Derman 22

Licenciatura en Lengua y Literatura Inglesas - UCEL

Written Assignment n 3 Natalia Soledad Derman

M.A., M.Phil. Silvia Rivero

Lingstica 2November 19, 2010

The Language of Loneliness: a Functional Analysis of a Poem by Henry NormalIntroduction

The aim of this paper is to analyze Henry Normals poem The House Is Not the Same Since You Left in terms of M.A.K. Hallidays An Introduction to Functional Grammar (1994) and Halliday and Hasans Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective (1989). More specifically, the analysis of the poem will be based on Halliday-Hasans notion of context of situation and its features field, tenor and mode; Hallidays macrofunctions of language, namely the experiential, interpersonal and textual functions, and their linguistic realization into different structures that will be scrutinized, namely transitivity, mood system, theme/rheme progression, cohesion and coherence. Emile Benvenistes De la Subjetividad del Lenguaje and La Naturaleza de los Pronombres in Problemas de Lingstica General will also contribute to this analysis. The analysis mentioned above will be intended to sustain the hypothesis that this poem is a clear example of how semantics and grammar interact creating a unified whole. Theoretical background In defining their model from a social-semiotic perspective, Halliday and Hasan suggest that language is reflective of our construction and organization of reality and experience, and it is through the use of language that meaning is constructed. Notably important is the connection between the terms social-semiotic and use because of the models primacy given to the building up of meaning and because of their interest in any functional stretch of language, either written or oral (Halliday-Hasan, 1989 : iii-v).

Halliday and Hassans approach, which aims at determining the function of language and of its constituents in a given context, emphasizes the notion of system, both systems of meaning and social systems. While systems of meaning refer to the semiotic aspect in the sense that language as a system of signs constitutes networks of relationships, social systems are referred to as synonymous with culture. Hence, their social-semiotic perspective consists in [relating] language primarily to one particular aspect of human experience, namely that of social structure. This is why they consider that context and text [...] are aspects of the same process (Halliday-Hasan, 1989 : 4-5).

In their definition of context, they explore Malinowskys theory where he defines context of situation as the environment of the text. However, as Halliday and Hasan comment, Malinowsky saw the need for furthering this notion and he later considered the important role played by cultural background and history, so he later on introduced the two notions that he called the context of situation and the context of culture, both necessary in order to understand a text (Halliday-Hasan, 1989 : 6-7). Halliday and Hasan extend from Malinowskys notions their definition of the three concepts that serve to interpret the social context of a text, the environment in which meanings are being exchanged (Halliday-Hasan, 1989 : 8). They propose a framework in which interpretation of a given text also depends on the interpretation of the context of situation.

From their perspective, a context of situation is understood by means of the following three features:

field of discourse refers to the nature of the social action that is taking place, generally identified with the questions What is happening? and it is connected to the domain of experience the message is about tenor of discourse makes reference to the participants in the specific exchange and their relationship; it is possible to identify tenor with the question Who are taking part? It accounts for status, social distance and proximity, turn-taking, personalization.

mode of discourse is the symbolic organization of the text, which takes into consideration the channel of communication, i.e. written, oral, written meant to be read aloud, written to be filed, etc. It accounts for interactivity and spontaneity and moves along the spoken/written continuum. (Halliday-Hssan, 1989 : 12).

These three features are relevant for the understanding of a text and their importance lies in the fact that a text for Halliday and Hasan is determined by its wholeness. As they pointed out, a text is essentially a semantic unit that takes place inserted in a given context of situation. Whether written or spoken, a text is any authentic stretch of language in use, and because of its nature, a text is considered both a process and a product. It is a process when taking into consideration semantic choices and building up of the message, and a product as an instance of language use, the linguistic realization of the choices (Halliday-Hasan, 1989 : 10).

