
Syntax

Definition of Syntax

Syntax is a branch of linguistics that studies the rules governing the way how words are combined to form
sentences and studies the formation of sentences.

Syntax and Grammar

Since sentence is usually regarded as the largest grammatical unit of a language, syntax has long been the
center of grammatical study.

Grammar:
phonology
morphology
syntax
semantics


Definition of Sentence
1.Traditional grammar:
Sentence is a sequence of words expressing a complete thought and is grammatically complete.
 2. Structuralism:
It is a structurally independent linguistic form. (a maximum free form)
 3.TG grammar: S=NP+VP

Types of sentences

Grammatical:

Declarative

Interrogative

Imperative

Exclamatory

Functional:

Statement

Question

Command

Request

Representative Approaches to Syntax

The Traditional Approach

The Structuralist Approach (Saussure, Bloomfield)

The Generative Approach (Chomsky)

The Functional Approach (Firth, Malinowski, Halliday)

1. The Traditional Approach
 Traditionally, a sentence is seen as a sequence of words.
 Sequence: sentence is in a linear structure.
 Words:
classification of words (parts of speech: )
n. v. adj. adv. prep. conj.
functions of words
subject, predicate, object, attribute, adverbial
E.g.
Everyone likes this lovely boy very much.

Categories 范畴

The term “category “is used for the defining properties of units ,e.g., parts of speech or functions.

The categories have subcategories(次范畴）:
 Nouns ----------number, gender and case
 Verbs---------tense, aspect and voice
 Sequence of words/syntactic relations: Concord and government

Verbs
 Tense: Deictic (indicating time relative to the time of utterance): (根据动词的变位形式）
past ：-ed
present: ～
future: will/shall+ ～; is going to + ～

Aspect: non-deictic (indicating time not relative to the time of utterance, but relative to the time of another
event described):
perfective (完成体）
imperfective or progressive (未完成体或进行体）

Concord and government（一致性与支配关系）

Concord and government are in terms of the sequence of words or syntactic relations:

Concord/agreement: the forms of two or more words in a syntactic relationship should agree with each other in
terms of categories such as number, gender, sub-pred. agreement.

Government: control over the forms of some words by other words in certain syntactic constructions .e.g.
Governor + the governed
v./prep. + pronoun (accusative case)

2. The Structural Approach
Ψ A. Ferdinand de Saussure :(-1913) the Swiss linguist
Father of modern linguistics
Founder of structural linguistics
Course in General Linguistics 《普通语言学教程》1916
marked the beginning of modern linguistics
Ψ B. Bloomfield: the American structuralist
IC analysis (a model of sentence analysis)
Language 《语言论》1933

Saussaure’ Linguistic Theory

Language is a system of signs.

Sign = Signifier + Signified

Saussaure’ Linguistic Theory

The value of a sign rely on its relation to other signs and its position in the system.

Saussure identified two principle types of relations:
Syntagmatic relations (linear structure)
Paradigmatic relations (vertical system)

The Syntagmatic relation

The Syntagmatic relation is the relation between one item and others in a sequence.

There are syntactic conditions and semantic conditions the words must meet.
-a The boy kicked the ball.
-b *Boy the ball kicked the.
-c *The ball kicked the boy.
Words in b and c violate syntactic rules.

The order of words is influenced by semantic consideration:
-a The boy chased the dog.
-b The dog chased the boy.

The paradigmatic relation

The paradigmatic relation (Associative) is a relation holding between elements replaceable with each other at a
particular place in structure, or between one element present and the others absent. E.g.
The ________ is smiling.
(animate singular nouns like boy,girl, man, woman…)

Such words are to be in a paradigmatic relation here, and they can substitute for each other without violating
syntactic rules.

In Saussure`s original theory, these two relations are applicable at every level of linguistic analysis.

At phonological level, the phoneme /p/ is in syntactic relation with the phonemes /i/and /t/; and it is in a
paradigmatic relation with /b/, /s/ or /h/, as they are capable of replacing /p/ in the context /it/ to form an
English word.

The sequence which a sign forms with those it is in a syntagmatic relation is sometimes called a STRUCTURE.

To use the word in a more restricted sense, and the class of signs which are in a paradigmatic relation are
sometimes called a SYSTEM.

The syngamatic relation is nowadays also referred to as HORIZONAL RELATION or chain relation.

And the paradigmatic relation is also known as the VERTICAL relation or CHOICE relation.

