To this point, the transitivity selection reveals a great deal regarding how Nat draws on linguistic choices to meet the rhetorical purpose of argumentation. This section will point out some salient findings from the transitivity analysis.
5.1.2.1 Processes and Participants
Table 5-6 displays the proportion of process types used in 113 total instances of processes in Nat’s argumentative essay. As the behavioural process type is not employed in this essay, it is not shown in Table 5-6. After that Figure 5-1 displays the overall proportion by means of a pie chart:
114
Table 5-6: The percentage of each process type in Nat’s essay
stage No. Process Types
material mental verbal relational ex
int circ poss
Thesis 16 18.75% 6.25% 12.50% 37.50% 12.50% 6.25% 6.25% Argument 1 21 38.10% 4.76% 9.52% 28.58% 9.52% 9.52% 0.00% Argument 2 29 41.38% 10.34% 6.90% 31.03% 3.45% 6.90% 0.00% Argument 3 35 42.86% 2.86% 2.86% 22.85% 11.43% 17.14% 0.00% Conclusion 12 33.33% 0.00% 8.34% 16.66% 33.33% 8.34% 0.00% Total no. of instances 113 37.17% 5.31% 7.08% 27.43% 11.50% 10.62% 0.89%
Figure 5-1: The overall proportion of process types in Nat’s essay
As seen in Table 5-6, the Thesis stage is the only stage where the relational, intensive process is employed as the majority process type. As part of the background information, the relational intensive clauses define the key terms (“socio-economic factors” and “success in life”); whereas, as part of the preview, they scope the direction of discussion (i.e. The purpose of this essay is…; The factors are…). The second majority type is the material process, which is used, for example, to draw the reader’s attention to the need for adaptation during economic crisis. Only in this stage does the existential process appear to acknowledge various definitions (i.e. there are many characteristics to define success in life).
115
In all Argument stages, the majority process type is the material process while the relational intensive process type comes second. Some of the material processes are physical, but many more are causal and abstract. At the same time, the patterning employed throughout all Argument stages is quite consistent. Each hyperClaim states the significance of a particular socio-economic factor towards success in life by assigning education, health and family income the role of non-human Actor. Humans, on the other hand, turn out to be Beneficiary (e.g. Education… allows people to gain knowledge and skills…; Health… helps people work effectively; Family income… can give children more affordable opportunities…).
Then, to describe the outcome of having education, health and family income, the support phases of the text work mainly through material clauses. These material processes are employed both to show the outer experiences and happenings of people in the real world and to assign activities of non-human beings for the benefit of humans. The first Argument stage describes physical doings or activities of people who possess high education in the work force (get, employ, work, complete, apply, help). In the second Argument stage, the Actors for the material processes shift to be health and its taxonomy (life expectancy; physical and mental wellness; healthiness; work dedication and higher performance), which are portrayed as doing services to humans (help, increase, benefit, improve, reduce, minimize, give). In the third Argument stage, both humans and non-humans are assigned the “Actor” role. The material processes describe activities of wealthy people (go, get, attend, achieve, pursue), the negative happenings when people do not have luxuries (try to cure, without seeing, recover, die), as well as the services (offer, fund, increase) provided by non-human Actor (private schools, scholarships and luxuries).
To build argument and interpretation, relational possessive processes (has, have, afford) occur from time to time to indicate the Possessor role of people with good education, good health and family financial support. Some relational circumstantial processes (e.g. cause, affect, govern, lead to) are included to state the causal relationship between socio-economic factors (education, health and family income) and success in life (how a high salary is earned).
116
avoided by means of passive voice (e.g. it is noted that…; it can be seen that…; Success can be described…; it can be argued that…). However, when the Sayer is non-human (article, essay), it is made explicit to project information in a “fact” clause (e.g. The article supports that…; The article shows that…; this essay shows…). As explained in the previous chapter, projection is one of the ways in engaging with other voices. However, these voices can be projected both by citing academic sources and explicitly stating the academic experts’ names as the source of evaluation. By avoiding human projectors, Nat’s text then loses some benefits of persuasion. Engagement resources will further be explained in the analysis of interpersonal metafunction.
Investigation into the feedback Nat received gives some clues of her fear to include a human Senser and a human Sayer in projection. In the second-submission task, in the Thesis stage (see Figure 4-1 for details on the direction of submission tasks and feedback), Nat wrote, as part of her definition, “Although there are many characteristics to define the definition of success in life, but I believe that…”. Her teacher then commented on the use of the expression “I believe”: “No. This is an academic essay. Keep the personal out of” (Appendix F, feedback 25; fragment as in the actual feedback the student received). As the comment was not well-structured and Nat was new to academic writing, it was probably hard for her to completely understand this feedback item. In an attempt to apply this instruction, Nat might then decide that it was safe to avoid any human Senser or human Sayer in idea projection.
