1 / 100

Adding Participant and Circumstantial Roles to the analysis of texts: TRANSITIVITY analysis for the twenty-first centu

Adding Participant and Circumstantial Roles to the analysis of texts: TRANSITIVITY analysis for the twenty-first century Robin Fawcett and Anke Schulz Cardiff University and Darmstadt University. First, this question: What is the level – or what are the levels of language

josette
Télécharger la présentation

Adding Participant and Circumstantial Roles to the analysis of texts: TRANSITIVITY analysis for the twenty-first centu

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Adding Participant and Circumstantial Roles to the analysis of texts: TRANSITIVITY analysis for the twenty-first century Robin Fawcett and Anke Schulz Cardiff University and Darmstadt University

  2. First, this question: What is the level – or what are the levels of language at which PRs and CRs are located? This depends on which architecture of language and its use we are using. Here is the CG model:

  3. Locating PRs within the model of language: • Figure 1: The main components of a simplified systemic functional grammar

  4. PRs (or their equivalent) are needed AT EVERY LEVEL of the representation of an ‘event’, i.e. (working from ‘lowest’ to ‘highest’): • as the specific types of Participant Role in the representation of the functional structure - i.e. syntax - at the level of form, • 2 through being referred to in the semantic features in the system networks from which those PRs are generated, and • in (i) the systemic functional logical form in the input to and output from generation and understanding and • (ii) the Performer’s belief system (cp ‘figures’ at the higher level that is called ‘semantics’ in Halliday & Matthiessen 1999).

  5. So the system network for TRANSITIVITY is at the level of meaning (‘semantics’) and the PRs occur, as the realization of those choices, at the level of form. And Halliday describes his system network for TRANSITIVITY as ‘semantic’, as ‘having been pushed fairly far towards the level of ‘semantics’

  6. A short reprise of the method of analysis introduced in yesterday’s workshop (i.e. for the output at the level of form)

  7. The key tools for analyzing the functional syntax of texts Handout 2 – check you have it! 95% of the syntax of English on three sides of A4! Handout 3 – check you have it! A summary of the method Note especially the Process and PRs Test

  8. See Handout 3 From Invitation The procedure for clause analysis: a summary 0 Preparation: make the clause an ‘information giver’ that is ‘positive’, and replace wh-items by someone, etc. 1 Find the Process, and so the Main Verb M or M + Main Verb Extension(s) M + MEx or M + preposition M + p (inside C) or M + Main Verb Extension + preposition. M + MEx + p 2 Left of M, find any Auxiliaries (if used) X, X, X 3 Right of each X, find any Auxiliary Extension, if used, plus any associated Infinitives XEx + I 4 Left of X, find any other Infinitive (if used) I 5 Left of I, find the Negator (if used). N

  9. 6 Left of N, find the Operator (if used). O 7 Left or right of O, find the Subject. S S may contain a wh-item. If S is covert, place it in brackets. (S) 8 Find the Let element (if used). L Find all PRs. S is probably one; any other PR is a Complement. C, C If a C contains a wh-item, expect it to the left. If a C is covert, place it in brackets. (C) Find any Adjuncts. A, A ... If an A contains a wh-item, expect it to the left. 11 Find the Vocative (if used) V 12 Find the Ender (if used). E

  10. Step 1: The Process and PR Test (99% reliable) Find the word (or words) that express the Process, and at the same time make a first guess at the Participant Roles that it ‘expects’. Test Assuming that xxx stands for the Main Verb, (yy) stands for one (or occasionally more) possible Main Verb Extensions, (zz) stands for a possible preposition and that each of someone, something and somewhere stands for each possible PR, try saying: In this Process of xxx-ing (yy) (zz), we expect to find someone or something xxx-ing (yy) (zz) (someone or something) ((to or from) someone or something or somewhere). (The last line says that the possible 2nd or 3rd PR is sometimes preceded by to or from.)

