Analysing process types

[Missingtrees]

Hi

I'm trying to understand how to apply the various process types.

In a sentence

'heroin is going to make me fly', I believe that fly is a material process. But what is 'is going to make'?

the 'Is' would suggest it is relational, but the 'going to make' suggests it's future tense material. Finally, this is obviously a perception as heroin doesn't make you fly, it's just a feeling, so, is it a mental process?

I'd appreciate any help, including how to come to a conclusion!!!

Thank you so much for your help

 

[jutfrank]

Why do you think fly is a material process? As Piscean says above, the meaning of make me fly is get me high, which seems to me to be relational.

The is going to part is making a prediction about this, and (for me at least) not a process at all.

 

[Missingtrees]

I'm doing a course and have been taught that every verb is a process type falling into one of the following categories: material, relational, verbal, mental or behavioural. I also think (but am not sure) that if I analyse a clause I should do it to what it actually says rather than what it is intended to mean. so in my example

'the heroin hit that's going to make me fly'

- clearly it's meant to convey a feeling (therefore probably relational - the whole clause means something like 'I am ecstatic soon') but 'I am flying' or 'he or she or I flew' are material processes (I think) because the subject is actually doing something.

Does something being a prediction alter the process type? e.g. I will be going shopping - is that not material?

This stuff is so hard! I'm really grateful for your help.

 

[Tdol]

- clearly it's meant to convey a feeling (therefore probably relational - the whole clause means something like 'I am ecstatic soon') but 'I am flying' or 'he or she or I flew' are material processes (I think) because the subject is actually doing something.

But with a drug, is the user doing anything? They're feeling things, but the material process would be the consumption of the drug for me rather than the high that followed. Inside their head they may be flying, but externally they're not.

 

[jutfrank]

...every verb is a process type falling into one of the following categories: material, relational, verbal, mental or behavioural. I also think (but am not sure) that if I analyse a clause I should do it to what it actually says rather than what it is intended to mean.

But isn't the point to analyse it semantically?

'I am flying' or 'he or she or I flew' are material processes (I think) because the subject is actually doing something.

Yes, I agree that real flying like a bird would be a material process.

Does something being a prediction alter the process type? e.g. I will be going shopping - is that not material?

I think going shopping is but will isn't. The way I understand your original sentence is that the is going to (the prediction part) is working as an auxiliary to the main verb phrase make me fly. When you say "every verb is a process type", does that include auxiliaries?

As you can probably tell, I'm no authority in this area so I hope I don't mislead you! I'm just trying to understand it myself. I would love to know what your course tutor thinks.

 

[Raymott]

I'm no expert either. But from the choices, I'd guess 'mental'. Getting high is an effect of the mind. However, neuroscientists and materialist philosophers will tell you that all mental events are material, since the mind supervenes on the brain.

 

[jutfrank]

I see what you mean that heroin affects the mind, but to me getting high is an experiential process caused by a chemical (material) process. I don't think it's mental at all as it doesn't involve thought, but it's certainly relational -- you are only high in relation to being sober, as it were.

 

[Tdol]

I also think (but am not sure) that if I analyse a clause I should do it to what it actually says rather than what it is intended to mean.

I disagree with this- meaning is the key rather than a literal interpretation. When you try to understand a statement, you think what the person meant and what their intentions were, etc. Stamping over this in the heavy boots of word by word dictionary definitions would, for instance, destroy the intended meaning of every single idiom and phrasal verb. While there may well be debates about intended meaning, excluding attempts at intended meaning is not going to lead to any great understanding IMO. The function of language is to transmit meaning, and any attempt to understand grammar that ignores this, ignores it at its peril for me.