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/
|