can describe the participants as the Possessor (the one owning or containing something) and the Possessed (the thing owned or contained).

Examples of relational processes

Now we can analyse these 3 sentences and we must start from the verb:

1. Sarah is/seems wise.
2. The poem concerns the fall of humankind.
3. The total contract figures are split up in a few different companies.

In general, these verbs indicate a state of being or of being, in the case of CONCERNS. So, we can say they are relational processes, but we have to understand what type of relational processes they are.

1. FIRST SENTENCE: it’s an intensive relational process where Sarah is the Carrier and wise is the Attribute. We can say it’s an attribution because if we try to switch things around (the wise is Sarah), wisdom is not something that belongs solely to Sarah, so when we think of wisdom, we think automatically to Sarah. If it was: “Sarah is the wise one”, in that case with 2 people, it’s identification and we can also switch things around: The wise one is Sarah. That’s why with attribution we cannot switch things around because if we do this, meanings change. We can’t say wisdom belongs solely to Sarah. With identifying relational process, we can switch things around because meanings don’t change.

2. SECOND SENTENCE: Circumstantial relational process because it’s about something. It’s an attributive circumstantial relational process.

3. THIRD SENTENCE: it’s an intensive process because it tells something about “the total contract figures”, so it’s a property of “the total contract figures”. It’s an attributive intensive relational process.

So, we must start from the verb and define what type of relational process is it. Then we must identify the participants and start wondering “Are these properties attributive or identifying?” Then we see they are ATTRIBUTION because they describe a property that is not solely of the entity being described and then we move on, and we are able to identify all the elements that are in the sentences.

1. Intensive relational process

2. Intensive relational process. This sentence is between intensive and circumstantial because it depends on the elements that follow. It’s more an intensive because it allows us to identify which way is the best one.

3. Possessive relational process.

Then we have to look at the elements that follow.

1. IDENTIFICATION (try the test)

2. IDENTIFICATION

3. IDENTIFICATION: the element that allows us to define it as identification is THAT. If I had an element like “Peter own A piano”, it would be an attribution because not all pianos are owned by Peter but because I’m specifying THAT piano, it’s identification because among all the pianos that are there, THAT piano is Peter’s. So if we try to switch the elements around we could say: “That piano is Peter’s”. THAT PIANO allows us to identify the possessor. So, they are all IDENTIFICATION.

Behavioural and existential processes

We have 2 more categories: Some scholars do not believe in this process because they are in between material and mental process, for instance breathing is a specific way of doing an action, that is inhaling air with our nose. That’s why some scholars would categorize breath as a material process, others as a behavioural process, depending on the type of approach scholars have. So, behavioural processes exist as a category but some scholars don’t adopt it.

1. Behavioural processes describe psychological and physical behaviour (watch, taste, stare, dream, breathe, smile…). They are semantically in between material and mental processes. The participants are the behaber (the conscious participant who is “behaving”) and the behaviour (the manifestation of the behaviour).

SHE SANG A SONG e.g. she = behaver; sang = behavioural process; a song = behaviour.

How can we categorize these processes as behavioural or not? If the action is carried out by individual, is comprised of that sole activity, then it’s a behavioural process. If that process entails something else, circumscribes the action to a specific thing, it’s material or mental process.

I’M THINKING e.g., = behavioural process. THEY THINK I’M STUPID e.g., = they think = mental process; I’m stupid = intensive relational process. “Is the process in itself contained in So, we have to think that action?”

2. Existential processes describe that something exists or happens. The participants are called “existent”, which is the entity or event which is being said to exist. We talk about entity when the participant is animated, and about event when it is inanimate.

e.g., There was a storm. There was = existential process; a storm = existent: event. e.g., There was a man at the door There was = existential process; a man = existent: entity; at the door = circumstance: location.

Types of circumstances

• Location: In the corner.
• Spatial Where? E.g., Yesterday
• Temporal When? E.g.,
• Extent: 3 miles.
• Spatial How far? E.g.,
• Temporal How long? E.g., For 3 weeks.
• Origin: From London. Where from? E.g.,
• Destination: To Sydney. Where to? E.g.,
• Manner: Quickly, smoothly, by car. How? E.g.,
• Cause: Because she was tired.
• Reason Why? E.g., To open the lid (tappo/coperchio).
• Purpose For what reason? E.g., For your children.
• Behalf For who? E.g.,
• Contingency: (I will) if you let me.
• Condition Under what conditions? E.g., He won against all odds.
• Concession Despite what? E.g.,
• Accompaniment: (He went) with me. With whom/what? E.g.,
• Role: (He went) as a fish. What as? E.g.,
• Matter: (We talked) about love. What about? E.g.,

An analysis of the system of transitivity is useful since it helps describe ideational meanings in text, where the choice of process types and process roles realizes the language user’s encoding of their experiential reality. It’s quite useful to analyse ideational meanings. Transitivity allows us to understand how the choice of process types and roles in the language we use are the reflection of the reality.

The multimodal discourse analysis (MDA)

This is another approach of the discourse analysis. Many texts are constructed not just by the use of words, but by the combination of words with other modalities (e.g., pictures, film, video, sounds…). MDA draws from Halliday’s social-semiotic approach to language, a view that considers language one among a number of semiotic resources that people use to communicate or make meaning. So, MDA examines multimodal communication (the one obtained from the combination of words with sounds, images, etc), such as web pages, television programmes, etc.

In these texts, the ideational (i.e. what the text is about), interpersonal (i.e. the relations between participants) and textual meanings (i.e. how the message is organized) are realized visually in:

• How the image conveys aspects of the real world (the ideational or representational meaning of the image);
• How the images engage with the viewers (the interpersonal, or modal, meaning of the image);
• How the elements in an image are arranged to achieve its intention or effect (the textual, or compositional, meaning of the image).

This scene of a commercial advertisement (the one from Dior with Charlize Theron) can be analysed from a discursive perspective. The “gaze” (sguardo): she is looking directly at us. The position of the bottle is to catch our attention. These are all the elements: the blond hair, the bottle, the direct gaze, then we have the jewellery. Another example is the spot of Dolce and Gabbana, we have the same elements of the previously add. Here, there is also the background (the sea) that has a lot of importance, it sells the Italian experience, the Italian background, in addition with the gaze and the naked torso of the model.

Assumptions in MDA (Jewitt 2017)

Jewitt in 2017 introduced 4 theoretical assumptions when it comes to MDA:

• Language is part of an ensemble of model: each of them as equal potential to contribute to the meaning: images, gaze, posture, don’t just support meanings, they contribute to them.
• Each mode of communication realizes different meanings and that looking at language as the principal or sole medium of communication only reveals a partial view of what is being communicated.
• People select from and configure these various models to make meanings and the interaction between these modes and the distribution of meanings between them are part of the production of meanings itself. So, it’s important to understand how these various modes interact with one and other. Their interaction and their combination allow us to understand how means are been used.
• Meanings that are made using multimodal resources are, like language, social. These meanings are shaped by the norms, rules and social conventions of a particular time and context.

We deal with multimodal texts on a daily basis: every time we read a newspaper, watch television, play videogames, or even read a book (when you read a book, the fact that you are to understand what you find there, is a multimodal activity). People communicate through speech, accent, gesture, facial expressions, gaze-direction, body posture. Environments/objects communicate through colour, texture, shape, movement, sound. So, we can describe these elements of people and objects/environments when we analyse them from a multimodal perspective.

Multimodality

Multimodality involves the complex interweaving of word, image, gesture, sound, etc. These can be combined to create meaning.