John,
   I don''t want to present this as an official SFL position, but I'll 
make a few observations that I think are accurate.
   When a clause is downranked (as are the "that" clause and "being" 
clause) it still has an internal structure that can be analyzed in the 
same way a main clause would be. It's contribution to the meaning 
structure, of course, depends on its role in the overall sentence. It 
has a messdage structure (there is flexibility) and it presents a view 
of the world.
   So you're right to say that the main clause is relational. All three 
clauses are  very straightforward in structure: "boy", "mother" and 
"him" are in standard roles for subject. (all three subject functions 
combined.) The that clause is mental/perception, and it is, of course, 
negated. The third is relational. The progressive form of the verb means 
not so much that he is a pig, but was acting like one--being one in 
progress might be more accurate--at a time in which his mom might have 
noticed him, but did not. It's interesting that the sentence seems to 
affirm that the boy was, indeed, being a pig and he is simply happy that 
his mom didn't notice that. In other words, he seems to be accepting his 
mother's judgment. It's almost impossible for me to look at a sentence 
and not mix in other lenses, but I think SFL would want us to look at 
this as a system of meanings, construing the experience in one of many 
possible ways.
   Is this an omniscient speaker? It amazes me that we don't ask that 
more often. Perspective is always involved. This is stated as factual 
all the way through. The boy's happiness,  the boy's being a pig, the 
mother's failure to see that--all are straightout factual. Those are 
observations about how the statement is grounded, my current interest 
out of cognitive grammar.

Craig

John Curran wrote:
>  
>
> The boy was very happy that his mother did not see him being such a pig. 
>
>  
>
> I have had no time to read the learned and voluminous observations on this
> but as a common classroom teacher I must contribute:
>
>  
>
> Swan (Practical English Usage) describes the above as a "that clause"
> modifying an adjective. (The conjunction "that" has little or no meaning).
>
>  
>
> Kolln & Funk (p. 259 6th.Edition) to paraphrase:  this clause is a
> complement completing the idea expressed by the adjective. Overall this is a
> pattern II sentence.
>
>  
>
> There appear to be many opinions but the Kolln & Funk explanation is the one
> I will use with my students.
>
>  
>
> Clarification from Martha please - "being such a pig" is this an object
> complement relevant to 'him'?
>
>  
>
> Can someone put this all in the form of a KR diagram? There must be a young
> whizz kid somewhere!
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Craig may I ask you - can you complete the analysis   from SFL perspective?
>
>  
>
> The boy      was              very  happy      that                his
> mother  did  not   see   him  being  such  a pig.
>
> Carrier       relational       Attribute           conj.
>
> Theme         process
>
>  
>
> John
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
>
>   

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/