It would be unusual to have a ‘process type’ which in effect crossclassifies the others:They allowed us to leave/chat/ask/believe/be/have…A case would need to be made.When not involved in what IFG treats as a verbal group complex, these verbs typically take a complement realising a figure (or one of Hao’s activity or semiotic entities):They allowed the application/petition/objection/extradition/extract…I have tried to make a case for Tagalog relationals crossclassifying material, verbal and mental processes, most clearly perhaps in this in this paper:Relational processes in Tagalog: A Systemic Functional perspective. (J.R. Martin & P. Cruz) in K. Rajandran & S.A. Manan (eds.), Systemic Functional Linguistics: South East Asian perspectives. Universiti Sains Malaysia Press. 2019. 225-251.
Blogger Comments:
[1] Here Martin misunderstands O'Donnell (see previous post). O'Donnell interpreted these types of instances as projection nexuses — clause complexes — not as clause simplexes in which one type of process "cross classifies" another type.
[2] This is misleading, because it is untrue. On the one hand, the Complements of Martin's examples are nominalised processes, and as as such, realise elements not figures. On the other hand, apart from its function in verbal group complexes, and such metaphorical variants, the verb allow typically serves as a verbal Process, as in
She allowed ['admitted'] that the penalty appeared too harsh for the crimeBush allowed ['conceded'] that he himself could never support Trump
or a material Process, as in
I'll allow ['allocate'] you just ten minutes.
[3] To be clear, the reason why Martin introduces the irrelevant notion of cross classification here is simply to provide a pretext for promoting his own paper, in which he claims to provide the "case that needs to be made". The function of not clarifying the notion of 'cross classifying process types' is to bamboozle the theoretically naïve.
