Systemic Functional Grammar (Part 3 The

Experiential Metafunction)
Posted on May 30, 2011 by chiasuanchong

If the Interpersonal Metafunction showed the point of view of the speaker at the moment of
speaking through the Mood element, one could say that the Residue carried the content of that
message. And the content, in Hallidayan linguistics is categorised by different processes defined
by the main verb of the clause. Heres the 2nd Metafunction.
The Experiential Metafunction
Halliday (1976) originally purported that the experiential metafunction was one of the three main
metafunctions. He later includes it within the ideational metafunction (Halliday and Matthiessen,
2004), alongside the logical metafunction of relationships between clauses and clausecomplexing. Thompson (2004), however, sees the latter as a fourth metafunction. As clausecomplexing is beyond my scope, the focus will be on the experiential metafunction.
Also called Clause as Representation, the clause represents the content of our experiences,
answering the question Who does what to whom. This metafunction uses the grammatical
system of transitivity. Although sharing the traditional view of transitivity that the focus is on the
verb group (the Process), SFG refers to the system as describing the whole clause (Thompson,
2004) and does not use the labels subject, verb and object, seeing that verb is a word class,
while Subject is a functional term. Instead, different functional labels are given to Participants
(realised by nominal groups), Processes (realised by verbal groups) and Circumstances (realised
by prepositional phrases or adverbials signifying time, place or manner) of each process type.
Material process clauses refer to experiences of the external world and describe processes of
doing and happening, answering the question What did he/she do? or What happened? (Butt
et al, 2000). The distinction between participant types (Beneficiary, Goal, etc.) can alleviate
students confusion as to which can be turned into a prepositional phrase and shifted to the end to
be highlighted as newsworthy. Also, in the experiential metafunction, functional terms define the
roles the Participants play in the Process, and Goals or Beneficiaries can take Subject position.
Material Process
Chia
bought
some curry
yesterday.
Actor
Process: materialGoal
circumstance
Nominal groupVerbal group
Nominal groupAdverbial group
Material process with Beneficiary
Chia
Actor

bought
Paul
Process: materialBeneficiary

some curry
Goal

yesterday.
circumstance

Nominal groupVerbal group

Nominal GroupNominal groupAdverbial group

Material process with Beneficiary shifted to the end

Chia
bought
some curry
for Paul
yesterday.
Actor
Process: materialGoal
Beneficiary
circumstance
Nominal groupVerbal group
Nominal groupNominal GroupAdverbial group
Agentless passive structure with Beneficiary as Subject
Paul
was
bought some curry.
BeneficiaryProcess: materialGoal
Subject
Finite Predicator Nominal group
Agentless passive structure with Goal as Subject
Some currywas
bought for Charles.
Goal
Process: materialBeneficiary
Subject
Finite Predicator Nominal group
Relational process types serve to identify and characterize, and are further subdivided into
processes of being (intensive or circumstantial) and having (possessive). (Halliday and
Matthiessen, 2004). Attribution specifies the class the Carrier belongs to, while identification
narrows the class down to one.
Relational Process of intensive attribution
Emma
is
pretty.
Carrier
Process: Relational: intensive atrributionAttribute
Nominal groupVerbal group
Nominal group with adjective as Head.
Relational Process of intensive identification with Value as Subject
Emmais
the prettiest.
Value Process: Relational: intensive identificationToken
Relational Process of intensive identification with Token as Subject
Emmais
the leader.
Token Process: Relational: intensive identificationValue
In Emma is the prettiest one, Emma is the Value identified by the Token the prettiest one,
since Emma is represented by the prettiest one. However, in Emma is the leader, Emma
represents the leader and is now the Token, identified by the leader as the Value. Because of
this structural distinction, we cannot combine the two and say, Emma is the prettiest one and the
leader. (Halliday and Matthiessen, 2004)