Examples

The boy chased
the dog

The man liked
the rabbit.

The girl
the monkey.

The boys kicked

….

NP
hated
…
V
the cat.
…
NP

Immediate Constituent Analysis
Cf.

The Traditional Approach: linear structure

The Structural Approach:
linear structure
hierarchical structure
Sentences are not only composed of sequences of words in a linear structure, they are also composed of hierarchies of
constructions. E.g.
The boy kicked the ball.

The words are not of the same degree of closeness to each other.

The relation between a sentence and its component elements, is referred to as the relation between a
CONSTRUCTION and its CONSTITUENTS

IC Analysis直接成分分析法

This notion( immediate constituent )was proposed by the American linguist Leonard Bloomfield (Language,
1933.)
 The Principle is binary cutting.
 IC analysis is the analysis of a sentence in terms of its immediate constituents — word groups or phrases, which
are in turn analyzed into the immediate constituents of their own , and the process goes on until the ultimate
constituents are reached (at the level of word)

The principle is that we take a construction ( e.g. sentence) and cut it into two and then cut these parts into two
and continue with this segmentation until we reach the smallest grammatical unit, the morphemes

Immediate constituent refers to the two parts that are yielded after each cut. An immediate constituent can be
further segmented until we obtain the smallest grammatical unit

Immediate constituent refers to the two parts that are yielded after each cut. An immediate constituent can be
further segmented until we obtain the smallest grammatical unit

Ultimate constituent is the smallest grammatical unit obtained through segmentation.

Example: Poor John ran away.
CONSTRUCTION A: sentence
CONSTRUCTION B: word group

CONSTRUCTION C: WORD

A word may be analyzed into its immediate constituents: morphemes.

e.g. Lovely
talked
A. Tree diagram 树形图

1. Poor John ran away.

B. Bracketing （括弧法）
(Poor John) (ran away)
(Poor John ((ran) (away))
((Poor) (John)) ((ran) (away))

The criterion as to where to make the cuts is substitutability.whether a sequence of words can be substituted
for a single word and the structure remains the same. In the case of Poor John ran away, Poor John can be
replaced by John; ran away can be replaced by ran in terms of structure. Both are about somebody doing
something.

Traditional grammar : (linear structure)
Poor John ran away.
Attr. Sub. Pred. Adverbial

IC analysis emphasizes the function of the intermediate level-----word group, seeing a hierarchical structure of
the sentence as well.

The advantages of IC Analysis

The advantages of IC is that the internal structure of a sentence may be demonstrated clearly, and ambiguities,
will be revealed.

e.g. my small child`s cot
my small cot for a child
my cot for a small child
the cot of my small child

My small child’s cot

Examples

1. The policeman saw the spy with binoculars.

2. The son of Pharaoh’s daughter is the daughter of Pharaoh’s son

The problems with IC

1.binary divisions. Any construction, at any level will be cut into two parts. But this is not always possible.

e.g. old men and women

old + men and women

old men + and women

old + men + and + old women

2. Constructions with discontinuous constituents will pose technical problems for tree diagrams.
E.g. Is John coming?
make it up

3. The most serious problem is that there are structural ambiguities which cannot be revealed by IC analysis

the love of God the love given by God
the love for God
the shooting of the hunters
Chomsky can solve the problems in the TG grammar

Two Types of Construction

1. Endocentric construction向心结构
There is a centre or head in the construction, also called headed construction. e. g.
Subordinate construction (with one head)
NP: the three small children
the book on the desk
VP: will have been doing
run away quickly
AP: really very beautiful
beautiful beyond description
Coordinate construction (with two or more heads)
boys and girls
coffee or tea
the city New York

2. Exocentric construction 离心结构
There is no centre or head in the construction. e.g.
PP: on the desk
Basic sentence: The girl smiled
Subordinate clause: if I like it,

3. The Generative Approach to Syntax

This particular type of linguistic theory originated with American linguist Norm Chomsky.

This theory has undergone a number of changes ever since its first appearance in 1957.

Developments of TG

1.The Classical Theory Syntactic Structure (1957)

2.The Standard Theory Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (1965)

3.The Extended Standard Theory （1972）

4.The Revised Extended Standard Theory （1979）

5.The Minimalist Program

Deep and Surface Structures

Deep Structure may be defined as the abstract representation of the syntactic properties of a construction, i.e.
the underlying level of structural relations between its different constituents.

