'Portray' As Relational Process

In Deploying Functional Grammar (Martin, Matthiessen & Painter 2010: 124), portray is interpreted as a behavioural process, despite it occurring in effective clauses, and despite its Range not being a behaviour.

'Prove' Serving As Attributive (Not Identifying) Process

this	proves (‘makes true’)		my point
Attributor	Process: attributive	Attribute	Carrier

Blogger Comment:

In Deploying Functional Grammar (Martin et al. 2010: 123), this is erroneously (and bizarrely) analysed as follows:

this	proves	(that)	my point
Assigner	Process: identifying	Token	Value

'Describe' Serving As Verbal (Not Behavioural) Process

they	described	the new project	(to the board)
Sayer	Process: verbal	Verbiage	(Receiver)

Blogger Comments:

Viewed 'from above' (semantics), this clause construes a verbal process, but viewed 'from roundabout' (lexicogrammar), it construes a material process, as shown by the unmarked present tense (they are describing… not they describe…), so there is a slight incongruence between the meaning and the wording.

In Deploying Functional Grammar (Martin et al. 2010: 126), this is erroneously analysed as a behavioural clause with a verbal Range:

they	described	the new project	(to the board)
Behaver	Process: behavioural	Verbiage	(Receiver)

In this analysis, the interstratal incongruence (saying as material) has been misinterpreted as an intrastratal intersection of material and verbal, and from this, as a behavioural clause — even though such an analysis requires the inclusion of verbal participants (Verbiage and Receiver).

However, this clause is not behavioural, not least because the Range of a genuine behavioural clause is a Behaviour — which the new project clearly is not.

This analysis

1. mixes a behavioural participant with verbal participants in a configuration that is deemed to be behavioural;
2. construes a behaviour as ranging over Verbiage;
3. complicates the theory unnecessarily — making it internally inconsistent — and results in a loss, not gain, in explanatory power.

'Solve' Serving As Material (Not Behavioural) Process

they	solved	the problem
Agent Actor	Process: material	Medium Goal

Blogger Comments:

In Deploying Functional Grammar (Martin et al. 2010: 126), this is erroneously analysed as a behavioural clause with a mental Range:

they	solved	the problem
Medium Behaver	Process: behavioural	Range Phenomenon

This analysis is erroneous in terms of both the ergative and transitive models.

The fact that we can say what they did to the problem was solve it rules out the possibility that the problem functions as the Range of a mental or behavioural Process;  cf.:

• what they did to the birds was see them (mental)
• what she did with the smile is give it (behavioural)

and aligns the clause with transitive material clauses:

• what they did to the blockage was remove it

The fact that the unmarked present tense is the 'present in present', not the 'simple present' also rules out the possibility that this a mental clause, and aligns the clause with material clauses:

• they are solving the problem 
not
• they solve the problem.