A text is considered the place where language and its functions interact with the context of situation. The different functions a text fulfils is one of the key points in Hallidays framework. According to him, meaning is derived from language forms, i.e., there exists a natural connection between grammar and semantics (Halliday, 1994 : xix). Meaning is considered a threefold unity where different viewpoints of a clause interact. A clause can be seen as representation, as exchange and as message. These kinds of meaning run throughout the whole of language (Halliday, 1994 : 35). As a consequence, whenever we make use of language, our linguistic choices fulfil a purpose or function. Halliday distinguishes three main language functions: the ideational function expresses cognitive meaning or propositional content; language is seen as giving structure to experience allowing us to make sense of it and determining our standpoint. the interpersonal function accounts for the way in which we use language to establish or maintain social relations, how social agents interact and how subjectivity is formed. the textual function expresses discoursal meaning and it account for text-internal connections that allow us to interpret a text as a whole and not as a collection of individual unities. These three functions are reflected in linguistic choices and therefore in clause structure. In order to determine which function is at play, it is necessary to analyse those linguistic choices from the different viewpoints mentioned above. In describing a clause from the experiential point of view, i.e., when considering the clause as representation, Halliday explains it is possible to understand patterns of experience and hence discover through which processes reality is made up (Halliday, 1994 : 106). Through the analysis of transitivity, we identify three roles: process, participant and circumstance. Broadly speaking, they correspond to the three major words or word groups found in most languages, namely verbs, nouns and adverbs. From the analysis of verbs and verb groups different process types emerge: material, mental, relational, behavioural, existential and verbal. Material processes are processes of doing (Halliday, 1994 : 110), they involve a doer and a done-to; they imply action, change and creation. Mental processes are those of sensing; there is a human participant that makes use of the senses; these processes imply feeling, thoughts and perception. Relational processes are described as those of being (Halliday, 1994 : 119); they are connected to attributes, identity and symbols. Behavioural processes are those considered to be almost exclusively for human beings since they represent psychological and physiological behaviour (Halliday, 1994 : 139). Existential, not to be confused with relational processes, relate to those instances when something exists or happens. Finally, verbal processes do not necessarily imply the presence of a human being, but rather a sayer and a receiver of a message or a reported item (Halliday, 1994 : 140-141).

The study of transitivity, as will be shown, provides insight into how we build and make sense of reality. In the case of the poem The House Is Not the Same Since You Left transitivity will show how the addresser emphasizes one of these processes, which means that that is the way he perceives reality.

If we consider the clause as exchange with the aim of analysing its interpersonal function, the grammatical system of mood is to be considered. As Halliday suggests, mood consists of two elements: a subject, which is realised by means of a nominal group, and a finite operator, which is realised into a verbal group which expresses tense or modality. In this aspect we see language used for the expression of social roles and social relations. What is also taken into account is the speech role the speaker adopts and what speech function is at play in the act of exchanging information. These functions are four: offer, command, statement and question (Halliday, 1994 : 68-69). As far as social roles are concerned, the analysis will also account for the construction subjectivity. As Benveniste describes it in De La Subjetividad en el Lenguaje (1958) an individual can only constitute his ego through language where the ego appears necessarily and inevitably in opposition to a you. Both I and you are empty forms that define the subject only when discourse takes place, i.e., when a locutor makes use of language and relates with the interlocutor the I and the you are defined, the empty forms are filled and the referents became unique in the act of enunciation (Benveniste, 1958 : 180-184). In La Naturaleza de los Pronombres (1956), Benveniste also explores the construction of subjectivity through discourse and suggests that there is constant reference to I and you, which we call subject correlation, in the form of pronouns, verbal inflections, possessive adjectives, possessive pronouns, object pronouns. There are other indicators that contribute to subjectivity, such as temporal and spatial deictic references and modality.

In this same essay, Benveniste draws the difference between subjective or personal instances of language, which refer to the I and you, and the objective ones, which are dominated by the third person. They receive the name of objective because they always have a reference regardless the act of enunciation. Benveniste concludes that the third person is actually a non-person which is not essential for the construction con subjectivity but is rather considered a substitute (Benveniste, 1956 : 176-177). All these categories will contribute to the analysis of the poem since they will provide insight into the construction of subjectivity, social roles and how the system of mood in this poem points to a specific kind of subject. In considering the clause as message, i.e., the textual function, the aim is to discover what are the elements that contribute to the unity of a piece. A text has no specified length, but rather, what determines the nature of a text is the kind of relations that contribute to the unity of meaning. The source of this unity is called texture and it is constituted by means of certain kinds of relations. In other words, texture deals with the total unity of a text, which is provided by means of relations between its components. The meaning relation between the elements is referred to as cohesive tie and it implies the presence of at least two elements. The linguistic, lexico-grammatical realization of such tie is referred to as cohesive chain, made up by cohesive devices (Hasan, 1989 : 71).