Surface Structure is the final stage in the syntactic derivation of a construction, which closely corresponds to the
structural organization of a construction people actually produce and receive.

Examples (Phrase Structure Component)

Det: the, a , …

N: man. ball

V: hit, took, …

S

NP
+

Det
N

the
man

VP
V
NP
hit
Det
a
N
ball

The transformational component

The transformational component, has transformational rules, which change the deep structures generated by
the phrase structure component into surface structures.

Chomsky thought at that time that the sentences like the active and the passive, the declarative and the
interrogative, and the positive and the negative are each derived from the same deep structure.


The difference between them simply comes from the operation of relevant transformations. For example, the
operation of the passive transformational rule to a deep structure John will finish the paper tomorrow is
something like this:

NP1+ AUX +V+ NP2

JOHN+ WILL+ FINISH+ THE PAPER (TOMORROW)

NP2 + AUX + BE +EN + V + NP1

the paper+ will+ be+en+finish + by +John(tomorrow)

One surface structure may have different deep structures

E.g. the love of God

God loves somebody

Somebody loves God

John is easy to please

John is eager to please

Problems

Semantics is not involved, some unacceptable sentences may be generated.
S=NP+VP
e. g.
Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.
The ball kicked the boy.

1. Transformational rules are too powerful: an ordinary sentence can be transformed at will, such as negated,
passivized, with certain elements added or deleted without restrictions

2. The rules S=NP+VP may generate ill-formed sentences, such as
John drinks wine vs. Wine drinks John

3. Transformational rules for the passive voice cannot be used at will, for some verbs do not have passive
structures. Such as marry, take place, resemble

The Standard Theory

Chomsky In 1965 Aspects of the Theory of Syntax some modifications to his first model.

The most important of them is that at the suggestion of John Katz and others he added a semantic component
to it.
 Categories=phrase structure/rewriting rules
 Lexicon=feature specifications of each word
=subcategorization
Only when a word satisfies the feature specifications in a phrase structure rule can it be inserted. E. g.
NP+ drink (V.) + N
[+Animate]
[-Animate, +drinkable]


The BASE component and the transformational component together make up the syntactic component.

In other words, a language is now seen as consisting of three major parts: syntax, semantics and phonology.

The base component itself is divided into two sub-components: categories and lexicon.

The sub-component—categories, or category component, contains rewriting rules more or less the same at the
phrase structure rules in the first model.


One difference is that at the end of a derivation there are no longer rules inserting words directly as “N-man,
ball, etc.”, but rules with feature specifications for the words to be inserted like

N [+N, +Common, -Count, +Abstract],

V [+V,+---NP, +---that S’]”.


The features of each word are specified in the lexicon.

For example, nouns will be syntactically subcategorized as Common, + Common nouns as Count, +Count nouns
as Animate, -Common nouns also at Animate, +Animate nouns as Human, and –count nouns as Abstract, etc.

In other words, in addition to the general feature of + N, nouns may have the following derivation of features:


(i)
N [+N, +/- Common]

(ii)
[+Common] [+/- Count]

(iii)
[+Count] [+/- Animate]

(iv)
[-Common] [+/- Animate]

(v)
[+Animate] [+/- Human]

(vi)
[-Count] [+/- Abstract]

Thus the word boy will have the features of

[+N, +Common, +Count, +Animate, +Human].

some features are redundant.

Something which is [+Abstract] will be naturally [+Common] and [-Count], so sincerity may be simply specified as
[+N, +Abstract]. Similarly boy may be simply specified as [+N, + Common, +Human].


Verbs are subcategorized according to the context they occur in. For example,

elapse may be specified as [+V, +---#].

eat is specified as [+V, +---NP, +---#], meaning that it can occur with a noun phrase as its object, or without any
object.

grow is specified as [+V, +---NP, +---#, +---Adjective]

believe as [+V, +---NP, +--- that S’].


A more complete specification have to include the kind of subject a verb takes as well.

frighten may be specified as [+V, +---NP, +[+Abstract] Aux---Det [+Animate]…]

And only when a word satisfies the feature specifications in a phrase structure rule will it have the possibility of
being inserted.

In a sense we can say words of the same feature specifications are in a paradigmatic relation with each other,
they can occur in the same syntactic context.