  11. The “shower” text 1 The functional syntax of two clauses (RF) 2 Adding the PRs – a brief demonstration (AS)

  12. In what sense is this TRANSITIVITY analysis ‘for the twenty-first century’ ? A linguistics for the new century should take account of the major advances in Descriptive Linguistics since the 1970s:

  13. Developments in linguistics since 1970 • relevant to imroving our models of • TRANSITIVITY • the growing emphasis in Linguistics in general on meaning and function; • the detailed analysis of very large quantities of text using SFG descriptions; • work in other functionally-oriented theories; • some of the work by formally oriented linguists

  14. evidence from very large corpora; • evidence from building very large systemic functional grammars in a computer model of language; • The model to be presented here is derived from the 1970s description of TRANSITIVITY by Halliday, but has since then been modified under the influence of the above developments. • NB especially:

  15. NB especially: 1 Earlier versions of Fawcett’s description (1980, 1987) were adopted for use in NLG and MT: the European Community’s EUROTRA Project (Steiner) Roesner’s NLG generator The COMMUNAL Project’s first NLG generator 2 More recent versions have been adopted for use in: Elhadad’s widely used SURGE generator (cp Nigel in KPML) The COMMUNAL Project’s later NLG generator Castel’s REDACTE generator 3 Wide use for research and student projects in text analysis: e.g. Anke Schulz, Darmstadt, Lin Yuan Ke, Liverpool It is ready for even wider use in text analysis!

  16. The goals and scope of TRANSITIVITY analysis Goals 1 To provide a framework for the description of all texts at this level of analysis (assuming we know what that is; see below) 2 To provide the required framework of PRs for a very large computer model of language Criteria (for both): comprehensiveness, simplicity and testability Scope Processes and their inherent Participant Roles So not Circumstances (which we treat as a separate but related matter)

  17. Two approaches to TRANSITIVITY Identifying directly the features describing ‘clause types’ (better: ‘Process types’) e.g. ‘attributive’, ‘transitive’, ‘operative’, ‘receptive’. 2 Identifying PRs. The Cardiff Grammar’s approach: do both - but 1 via 2, not 2 via 1. So Process types - i.e. the primary features in the system network for TRANSITIVITY - are identifiable primarily in terms of configurations of Participant Roles. NB: other aspects of ‘Process types’ follow from them, e.g. the co-occurrence probabilities of the ‘tenses’ we call ‘period-marking’(be -ing) and ‘retrospective’ (have + past participle)

  18. The principles guiding the recognition of Participant Roles There must be no more than one of each type of Participant Role in any one clause. There must be a test for each Participant Role, to enable the analyst to check in cases of doubt. Within these constraints, there is no need for any finer distinctions between the different types of Participant Role. So the principles are both theoretical and pragmatic.

  19. The plan from here on: • To summarize some of the main problems in analyzing Processes and PRs • To introduce the CG system network for TRANSITIVITY • To introduce the CG literature and resources for TRANSITIVITY (especially Amy Neale’s Process Type Data Base) • To introduce you to the tests for Participant Roles • 5 Demonstration of how to use them (with your participation) • Introduction to notes on Circumstantial Roles • Your problem examples for all to attempt; our examples • 8 Concluding questions, comments and requests.

  20. Alternative SFG representations of Participant Roles Figure 2: A Sydney Grammar representation of a simple clause

  21. Figure 3: The Cardiff Grammar analysis of a simple clause (Fawcett 2000)

  22. Figure 2: Two examples where a PR is conflated with a completive

  23. Some problems to look out for (For a full discussion, see Fawcett 2009 (or Fawcett 2010a) Variations in the probability of overt realization (for the description) (...) = ‘this element is occasionally unrealized’ e.g. He [S/Ag] hits (the ball [C/Af]) hard [A/Ma]. ((...)) = ‘this element is frequently unrealized’ e.g. He [S/Ag] said ((to me [C/Af-Cog])) he was sorry [C/Ph]. (((...))) = ‘this element is almost always unrealized’ e.g. I [S/Ag] can account (((to you [C/Af-Cog]))) for it [C/Ph] PLUS the non-realization of a PR as Subject in simple directives, many ‘partial’ clauses and many ‘passive’ constructions’ - so covert realizations occur quite often.

  24. The problem that assumptions about ‘realms of experience’ may lead to mistakes in recognizing ‘types of Process’ Figure 3: The lack of a one-to-one correspondence between realms of experience and types of Process

  25. The problem of living, fading and dead metaphors (3) She [Ag] turned the water / gas / light [Af] on. (4a) She / the film [Ph] {really} turned him [Em] on. (4b) She / the film [Ph] {really} pleased / delighted him [Em]. It is the PRs that indicate the meaning of the Process. What about these? (7a) She [Ag] was pulling Fred [Af] ’s leg. (7b) She [Ag] was teasing Fred [Af].