There exist three types of cohesive ties. One of them is called co-referentiality and it is connected to situational identity. Another one is named co-classification and it refers to those elements that belong to an identical class. The other one is called co-extension and it refers to the relationship of elements of the same semantic field that bear general resemblance. Cohesive devices linguistically show that different kinds of semantic relationships or cohesive ties are at work.

Co-referentialiaty is realised by means of noun phrases, pronominals, the definite article and demonstratives (Halliday-Hasan, 1989 : 74). Co-extension is realised by means of sense relations of three kinds: synonymy, when the experiential meaning of the two lexical items is identical, antonymy, described as oppositness of experiential meaning, and hyponymy, when a general super-ordinate term relates to a series of co-hyponyms. Hasan adds meronymy and repetition to co-extension chains; meronymy because it refers to a part-whole relation and thus creates a sense relation, and repetition because the lexical unit creates a similar experiential meaning (Halliday-Hasan, 1989 : 80-81). Finally, co-classification ties are realised by means of relations of substitution and ellipsis. All of these cohesive devices are the explicit realization of implicit meaning relations that underlie a text and hence are constitutive of texture (Halliday-Hasan, 1989 : 75).

Another important aspect of texture is thematic structure. As Halliday pointed out, by analysing the thematic structure of a text clause by clause, we can gain insight into its texture (Halliday, 1994 : 67). By thematic structure it is meant the various structures that make up a clause, which in its progression receives the character of a message. (Halliday, 1994 : 37). Any message is made up by a starting point, the theme, which organises the clause as a message (Halliday, 1994 : 38) and a rheme, the part in which theme is developed (Halliday, 1994 : 37).

There are three different kinds of themes: textual theme, experiential theme and interpersonal theme (Halliday, 1994 : 54). The first one is identified by conjunctives, continuatives and adjuncts; the second one is identified by topical themes representing participant, circumstance or process in the clause; and the third one is identified by the vocative, a modal adjunct, a finite element or a WH- interrogative. It is often common to find these themes in combination. As Halliday mentioned, multiple themes are regularly found in most types of discourse (Halliday, 1994 : 54).

The analysis of the poem in terms of theme/rheme progression will contribute to the understanding of the general theme of the poem, and the analysis of the poem in terms of texture will determine up to which extent this text constitutes a coherent unit.

After this brief description of Hallidays functional framework and its interaction with Hasans notions of texture, the following summary serves the purpose of integrating concepts into a meaningful analysis of a text, and it also delineates the way in which this paper will develop: TEXT

Section in this analysis

Fulfils this functionDepicts this feature of the context of situationRealised as clause from this viewpointLinguistic features to be analysed

1Ideational Function

Field of DiscourseClause as Representationtransitivity

2Interpersonal Function

Tenor of DiscourseClause as Exchangemood

3Textual Function

Mode of DiscourseClause as Messagetheme/theme structure

and cohesive ties

Analysis The analysis of the poem (Appendix 1) will be divided into different sections in order to identify and scrutinize as many constituents as possible. The aim of the detailed analysis is to connect grammar and semantics and therefore discover the underlying meanings of the poem. The following are the three different integrated sections: Section 1

This poem reads a lonely widower addressing his dead wife commenting on how his life in the house they used to share has changed since she died. However, the stress is placed upon the state of the objects of the house, as if those objects had acquired life. Interestingly enough, the analysis of this poem in terms of transitivity (Appendix 2) shows that it is the objects the ones that perform most of the action.

Out of the 41 processes identified in the poem, only 5 are performed by a human entity, 4 of which are mental and 1 is verbal. This implies that loneliness has overwhelmed the widower to such an extent that he cannot act, just think. From the total of processes analyzed, the following results were obtained:

Type of ProcessNumberPercentage

Material1024%

Behavioural37%

Mental1537%

Verbal410%

Relational820%

Existential12%

Another interpretation that springs from this analysis of transitivity is that loneliness has drawn the widower into himself, he does not relate with anyone, he lacks the will to act and spends his time absorbed in thoughts.

