The Argument For 'Inner' Circumstances

Martin & Rose (2007: 95):

In contrast, Circumstances of Role, Means, Matter and Accompaniment are alternative ways of involving people and things involved [sic] in the activity. They are like participants and so are relatively nuclear: 

 

These inner Circumstances could be expressed as participants: I was a farm girl, we loved ones knew, a few lines end my story, our own eyes saw, his offence injured the victims, we said marriage, his safety worried me.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, all circumstances are "alternative ways of involving people and things" in the Process, so this criterion does not distinguish inner circumstances from outer circumstances.  Moreover, the authors' inventory falls short of the full range of inner circumstances in the original model; Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 175):

[2] To be clear, what is omitted from the authors' misunderstanding of Halliday's theory of clause transitivity  — and their rebranding of it as Martin's discourse semantics — is the fact that none of these inner circumstances is related to the Process/Medium Nucleus of the clause in the same way.  As Table 4(10) sets out:

• Rôle is related by expansion: elaboration (=),
• Manner: means is related by expansion: enhancement (x),
• Matter is related by projection ('), and
• Accompaniment is related by expansion: extension (+).