Sub-categorization of this type is intended to ensure the generation of sentences like “Sincerity may frighten the
boy”, but not “The boy may frighten sincerity”;

A week elapsed, but not the boy elapsed; John believed that Bill will come, but not John elapsed that Bill will
come;

Improvements

1.Transformations only change the forms of sentences, do not alter meaning. (meaning is fixed in the deep
structure)

2. It rules out the generation of ill-formed sentences due to selection restrictions in the lexicon

Problems

1. The transformational rules are still too powerful for they can move or delete some linguistic segments or
change some categories:

E.g. 1) I give a book to him/I give him a book
2) I criticize him/my criticism of him
3) All the people respect him
/He is respected by all the people

Extended Standard Theory

Nevertheless, linguists began to find problems with it before long. One of them is the principle that
transformations do not change meaning.

Chomsky (1972) argued that this principle couldn’t be held with the passive transformation, for example.
1) I have been taught physics by Einstein.
2) Einstein has taught me physics

And there are other cases showing evidently that surface structure also has some bearing on semantic
interpretation. In the end the linguistic model has been extended as:

Problems

Which part of meaning is from the deep structure , and which part from the surface structure?

There were suggestions that if we introduce the notion trace, all the necessary information for semantic
interpretation may come from the surface structure.

Trace Theory

That is, after the movement of an element there will be a trace left in the original position. Look at the passive
transformation again. The passive Dams are built by beavers differs from the active Beavers built dams in
implying that beavers build all dams.


If we add a trace element represented by the letter t after built in the passive as Dams are built t by beavers,
then the deep structure information that the word dams was originally the object of built is also captured by the
surface structure.

In other words, the semantic component could rely entirely on the output of surface structure as follows:

Improvements

There is only one transformational rule “move” :
move～trace (移位留下语迹
e.g.
Tom killed the bird.
Tom killed what.
What did Tom kill t ?
What did Tom killed?


Trace theory proves to be not only theoretically significant but also empirically valid. Postal (1971) noticed an
interesting t phenomenon as exemplified by:

(a) Who said Mary kissed him?

(b) Who did he say Mary kissed?

The interrogative who may be co referential with him in (a) but not with he in (b).


On the evidence of this type, Postal suggested that there is a rule forbidding the interrogative to crossover a
pronoun with the same index when moving from one place to another.

Now that we have trace theory, this phenomenon can be better accounted for by resorting to a more general
notion of anaphoric reference.


That is, a pronoun will not be bound by its antecedent, i.e. not to be co referential with the4 letter, in the lowest
NP or S, but may be co referential with it in a larger structure; while a lexical NP like John is free, not bound,
everywhere. Compare (c) and (e), (d) and (f) respectively

(c)
who [ t said Mary Kissed him]

(d)
who [he said Mary kissed ]

(e)
John said Mary kissed him

(f)
He said Mary kissed John

Revised Extended Standard Theory
Government, building

In April 1979, Chomsky delivered a series of lectures in Pisa, Italy, which were revised later and published in
1981 under the title of Lectures on Government and Binding. A grammar is now said to have two systems: a
rule system and a principle system.

The rule system has four components: lexicon, syntax (categorical component and transformational
component), phonetic form component and logical form component, related with each other in the following
way:

In other words, lexicon is no longer part of syntax, though it is still part of the base component. Another thing to
note is that Chomsky has given up the terms of “deep structure” and “surface structure” for “D-structure” and
“S-structure” in that there may be different levels of deep structure and surface structure and D-structure and Sstructure are only two of them.


The transformational component now has only one rule – move a. That is, any element may by moved to
another place, or more generally changed in some way, as long as the relevant conditions are satisfied. And this
specific conditions, also know as principles, are specified in the principle system.

The system of principles includes (i) bounding theory, (ii) government theory, (iii) -theory, (iv) binding theory, (v)
case theory and (vi) control theory. In this section we shall concentrate on the two theories of GOVERNMENT
and BINDING, and mention and other, when relevant, only in passing.

Now recall the notion government in the traditional approach, where it refers to a type of control over the form
of some words by other words in certain syntactic constructions.

And we used gave him and to him as examples, in which gave and to are governors respectively and him is a
governed in both. The notion used in the generative approach is very similar to that.

The two examples are also instances of the generative government. The difference is that the latter is defined
more rigorously and covers a wider area of relations, not just over the form of words.

The Minimalist Program

Government

C-command

Domination

Sentence structure
IP =Specifier +Head +Complement

4. The Functional Approach

Though the generative approach has been very influential in the past 40 odd years, we cannot ignore another
important approach to the study of language: the functional approach. These two approaches, one formal,
represented by Chomsky nowadays, and the other functional, to be discussed below, has always been in
existence ever since the study of language began thousands of years ago.

