Ah, this is Halliday's Functional Transitivity, right? Well, I'm not a fan, sorry, so I do not know much about "material process clauses", but they have been described as follows:
Another example, and from a difference source:
So, for example, processes of doing (material process) have one participant which is grammatically ‘responsible’ for the process and may have another, the participant to which the process 'extends'. For example, ‘the tree branch smashed the car’, has a process‘smashed’ grammatically ‘acted’ by the tree branch and ‘done to’ the car. [page 203]
Ex: material doing & happening This topic appears to be fairly complicated stuff. Here's the only explanation I could find, that I don't have to pay for, and it's somewhat tough to get through. I'm providing the whole thing as you'd have difficulty finding it inside the document. It's as I mentioned complicated stuff:
Actor: the company
Process: is giving
Goal: a new teapot
Recipient: to my aunt
My apologies for not being able to help you with this.
(1) PROCESS TYPE: 'material'. (i) Looked at 'from above', a material clause construes doings & happenings ? including actions, activities, and events; configurations of a process and participants involved that require some input of energy to occur and where one participants is likely to undergo a change. (ii) Looked at 'from below', a material clause is characterized by particular structural configurations, such as Process + Actor + Goal (+ Recipient), and Process + Range. There is always an Actor, which can be realized by a nominal group representing any 'thing' or even a non-finite clause representing a 'macro-thing' (as in the boy with green hair broke the window, and the earth moving broke the window respectively), but not by a 'meta-thing' (a fact ? that the earth moved broke the window is not possible). Further options determine whether the process is 'directed', in which case there is a Goal as well ([Actor:] the policeman [Process:] hunted [Goal:] the demonstrator), or not ([Actor:] the policeman [Process:] ran). If the process is directed, it may be 'benefactive'; and it if is, there may be a Recipient ([Actor:] the judge [Process:] gave [Recipient:] the demonstrator [Goal:] a legal document). (iii) Looked at 'from around', a material clause is the entry condition to a number of further systems; we have already referred to directedness and benefaction as two examples. It does not lead to a system of PROJECTION (a system with an option of reporting or quoting speech or thought, which we find with verbal and mental clauses, as in The paper said "The building collapsed"); it is thus not possible to say the earth moved: "The building collapsed": there can be a causal relation between these two clauses (the earth moved so the building collapsed), but not a semiotic one where the clause the earth moved would project the clause "The building collapsed" onto a more abstract plane as its content. If we explore around PROCESS TYPE but outside the TRANSITIVITY systems themselves, we find that in reports of present time, there is an unmarked correlation with different TENSE selections for the different process types. In material clauses, the unmarked tense is the present-in-present rather than the simple present, as in The cat's waving its tail rather than The cat waves its tail. (The simple present is used to construe a different time frame, such as generic or habitual time, as in The cat waves its tail whenever it's uncertain.) This systemic association between PROCESS TYPE and TENSE is semantically motivated: processes are phenomena that unfold in time and hence have a tense system; but different process types have different temporal profiles and hence different unmarked present tense selections.
Source SFG intro (Peng chapter) New
If anyone out there can provide an easy, understandable explanation, it would be much appreciated.