Nuclear Relations

Martin & Rose (2007: 90-1):

As we flagged in the introduction to this chapter, the clause construes experience in terms of a process involving people and things, places and qualities. We have explored taxonomic relations between these elements, from one clause to the next as a text unfolds. In this section we will examine lexical relations between these elements within clauses. As they are more or less centrally involved in the process, lexical relations within the clause are known as nuclear relations.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Here Martin & Rose misunderstand the SFL model of the clause. The clause construes experience as a process, participants in the process and circumstances attendant on the process. Importantly, the elements are defined relative to each other.

[2] Here Martin & Rose confuse grammatical elements with lexical items. Their model of taxonomic relations is claimed to be concerned with lexical items, not elements of grammatical structure.

[3] To be clear, this encapsulates a fundamental misunderstanding that invalidates Martin & Rose's model of nuclear relations: the mistaking of elements of grammatical structure for lexical items.

[4] This is very misleading indeed. Here Martin & Rose introduce Halliday's (1985: 147) model of ergativity without acknowledging its source, thereby once again inviting the reader to credit them with the work of others. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 348):

Moreover, the model is grammatical, not discourse semantic, and concerned with elements of grammatical structure, not lexical items and, as will be seen, Martin & Rose thoroughly misunderstand Halliday's model, and confuse it with Halliday's textual system of collocation, a type of lexical cohesion.

Importantly, for the semantics of clause nuclearity, see Halliday & Mathiessen (1999: 165-76) on degree of participation (of participants) and degree of involvement (of circumstances).