Interestingly, the investigation of Nat’s set of drafts confirmed the effect of that feedback item on Nat’s avoidance of human Sensers or human Sayers. In the same second-submission task, in the original first Argument stage (see Appendix F), Nat included a reference with an expert as a human Sayer, as in “Also, Chair reported that...”. But after having received the feedback above, which related to a different item (“No. This is an academic essay. Keep the personal out of”), no human Senser or human Sayer ever appeared again. In the next task, the third-submission task, the same reference (“Chair reported that”) immediately became “According to a study by Chair”.
117
The hyperClaim and the restatement phases echo each other with relational, intensive clauses identifying important socio-economic factor leading to success in life. Thus, these are like twin pairs in each Argument stage: (hyperClaim) Education is an important socio-economic factor because… (restatement) Consequently, it is clear that education is an important socio-economic factor leading to success in life; (hyperClaim) Health is another important socio-economic factor because… (restatement) Consequently, it is clear that health is an important socio-economic factor leading to success in life; (hyperClaim) Family income is another important socio-economic factor because… (restatement) Consequently, it is clear that family income is an important socio-economic factor leading to success in life. Although the patterns are repetitive, at least they enable Nat to control the organisation of the genre of argument.
In the Conclusion stage, the material process and the relational, circumstantial process are equally employed. As the Conclusion stage has a retrospective function, themes of argument from the previous Argument stages need to be related to the proposition. Thus, the causal relationship between the socio-economic factors and success in life is reemphasized by means of circumstantial processes. Also, as Nat closes the essay by widening the perspective of the proposition, material processes are included for further suggested actions. However, in this stage, no mental process is found. It is not the stage for inviting, invoking or involving sensing any more.
5.1.2.2 Circumstantial Elements
Table 5-7 displays the proportion of types of circumstantial elements in each stage; whereas Figure 5-2 displays the overall proportion by means of a pie chart.
118
Table 5-7: Proportion of circumstantial elements in each stage in Nat’s essay
Stage No. circumstantial elements
extent location manner cause role matter angle
d f t p q m p r g s Thesis 4 - - 1 - 2 - 1 - - - - Argument 1 10 - - - 1 4 - 1 - 2 - 2 Argument 2 9 1 - - 1 3 - - - - 1 3 Argument 3 20 - 1 1 2 10 1 - 2 - - 3 Conclusion 0 - - - - - Total no. of instances 43 1 1 2 4 19 1 2 2 2 1 8
Figure 5-2: The overall proportion of circumstantial elements in Nat’s essay
As can be seen from Table 5-7, all stages (except for the Conclusion stage where no circumstantial elements occur) rely on Manner: quality to the greatest extent. This kind of circumstantial element is employed to comment on the effects of education towards employment (significantly, probably, in the proper way), the effects of health towards the quality of work (effectively), and the effects of parents’ income towards education, lifestyle and illness treatment (in both direct and indirect ways, significantly, likely, academically, continually, positively, probably, very slowly, possibly). The second major type is Angle: source, which appears at least a few times in all Argument stages to support the claims. Again, Angle: source will be further investigated in the analysis of Engagement resources.
119
However, at this point it is clearly seen how Angle: source is awkwardly employed. The first point is the inclusion of the experts’ names. As previously mentioned in the discussion of processes and participants, the non-human Sayer (such as the article and the essay) is made explicit. But, to maintain objectivity, Nat avoids any human Sayer. So, no experts appear as Sayer in any verbal process. But, as an academic source is required to support the claims, in Angle: source circumstantial, the experts’ names are included. However, their names appear with their work only in the first citation before changing them into “the article” or “the evidence”. To make this point clear, see how these Angle: source elements appear in each Argument stage: (in the first Argument stage) “According to a study by Mclennan”, then to “From this article”; (in the second Argument stage) “According to a study by Boom”, then to “From this article”, then to “From this evidence”; (in the third Argument stage) “According to a study by Guldi, Page, & Stevens”, then to “From this evidence article”; (another source in the Third Argument stage) “according to a study by Mayer”, then to “From this evidence”. To Nat, then, a report, and never an academic expert, is the Sayer – a mark of inexperience.