4. The Functional Approach

Even in the heyday of transformational-generative grammar, there were eloquent voices from the functional
side.

Hu (1991) summarized the main functional schools at the present time.

In this section, however, we only have space to discuss two of them in some depth: the Prague school and
systemic-functional grammar

Functional sentence perspective

One of the main ideas of the Prague Linguistic Circle is that a sentence may be analyzed from the functional side
as well as the grammatical side. Vilem Mathesius, file-long chairman of the Circle, held that apart from the
analysis of a sentence in terms of subject and predicate from the formal point of view, there may also be a
functional analysis in terms of THEME and RHEME.

The original Czech words he used are vychodiste vypovedi (the basis, or the starting point, of the utterance) and
jadro vypooviedi (the nucleus, or the core, of the utterance). Sometimes he also used words like zaklad
(foundation), tema (theme) for the first term.

In his terminology, the first term refers to “that which is known or at least obvious in the given situation and
from which the speaker proceeds”, and the second “what the speaker states a out, or in regard to, the starting
point of the utterance” (Danes 1974).

Mathesius believed that the grammatical analysis and functional analysis are not the same and should be strictly
distinguished from each other. Grammatical subject and predicate may have evolved from the fixed manner of
expressing theme and rheme, but there is not longer any exact correspondence between them now.

(a) This letter was written by father.

(b) It was this letter that father wrote.

Mathesius maintained that it is natural for the speaker to start from the known to the unknown, and the themerheme order is the usual one in unemotional narration, which is called objective order.

In emotional narration, however, it may be possible to reverse the order, to put rheme before theme. And this is
a subjective order.

Another version of the same analysis is carried out in terms of COMMUNICATIVE DYNAMISM, CD for short,
which was first used by J. Firbas (1964), though the different degrees of the thematic and rhematic character of
sentence elements were even mentioned by Mathesius.


4.4 The Functional Approach

By CD Firbas means “the extent to which the sentence element contributes to the development of the
communication” (p. 270).

In his view, theme is constituted “by the sentence element (s) carrying the lowest degree (s) CD within the
sentence”, and “need not necessarily convey known or such as can be gathered from the verbal and situational
context” (p. 272).

Instead of a strict bipartition o f the information-bearing structure of the sentence, this analysis presents an
uneven distribution of CD over the sentence, assigning various degrees of thematicity, or rhematicity, to
different sentence elements.

4.4 The Functional Approach

4.4.2 Systemic-functional grammar

The British born Australian linguist Michael Alexander Kirkwood Halliday has developed this linguistic theory. As
the name suggests, it has two characteristics: systemic and functional.

The SYSTEMIC part comes directly from the fir5st linguistics chair in Britain John Rupert Firth. At the risk of
oversimplification, it means language elements form into systems. The use of language involves a network of
systems of choices. The items in a system are in a choice relation with each other.

4.4 The Functional Approach

As we mentioned in the section on the structural approach, this idea is related to one of the two relations
recognized by Saussure – paradigmatic relation, the other being Syntagmatic relation. It is characteristic of
Halliday’s theory that more attention is paid to paradigmatic relations than to Syntagmatic relations, which is
the main concern of Chyomsky.

From Bronislaw Malinowski, Halliday has inherited the idea that language is a social phenomenon, and
emphasizes the study of language in relation to the functions it performs.

4.4 The Functional Approach

As an anthropologist Malinowski attached great importance to the social function of language.

In his opinion, “Language, in its primitive function, [is] to be regarded as a mode of action, rather than as a
cou8ntersign of though” (1923: 296).

4.4 The Functional Approach

Language originally “was never used as a mere mirror of reflected thought”, which “ is a very far-fetched and
derivative function of language”. “In its primitive uses, language functions as a link in concerted human activity,
as a piece of human behavior. It is a mode of action and not an instrument of reflection” (ibid.: 313).

Halliday also observed that the German psychologist Karl Buhler had a tripartite classification of language
functions: representative, concerning the content communicated; expressive, relating to the psychological or
moral attitude of the speaker; and appellative (vocative), relating to the influence of language on the hearer.

