Using (Misanalysed) Transitivity To Misunderstand (Rebranded) Ergativity

Martin & Rose (2007: 94):

Another two kinds of Range are a quality or a possession of the Medium.  In this case the process is one of ‘being' or ‘having’, that relates the quality or a possession to the Medium:

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, here Martin & Rose confuse Halliday's particularised transitive model (attributive Processes) with Halliday's generalised ergative model, and use the former to elaborate the latter as their means of rebranding of Halliday's grammar as Martin's discourse semantics (nuclear relations).

[2] To be clear, 'quality' and 'possession' are the authors' rebrandings of Halliday's Attributes of intensive vs possessive clauses.

[3] To be clear, here Martin & Rose analyse the clause I was torn to pieces as attributive:

I	was	torn to pieces
Medium	Process	Range
Carrier	relational	Attribute

However, the Process, in this metaphorical clause, is was torn not was.  This is demonstrated by the agnate clauses:

• I was torn to pieces by the news.
• The news tore me to pieces.

On this basis, the metaphorical clause is material, with to pieces serving as Range (resultative Attribute):

I	was torn	to pieces	(by the news)
Medium	Process:	Range	Agent
Goal	material	resultative Attribute	Actor

Cf the material clause:

I	was shattered	(by the news)
Medium	Process:	Agent
Goal	material	Actor

as metaphorical for the mental clause:

I	was traumatised	(by the news)
Medium	Process:	Agent
Senser	mental	Phenomenon