Friday, 14 June 2019

Misunderstanding Halliday's Transitivity Model Of The Clause To Rebrand The Ergative Model As Discourse Semantics


Martin & Rose (2007: 94):
The other two kinds of inner Range are a class or part of the Medium. Again the process is one of ‘being' or ‘having', that relates the class or part to the Medium:
 

Blogger Comments:

[1] Again, this is a bare assertion: no argument is provided as to why these "kinds of Range" are to be regarded as inner.  The source of the author's ideas — e.g. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 174) — makes no distinction between inner and outer Range.  Any change to that model needs to be supported by valid argument.

[2] To be clear, here again, Martin & Rose confuse Halliday's particularised transitive model (Attribute of intensive and possessive relational clauses) with Halliday's generalised ergative model (Range), and use the former to elaborate the latter as their means of rebranding of Halliday's grammar as Martin's discourse semantics (nuclear relations).

Moreover, the authors misunderstand Halliday's particularised model. On the one hand, all attributive clauses construe class membership — not just intensive clauses (those labelled 'class' above).  On the other hand, in SFL theory, the 'class vs part' distinction that the authors use to subcategorise the Range is actually the intensive vs possessive distinction of relational clauses, which, in these instances is realised through the Process.

No comments:

Post a Comment