Section 2

The poem may be considered a piece of interaction in which the widower addresses his dead wife. There is a clear reference in the text, you, although it is clear that there is no interaction per se. However, this personal form, together with the ones connected to the ego, contributes to the construction of subjectivity. Taking into consideration Benvenistes notion of subject correlation is one key point to be taken into account, and it is realized in this text into the following linguistic features (Appendix 1):

I: objective pronoun me on lines 2, 9, 11 and 23; and the personal pronoun I on lines 4, 10, 13, 16 and 23.

YOU: personal pronoun you on lines 1, 12, 14, 15, 17 and 19, and the possessive adjective your on line 10.

3rd person ( minus person): the house (line 1), the cooker (line 2), the TV (line 3), the washing up (line 4), nothing in the house (line 9), the kettle (line 11), the bathroom (line 15), the bedroom (line 18), the pillows (line 23), the sheets (line 24); personal pronoun it (lines 2, 6, 16, 17, 19 and 22), possessive adjective its (lines 12 and 19) and the reflexive pronoun itself (lines 5 and 21). Even though there are discoursive instances that account for the construction of the ego, such as the locutor (I) addressing his dead wife (you), the third person or non-person has been personified to achieve an aesthetic function. The fact that there is a predominance of 3rd person references is interesting for the analysis. Even though they are linguistically regarded as non-person, they receive a central role in this text, which seems to be paradoxical. However, the fact that they are recurrent and focalized makes them the theme of the poem.

The whole poem is a declaration of loneliness where the widower projects his own feelings onto the household objects making them acquire the human attributes that he has abandoned. The centrality of these household objects is evident the system of mood (see Appendix 3). Out of 23 clauses, a total of 13 subjects refer to household objects while only 3 refer to the widower himself. Once again, it is interpreted that the main focus is placed upon the objects in the house and not on the widower. Section 3

In terms of mode, this is a written poem, part of a collection of poems called A Map of Heaven (1995) by the same author. According to critics, Normals work presents a witty, wry and ironic look at the trials and tribulations of love, life, and most inbetween (www.obsolete.com). The House is Not the same Since You Left is the last poem in the collection, which emphasizes the idea of end or death. This poem is written in a conversational tone; as stated above it seems to be a widowers conversation with his wife, only that she is dead, making it a one-way monologue-like conversation. The main theme of the poem is the state of the house since the wife died, and this is shown in the thematic organization (Appendix 4). The result of the analysis shows 16 topical themes that refer to household objects, and their rhemes refer to their present state of their late activities inside the house. Theme/rheme structure, as it can be seen, contributes to the unity of the text and is coherent with the theme of the whole poem. The poem is a coherent unit because of its cohesive ties as well. The different cohesive or semantic relations present in this text are: Co-referentialiaty: a) through the use of the definite article on lines 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 11, 13, 15, 18, 23 and 24 refers to the identity of the objects inside the house. The fact that house receives the definite article from the beginning, implies shared knowledge between addresser (the widower) and addressee (the dead wife), which in this case it refers to the shared house. b) through the recurrent use of personal pronouns: the cooker and it (line 2), the TV (line 3) and it (line 4), the washing-up (line 5) and it (line 6), the plants (line 13) and they (line 14), the bathroom (line 15) and it (line 16 and 17), the bedroom (line 18) and it (lines 19 and 20).

c) through the use of possessive adjectives: you (line 1) and your (line 10), the kettle (line 11) and its (line12), the bedroom (line 18) and its (line 19) Co-extension: a) through relations of hyponymy: house in the title and on lines 1

and 9 is the superordinate term, for which bathroom (line 15) and bedroom (line 18) are co-hyponyms since they are rooms

included in the house. Kitchen and laundry room are implied. b) through relations of meronymy: there are several instances, for example kitchen (implied) because of the parts of that room: cooker (line 2) and kettle (line 12); laundry room (implied) in the noun washing-up (line 5); the explicit bedroom (line 18) and its parts pillows (line 23) and sheets (line 24); also the action sleep (line 20) and the noun dreams (line 21) connected to bedroom. Other meronyms are TV (line 3), window (line 4), curtains (line 8), armchair (line 10), plants (line 13) as parts of the house. Conclusion