  26. Figure 4: The analysis of a clause with a dead metaphor

  27. The problem of ambiguity 1 Ivy’s request touched / moved Fred. 2 change, open, break, cook, and sound 3 walk, run, swim (as ‘action’ or ‘directional’ movement) go, get and turn The problem of covert Participant Roles (like 1, but for instances in texts) Deciding whether a PR is (a) or (b): (a) inherent in the Process but covert, or (b) simply not ‘ expected’ by the Process at all. Four reasons for covertness: 1 Recoverability by the Addressee Avoiding assigning responsibility - esp. for ideological reasons The Performer’s lack of information 4 Irrelevance

  28. The problem of preferred Circumstantial Roles (CRs) • 1 Ivy sold it to Fred for £200 (Circ: Exchange) 2 She kissed him on the cheek (Circ: Body Part) • The problem of clauses with experientially empty Subjects (and other special constructions) • 1 It is obviousthat Fred loves you. 2 It is Fredwho/that loves you. 3 It seems to methat Fred loves you. The problem of how to distinguish between a Process Extension (so MEx) and a Range 1 He sang a song / Annie Laurie [Ra] 2 He had a bath [PrEx]

  29. 3 The sub-networks – and so the configurations of Participant Roles The examples that we shall meet are shown 1 in their most typical sequence (e.g.in an ‘active’ rather than a ‘passive’ construction); 2 realized overtly (rather than being covert, so unrealized) and exemplified in clauses, normally (rather than in nominalizations of events, i.e. in nominal groups). So -

  30. The main characteristics of this approach Carried out on the basis of a ‘S…M…MEx... p…C…’ analysis One Process per clause - so no verbal group complexes One analysis per clause (except for full metaphor) - not two, as in IFG 64 Process type,s determined by configurations of PRs 17 PRs determined by explicit tests Agents and Affecteds in many Process types Which PR best characterises each major Process type? Action Agent, Affected (+ Created, Range) Relational Carrier (+ others, + Agent, Affected) Mental Phenomenon (+ others, + Agent, Affected) Influential Agent, Affected (+ Phenomenon, Created-Phenomenon) Event-relating Carrier CHECK (+ Phenomenon, Created-Phenomenon)

  31. Figure 5: The early options in the TRANSITIVITY network

  32. Figure 6: The major options in the ‘action’ part of the TRANSITIVITY network

  33. 3.3.2 Agent + Process 3.3.2.1 Agent + simple Process (1) Ivy runs {to keep fit}. (2) He’s {still} breathing. 3.3.2.2 Agent + Process + Process Extension (5) Ivy went [Pro] away [PrEx] {for a fortnight}. (6) Ike had [Pro] a swim / a nice long shower / a good wash [PrEx].

  34. 3.3.3 Affected + Process (1) Ivy sneezed. (2) Her mouse has died. (3a) {Suddenly} the door opened. (3b) The glass broke / shattered / cracked. (3c) The snow melted. (3d) The meat cooked {slowly} 3.3.4 Created + Process (1) He was born {in Guangzhou / in 1851}. (2) The match / party / work began / started {at six}.

  35. 3.3.5 Phenomenon + Process (infrequent) (1) The match / party / work continued / stopped / ended. Their attempt to climb Everest / His intervention succeeded / failed. 3.3.6 Carrier + Process (infrequent) (1) The silver shone {brightly}. (2) My leg hurts / aches. (3) The departure date came / arrived. (4) (These) things {just} happen.

  36. 3.3.7 Agent + Process + Affected The two types of ‘action’ Process: ‘material action’ - e.g. ‘hitting’ ‘social action’ - e.g. ‘sacking’ (BrE) / ‘firing’ (AmE) First: ‘material action’ (1a) Ivy slapped / murdered Fred. (1b) Fred was slapped / murdered (by Ivy). (2a) Ivy broke / the glass. (2b) The glass was broken (by Ivy). (3) The glass broke {when the soprano sang a high note}. (4) The snow {soon} melted.