Below, are more examples of attribution and identification within other types of relational
processes.
Relational Process of possessive attribution
Emma has
a Wii console .
CarrierProcess: Relational: possessive attributionAttribute
Relational Process of possessive identification
That Wii consoleis
Emmas.
Token/Possessed Process: Relational: possessive identificationValue/Possessor
Relational Process of circumstantial attribution
The deadlineis
on Tuesday.
Carrier
Process: Relational: circumstantial attributionAttribute
Relational Process of circumstantial identification
Tuesdayis
the deadline for the blogpost.
Token Process: Relational: circumstantial identificationValue
Serving to construe processes of sensing, happenings within our consciousness, mental processes
are subdivided into processes of emotion, perception, cognition, and desideration (ibid).
Mental process of emotion with nominal group as Phenomenon
David liked
the headphones.
SensorProcess: Mental: EmotionPhenomenon
Mental process of perception with embedded clause as Phenomenon
David saw
what happened.
SensorProcess: Mental: PerceptionPhenomenon
Mental process of cognition with projected clause
David knew
he was getting headphones for Christmas.
SensorProcess: Mental: CognitionProjected Clause
Mental process of cognition with projected clause
David hoped
that he would get headphones for Christmas.
SensorProcess: Mental: DesiderationProjected clause

Notice that in mental processes of emotion and perception, what is loved or hated, seen or heard,
is labelled Phenomenon, even when the fact is realised as an embedded clause. However, mental
processes of cognition and desideration often bring wishes and ideas into existence by projecting
a separate clause (Thompson, 2004).
Pairs such as like/please, which show a different direction in Sensor-Phenomenon
relationships, are often unaccounted for in traditional grammar, but commonly occur in cognitive
and emotive mental processes (ibid).
David liked
the headphones.
SensorProcess: Mental: EmotivePhenomenon
The headphonespleased
David
Phenomenon Process: Mental: EmotiveSensor
In David liked the headphones, David is the Sensor of this emotive mental process which is
denoted by the verb liked. The headphones is the Phenomenon which summarises what is
thought, perceived, or liked/disliked. Contrast that with The headphones pleased David, where
the Subject is now the Phenomenon, and the Sensor, which is the conscious being, fills the
interpersonal slot of Complement. The example below shows that realise is a like type verb,
while occur to is similar to please. (Halliday and Matthiessen, 2004)
David realised
the fact that he was wrong.
SensorProcess: Mental: CognitivePhenomenon
The fact that he was wrongoccurred to
David.
Phenomenon
Process: Mental: CognitiveSensor
Other process types
Between material and mental are behavioural processes, while existential processes are between
relational and material. Verbal processes share the ability of mental processes to project what is
said or thought in a separate clause. Some indirect-speech verbs, e.g. urge, force, which
take to-infinitives when projecting, and direct-speech verbs like whispered, sneered can
convey illocutionary force (Bloor and Bloor, 2004).
Behavioural process
Joe
sang the song.
BehaverProcess: Behavioural
Existential process
Therewas
a boy.
Process: ExistentialExistent
Verbal process projecting direct speech as separate clause

Alan said,
You should read.
Sayer Process: Verbal
Quoting
Quoted
ActorProcess: material
Verbal process projecting indirect speech as separate clause
Alan
said
you should read.
Sayer
Process: Verbal
Reporting
Reported
ActorProcess: material
Different process types have different tenses as their basic, unmarked, forms, e.g. while the
unmarked present tense for material processes is the present-in-present (the present progressive),
that for relational and mental processes is the present simple. Halliday and Matthiessen (2004)
criticise EFL syllabuses for over-simplifying the teaching of the present simple as habitual
behaviour without considering that this largely depends on process types. Another
oversimplification is the famous pedagogic rule that state verbs cannot take the progressive
tense. However, many verbs like have can be either states or actions, which can be confusing
for students. SFGs separation into different processes (have a shower is material, while have
a pen is possessive attributive), which are governed by different sets of rules, explains the
phenomenon to students more clearly, e.g. the present-in-present for relational and mental
processes implies a highly-marked narrowing of the present, which tends to signify temporality
e.g. I hate burgers but Im loving this one! (ibid).
Furthermore, different genres have the tendency of using certain process types more than others.
A written recipe contains material processes, while a chef on a cooking programme might use a
combination of material and relational processes (Thompson, 2004). Existential processes are
often used in narratives to introduce new characters or scenes. A good understanding of the
corresponding grammatical features of processes can help students use them in expressing their
experiences of the world in the appropriate register, and define the syllabuses for students
learning English for Specific Purposes (ESP) or Academic Purposes (EAP).