The functional analysis of the text has shed light into the underlying meanings of the poem. It has been possible to match semantics (meaning) to grammar (structures) and reach the conclusion that language clearly reflects the addressers feelings. The interesting point in this apparent conversation is that household objects take a central role through personification, and that the construction of subjectivity through language leads to a deeper interpretation of the widowers state of mind. If the ego is constructed in a specific act of enunciation relating/opposing itself to a you, the physical absence of you (the dead wife) inevitably implies that the ego (the widower) is also non-existent. What is left are the household objects, which, in representing the 3rd person, are absolute in their reference and substitutes. Through the processes attributed to these objects they are elevated from the category of non-person to that of substitutes of the widower who has himself become devoid of life after his wifes death. Appendix 1 The House Is Not the Same since You Left

1 The house is not the same since you left.

2 The cooker is angry - it blames me3 The TV tries desperately to stay busy4 but occasionally I catch it staring out the window5 The washing-up's feeling sorry for itself again6 it just sits there saying7 "What's the point, what's the point?"8 The curtains count the days9 Nothing in the house will talk to me10 I think your armchair's dead11 The kettle tried to comfort me at first12 but you know what it's attention span is like13 I've not told the plants yet14 They think you're still on holiday15 The bathroom misses you16 I hardly see it these days17 It still can't believe you didn't take it with you18 The bedroom won't even look at me19 since you left it keeps its eyes closed.20 All it wants to do is sleep, remembering better times21 trying to loose itself in dreams22 it seems like it's taken the easy way out23 but at night I hear the pillows 24 weeping into the sheets.Appendix 2: Transitivity Processes and Participants

The house is not the same sinceYouleft.

Participant: carrierProcess: relational (intensive)attributeConjunctionParticipant: actorProcess: material

Circumstance: temporal

The cookerIsangry

Participant: carrierProcess: relational (intensive)Attribute

ItBlamesme

Participant: sayerProcess: verbalTarget

The TVTriesdesperately to stay

busy

Participant: actorProcess: materialCircumstance: mannerProcess: materialCircumstance: manner

goal

In both these processes, the choice of material lies in the fact that trying implies action, in the same way staying busy does. From my point of view this is possible since there exist material processes that do not necessarily imply a second participant (Halliday, 1994 :109).ButOccasionallyI CatchItstaring

out the window

Conjunction contrastCircumstanceParticipant: senserProcess: mental (perception)Participant: senserProcess: mental Circumstance (spatial)

Phenomenon

Catch has been classified as mental process , since it comes to represent an act of perception. The washing-up's feelingsorry for itself again

Participant. SenserProcess: mental (feeling)Phenomenon

Itjust sitstheresaying

Participant: existent Process: existentialCircumstance: placeProcess: verbal

What'sthe point?

SubjectProcess: relationalComplement

Quoted

What'sthe point?

SubjectProcess: relationalComplement

Quoted

The curtainscountthe days

Participant: senserProcess: mental (cognition)Phenomenon

Nothing in the housewill talkto me.

Participant: sayerProcess: verbalGoal

IThinkyour armchair'sdead.

Participant: senserProcess: mental (cognition)Participant: carrierProcess: relational (intensive)attribute

Phenomenon

The kettleTriedto comfortmeat first

Participant: actorProcess: materialProcess: materialGoalCircumstance

Goal

Once again, the process try has been classified as material process because it implies an actorButYouknowwhat its attention spanis like

Conjunction contrastParticipant: senserProcess: mental (cognition)Participant: carrierProcess: relationalAttribute

Phenomenon

I've not toldthe plants

yet

Participant: sayerProcess: verbaltargetCircumstance: temporal

Theythinkyou'restill on holiday

Participant: senserProcess: mental (cognition)Participant: carrierProcess: relationalCircumstance: temporal

Phenomenon

The bathroommissesyou

Participant. SenserProcess: mental (feeling)Phenomenon

Ihardlyseeitthese days

Participant: senserCircumstance: temporalProcess: mental (seeing)Phenomenon Circumstance: temporal

Itstillcan't believeyoudidn't takeit

with you

Participant: senserCircumstance: temporalProcess: mental (cognition)Participant: actorProcess: materialgoalcircumstance

