The Discourse Semantic System Of Nuclear Relations In The Clause

Martin & Rose (2007: 95-6):

These four degrees of nuclearity are then set out as a system in Figure 3.13.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this entire discussion of nuclear relations confuses degrees of nuclearity of clause elements with the clause elements being related by degrees, and rebrands the grammatical confusion as Martin's  discourse semantics.

Moreover, the terminology, which uses synonyms for different degrees on the scale, names the model in terms of one of the intermediate degrees on the scale, the nucleus, instead of the central element to which all are said to be related.

[2] Contrary to SFL principles, this experiential system at the level of discourse semantics has no entry condition and no realisation statements that specify either discourse semantic structures or grammatical realisations.

More importantly, it presents the degrees of nuclearity as alternatives, such that only one can be chosen.  That is, the "discourse semantic" choices are clauses with either a central element or a nuclear element or a marginal element or a peripheral element.

Moreover, for each of these four options, only one clause function can be selected:

• either Process or Range, but not both, or
• either Medium or Range, but not both, or
• either Agent or Beneficiary, but not both, or
• either inner or outer circumstance, but not both.

This severely restricts the range of clauses that can be instantiated at the level of discourse semantics, to say the least.

In short, in Figure 3.13, Martin & Rose misrepresent a hyponymic taxonomy of their misunderstood theoretical categories as a system network that constitutes the discourse semantic choices available to language users.