In the grounds that Tutu gives for his second Argument, he names its field as the granting of amnesty. This field is expanded in the following clauses as processes of ‘giving’, ‘not giving’, ‘refusing’ and ‘applying for’ (in italics below), of which amnesty is the Medium (in bold), with various Agents and Beneficiaries (underlined):
It is also not true that THE GRANTING OF AMNESTY encourages impunity ...
because amnesty is only given to those who plead guilty ...
Amnesty is not given to innocent people or to those who claim to be innocent.
It was on precisely this point that amnesty was refused to the police officers
who applied for [amnesty] for their part in the death of Steve Biko.
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, the ideational meaning instantiated in Tutu's text is semantics, not context. In SFL theory, 'field' refers to the ideational dimension of the context that is realised by language — along the cline from the culture that is realised by language as system to the situation that is realised by an instance of language (a text). For Martin's misunderstandings of the SFL notion of field, see the clarifying critiques here.
[2] This is potentially misleading, since field (context) and clause (lexicogrammar) are different levels of symbolic abstraction. To be clear, taking metaredundancy into account, context (e.g. field) is realised in the realisation of semantics in lexicogrammar (e.g. clauses).
[3] To be clear, amnesty serves as the Range of these four Processes, not the Medium. The processes of ‘giving’, ‘not giving’, ‘refusing’ and ‘applying for’ are not actualised by amnesty, but by the Commission, which is omitted from these medio-receptive clauses.
[4] To be clear, no Agents are underlined. Of the underlined, the only participant that is not a Beneficiary, who, serves as the Medium through which the Process applied (for) is actualised — in a rankshifted clause serving as the Qualifier of a nominal group.
[2] This is potentially misleading, since field (context) and clause (lexicogrammar) are different levels of symbolic abstraction. To be clear, taking metaredundancy into account, context (e.g. field) is realised in the realisation of semantics in lexicogrammar (e.g. clauses).
[3] To be clear, amnesty serves as the Range of these four Processes, not the Medium. The processes of ‘giving’, ‘not giving’, ‘refusing’ and ‘applying for’ are not actualised by amnesty, but by the Commission, which is omitted from these medio-receptive clauses.
[4] To be clear, no Agents are underlined. Of the underlined, the only participant that is not a Beneficiary, who, serves as the Medium through which the Process applied (for) is actualised — in a rankshifted clause serving as the Qualifier of a nominal group.
because
|
amnesty
|
is
|
only
|
given
|
to those who plead guilty
|
Range
|
Pro-
|
-cess
|
Beneficiary
|
amnesty
|
is not given
|
to innocent people or to those who claim to be innocent
|
Range
|
Process
|
Beneficiary
|
[[amnesty
|
was refused
|
to the police officers [[who applied
for (amnesty) for their part in the death of Steve Biko]] ]]
|
Range
|
Process
|
Beneficiary
|
[[who
|
applied for
|
(amnesty)
|
for their part in the death of Steve Biko]]
|
Medium
|
Process
|
Range
|
Cause
|
No comments:
Post a Comment