Phenomenon

The bedroomwon't even look atme

Participant: senserProcess: mental (seeing)Phenomenon

sinceyouleftItkeepsits eyes closed

Participant: actorProcess: materialParticipant: behaver Process: behaviouralMatter

Circumstance: temporal

allitwants to doIssleep,

complementParticipant: senserProcess: mentalProcess: materialProcess: relationalProcess: behavioural (attribute)

Carrier

rememberingbetter times

Process: metal (cognition)Phenomenon

tryingto loseitselfin dreams

Process: materialProcess: material goalCircumstance: spatial

Goal

The process try has been classified once more as material process because it implies an actor and effort, action. In the same way, lose implies the act of disappearing, therefore change of state.

itseemslikeIt's takenthe easy way out

Participant: carrierProcess: relational (intensive)ComparativeParticipant: actorProcess: materialgoal

Attribute

butat nightIhearthe pillows

weepinginto the sheets

conjunct-ionCircumstance: temporalParticipant: senserProcess: mental (feeling)Participant: behaverProcess: behavioural Circumstance (place)

Phenomenon

Appendix 3 Mood and ModalityEnunciation Modality MoodResidue

SubjectFinite

DeclarativeThe house(present) isnot the same since you left.(polarity)

DeclarativeThe cooker(present) isangry

DeclarativeIt(present) blamesme

DeclarativeThe TV(present) triesdesperately to stay busy

DeclarativeI(present) catchit staring out the window.

DeclarativeThe washing up(present) is feeling sorry for itself again.

DeclarativeIt(present) sitsthere saying

Interrogative What(present) is the point?

DeclarativeThe curtains(present) countthe days

DeclarativeNothing in the house(present behaviour) will talk to me

DeclarativeI(present) thinkyour armchair is dead

DeclarativeThe kettle(past) triedto comfort me at first,

DeclarativeYou (present) knowwhat its attention span is like.

DeclarativeI(present) ve not told the pants yet

(polarity)

DeclarativeThey (present) (still)* think youre on holiday.

DeclarativeThe bathroom(present) missesyou.

DeclarativeI(present) (hardly)* see it these days.

DeclarativeIt (present) (still)* cant believe you did not take it with you.

DeclarativeThe bedroom(present behaviour) wont even look at me

Declarative(Since you left)* it(present) keepsits eyes closed

DeclarativeAll it wants to do(present) issleep, remembering better times, trying to lose itself in dreams.

DeclarativeIt(present) seemsits taken the easy way out.

Declarative(But at night)* I(present) hearthe pillows weeping into the sheets.

Adverbials (*) are part of the residue but their position in the clause has been respected in this chart.Appendix 4 Theme/Rheme structureTheme kindRheme

The house (topical)is not the same since you left.

The cooker (topical) is angry.

it (topical)blames me

The TV (topical)tries desperately to stay busy.

But (textual)occasionally I catch it staring out of the window.

(topical theme)1

The washing up (topical)s feeling sorry for itself again.

It (topical)just sits there saying

What (interpersonal)is the point?

What (interpersonal)is the point?

The curtains (topical)count the days.

Nothing in the house (topical)will talk to me.

I (topical)think your armchair is dead.

(topical theme)*

The kettle (topical)tried to comfort me at first.

But (textual)you know what it attention span is like.

I (topical)ve not told the plant yet.

They (topical)still think you are on holiday.

(topical theme)*

The bathroom (topical)misses you.

I (topical)hardly see it these days.

It (topical)still cant believe you didnt take it with you.

(topical theme)*

The bedroom (topical)wont even look at me.

Since you left (textual)it keeps its eyes closed.

(topical theme)1

All it wants to do (topical)is sleep, remembering better times, trying to lose itself in dreams,

It (topical) seems its taken the easy way out.

(topical theme)*

But (textual)at night I hear the pillows weeping into the sheets.

(topical theme)*

* Analysis of embedded clauses; my underlining. 1 Analysis of main clauses.

Bibliography

Benveniste, E. Problemas de Lingustica General Tomos I y II. Mexico, XXI Editores, 10th Ed., 1977. Halliday, M. and Hasan, R. Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1989.

Halliday, M. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. New York, Oxford University Press Inc., 1994. www.wikipedia.com and www.obsolete.com for information about Henry Normal, accessed on October 31, 2010.