  37. 3.3.7.2 ‘Overt’ and ‘covert’ Participant Roles (5) Slap him! (6) Don’t (you) touch it. (7) (You) open the door. (8) Ike touched Ivy {on the arm}. (9) Ike touched Ivy’s arm. (10) Mohammed Ali didn’t hit (his opponents) {really hard}. 3.7.3 The problem of ‘reflexive’ and ‘reciprocal pronouns’ (12) Fred and Ivy slapped themselves / each other {to keep awake}. (13a) Sampson killed himself. (13b) Sampson killed both his enemies and himself. (14) Ike shaved (((himself))).

  38. 3.3.7.4 Some untypical types of Agent ‘tools’ presented as an ‘extension’ of a human Agent (So NB there is not a separate PR of ‘Instrument’) (15a)This key / sledgehammer will open the door. (15b) The car / truck hit the lamp post. ‘natural forces’ (16a) The storm / wind shattered the windowpanes. (16b) The heat / sun melted / thawed the snow. ‘events’ (17) The war made Ivan rich.

  39. 3.3.7.6 Processes of ‘social action’ (19) She visited / ignored / avoided him. (20) She slandered / insulted / him. (21) She criticized / teased / laughed at him {about / for / over his slowness}. (22a) She said [Pro] hello / goodbye [PrEx] to / him. (22b) He waved [Pro] goodbye [PrEx] to her]. (23) He kissed [Pro] her goodbye [PrEx]. (24) Fred greeted / smiled at / nodded to / chatted up / Fiona. (25)Ivy sacked / fired / hired / took on Fred {as a driver [Role]}.

  40. 3.3.7.7 A controversial type of ‘social action’ ‘social action’ or ‘matching’? (26a) Eric married / divorced Alice. (26b) Eric got [Pro] married / engaged [PrEx] to / Alice. (27a) Eric separated from / divorced Alice. (27b) Eric got [Pro] divorced [PrEx] from Alice {last year}. But note the possibility of the pattern associated with ‘matching’ (a) Eric married / divorced Alice. (b) Eric and Alice married / divorced each other. (c) Eric and Alice married / divorced.

  41. - and the ‘private enactment of a social relationship’ Eric / Alice is seeing / going [Pro] out [PrEx] with / having a relationship / affair [PrEx] with / having it [C] off / away [PrEx] with / doing it PrEx] with / having sex [PrEx] with / sleeping with / fucking / screwing Sharon / Kevin. Again - ‘social action’ or ‘matching’? So ‘Agent + Affected’ or ‘Carrier + Matchee’?

  42. 3.3.8 Agent + Process + Created (35) Ike made / baked a cake. (36) Ivy wrote that long book. (37) She painted that portrait. 3.3.9 Agent + Process+ Range (38) Ivy climbed the mountain / Mont Blanc. (39) She traversed the North Face of the Matterhorn. (40) She descended the Hörnli Ridge. (41) She read that long book. (42) Ivy’s ascent of Mont Blanc. (event thing) (43) He sang a song / a Scottish ballad / nnie Laurie. (44) She played the piano / the tape / a minuet / some Bach. but not two miles in She walked two miles that day, which is a Circumstance of Distance.

  43. Figure 7: The major options in the ‘attributive’ part of the TRANSITIVITY network

  44. 3.4.1.2 Carrier + Process + Attribute 3.4.1.2.1 Unmarked Carrier + Process + Attribute (1) She is a year tutor / the year tutor. (2) That pencil is mine / one of mine / the one Ivy lent me yesterday. (3) This thing is for opening bottles. (4a) This prehistoric carving is / looks like one / the one in the British Museum. (4b) It resembles the shape of a human body. (5a) That looks / sounds / smells / tastes / feels absolutely wonderful. (5b) That looks / sounds / smells / tastes / feels as if it is time to chuck it out. (6a Ivy is / weighs 60 kilos.(6b) The ticket is /costs ten dollars. (7a) To err is human; to forgive (is) divine. (7b) Eating people is wrong. (8a) Ivy is / seems pretty happy / in a temper / like her mother / above such things. (8b) Ivy appears pretty happy. (12) What we saw that evening [Ca] was a badger [At]. (13) This [Ca] is what you get [At]. (14) What you see [Ca] is what you get [At].

  45. 3.4.1.2.2 It + Process + Attribute + Carrier (17) It was a badger [At] that we saw that evening [Ca]. - experiential enhanced theme (18) It’s clear [At] that Ike was there [Ca]. - evaluative enhanced theme

More Related