Martin & Rose (2007: 93-4):
[1] To be clear, what Martin & Rose term the 'central element', a Process, is an element of a grammatical structure, the clause, not of an "activity", and relations between such grammatical elements are logico-semantic, not lexical.
[2] Here Martin & Rose misunderstand the principle of nuclearity as one of predictability. To be clear, in Halliday's model of clause ergativity, nuclearity measures the degree of participation in a process. Moreover, the proposed relative gradings of predictability are based on misunderstandings; see below.
[3] The claim here is that the relation between Processes like granting (central) and amnesty (nuclear) is predictable within the "general" field of granting amnesty. There are four basic problems with this:
Lexical relations between the central elements of these activities are widely predictable across fields, i.e. the processes of exchanging (applying for, granting, giving, refusing). Relations between central and nuclear elements are predictable within the general field of granting amnesty (a common practice). But relations between these activities and more marginal elements are only predictable within the particular field of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (e.g. who the Commission can and cannot grant amnesty to).
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, what Martin & Rose term the 'central element', a Process, is an element of a grammatical structure, the clause, not of an "activity", and relations between such grammatical elements are logico-semantic, not lexical.
[2] Here Martin & Rose misunderstand the principle of nuclearity as one of predictability. To be clear, in Halliday's model of clause ergativity, nuclearity measures the degree of participation in a process. Moreover, the proposed relative gradings of predictability are based on misunderstandings; see below.
[3] The claim here is that the relation between Processes like granting (central) and amnesty (nuclear) is predictable within the "general" field of granting amnesty. There are four basic problems with this:
- Firstly, this is an instance of the logical fallacy known as circular reasoning: if granting + amnesty, then granting + amnesty.
- Secondly, the relation between central and nuclear elements is always the same, and thus always "predictable", irrespective of field, since it is a relation between clause elements (Process and Medium).
- Thirdly, Martin & Rose misunderstand the relation between Process and Medium as one of extension, in contradiction of the definition of Medium as the participant through which a Process is actualised.
- Fourthly, amnesty does not serve as Medium of the Process granting,
[4] Trivially, the granting of amnesty is not a common practice; see for example the discussion here.
[5] The claim here is that the relation between Processes like granting and the participants Agent (e.g. the Commission) and Beneficiary (e.g. to those who plead guilty) is only predictable within the "particular" field of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. There are two basic problems with this:
- Firstly, the relation between central and marginal elements is always the same, and thus always "predictable", irrespective of field, since it is a relation between clause elements.
- Secondly, Martin & Rose mistake the Medium of the Process, the Commission, as Agent; i.e. as the cause of the granting process rather than the medium through which granting is actualised, and thus, as marginal ("only predictable within the particular field") rather than nuclear ("predictable").
[6] To be clear, here the meaning of activities has shifted again, this time from clause to Process.
[7] To be clear, on the authors' analysis, the Commission itself is just as marginal as those it can grant amnesty to.
No comments:
Post a Comment