4.4 The Functional Approach

And Roman Jacobson, the Russian born linguist, an important member of the Prague school, bu9ilt a six-function
classification on the basis of B (hler. He renamed Buhler’s first “referential”, second “emotive”, third “co native”,
and added three others: metalinguistc, used to talk about language itself; poetic; relating to the artistic or
creative use of language in general; and phatic, borrowed from Malinowski for the function to e4stablish and
maintain social relations.

4.4 The Functional Approach

What is new in Halliday is that he has tried to related the functions of language to its structures. He argues that
there are three general functions of language: ide4ational (which is subdivided into experiential and logical),
interpersonal and textual.

And they are related to three grammatical systems: transitivity, mood and theme. In his words, “Language
serves for the expression of ‘content’: that is, of the speaker’s experience of the real world, including the inner
world of his own consciousness.

4.4 The Functional Approach

We may call this the ideational function”. “Language serves to establish and maintain social relations: for the
expression of social roles, which included the communication roles created by language itself—for example the
roles of questioner or respondent, which we take on by asking or answering a question; and also for getting
things done, by means of the interaction between one person and another.

4.4 The Functional Approach

Through this function, which we may refer to as interpersonal, social groups are delimited, and the individual is
n identified and reinforced, since by enabling him to interact with others language also serves in the expression
and development of his own personality.” “Finally, language has to provide for making links with itself and with
features of the sit6uation in which it is used.

4.4 The Functional Approach

We may call this the textual function, since this is what enables the speaker or wr5iter to construct ‘texts’, or
connected passages of discourse that is situation ally relevant; and enables the listener or reader to distinguish a
text from random set of sentence4s” (1970 143).

Along the line of 19th century linguists, Halliday states in the same article that The subject, in its traditional
sense, is […] a complex of four distinct functions, three in t5he structure of the clause

4.4 The Functional Approach

When writing An Introduction to Functional Grammar in 1985, Halliday changed his view a little bit. He argues
that the so-called psychological subject, grammatical subject and logical subject “have to be interpreted as what
they really are—three separate and distinct functions.

There is no such thing as a general concept of ‘Subject’ of which these are different varieties. They are not three
kinds of anything; they are three quite different things” (1994 [1985]: 32).

And he propose3s to replace the earlier labels by separate ones which related more specifically to the functions
concerned, namely: Theme, Subject and Actor.

4.4 The Functional Approach

In his view “sentence” is more a unit in writing, and he prefers to use the term “clause” as a basic unit of
structure. Consequently, Theme is defined as a function in the clause as a message together with Rhome, and
the grammatical structure they constitute is called thematic. “The Theme is the element which serves as the
point of departure of the message; it is that with which the clause is concerned. The remainder of the message,
the part in which the Theme is developed, is called in Prague school terminology the Rhome” (ibid.: 37).

4.4 The Functional Approach

Subject is a function of the mood system, together with the finite verbal operator, in the clause as an exchange,
while the rest of the clause is known as Residue.

It is an element expressing the mood of a clause in the senses of the indicative, the imperative, and within the
Subject plus Finite realizes the feature indicative and the absence the imperative.

Within the indicative, the order of Subject and Finite is significant: the order of Subject before finite realizes the
declarative, the order of Finite before Subject realizes the yes / no interrogative, and in a WH-interrogative the
order is Subject before Finite when the WH element is the Subject, otherwise Finite before Subject.

4.4 The Functional Approach

Actor is a function in the clause as a representation, both the representations of outer experience and inner
experience. Our most powerful impression of experience is that it consists of “goings on”, or technically
“processes”.

Halliday recognizes six processes; material, mental, relational, behavioral, verbal and existential. The first three
are the major ones, and the latter three minor.

The MATERIAL process, also known as a process of doing, is concerned with the representation of outer
experience.


4.4 The Functional Approach

And Actor, as a representative of the function in this system comparable to Theme and Subject in the other two,
is in fact only one of the important participants in this process.

The MENTAL process, also known as a process of sensing, is concerned with the representation of inner
experience.

4.4 The Functional Approach

The RELATIONAL process, also known as a proce3ss of being, is concerned with the relation between one
experience and another the BEHAVIOURAL process is particularly concerned with phy7siological and
psychological behavior, like breathing, smiling, dreaming.

The VERBAL process may also be calle4d a process of saying in the broad sense, and covers any kinds of symbolic
exchange of meaning. And the last5 process, the EXISTENTIAL, is a representation of some3thing in existence or
happening. These six process form a circle as follows (Halliday 1994 [1985]: 108)
