Martin & Rose (2007: 94):
A process may also be instigated by the Medium and extended to a second participant that is not affected by the process, known as a Range. The first type of Range is an entity that the process extends to:
Blogger Comment:
[1] To be clear, this confuses Agent (the participant that is the external cause of the Process) with Medium (the participant through which the Process is actualised). Moreover, Martin & Rose (p91) have previously defined the Agent in the same terms:
An Agent instigates the process, which affects the Medium in some way…
[2] To be clear, here Martin & Rose confuse two distinct theoretical meanings shared by the word 'extension'. The first theoretical meaning is 'extension' as the basis of the transitivity model. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 226):
The concept of extension is in fact the one that is embodied in the classical terminology of ‘transitive’ and ‘intransitive’, from which the term ‘transitivity’ is derived. According to this theory the verb spring is said to be intransitive (‘not going through’) and the verb catch is said to be transitive (‘going through’ – that is, extending to some other entity).
That is, in this respect, Martin & Rose confuse the transitive model of the clause with the ergative model (their 'nuclear relations').
The second theoretical meaning is 'extension' as an expansion type. The authors' claim — based on 'extension' as the transitivity principle — is that the relation of Range to Process is one of extension. However, extension is the only logico-semantic relation that does not obtain between Range and Process. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 168-9):
[3] To be clear, the relation obtaining between Range and Process in each of three instances is projection, not expansion: extension. In the first, a Phenomenon (me) is related by projection to a mental Process (envied), while in the second and third, Verbiage (the pain and bitterness, the feared word) is related by projection to a verbal Process (can't explain, would mutter).
The fact that these are projection relations is demonstrated by the agnate circumstance type in each case, which is Matter, a circumstance of projection:
The second theoretical meaning is 'extension' as an expansion type. The authors' claim — based on 'extension' as the transitivity principle — is that the relation of Range to Process is one of extension. However, extension is the only logico-semantic relation that does not obtain between Range and Process. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 168-9):
The Range is not some entity that is impacted by the Process; it either (i) expands the Process, or (ii) is projected by it. (i) Where the relationship is one of expansion, this take[s] one of two forms: the Range either (a) elaborates the Process in an objectified form, or (b) enhances it by delimiting its scope.
[3] To be clear, the relation obtaining between Range and Process in each of three instances is projection, not expansion: extension. In the first, a Phenomenon (me) is related by projection to a mental Process (envied), while in the second and third, Verbiage (the pain and bitterness, the feared word) is related by projection to a verbal Process (can't explain, would mutter).
Nucleus
|
'
|
Range
| |
Medium
|
Process
| ||
all my girlfriends
|
envied
|
me
| |
I
|
can't explain
|
"
|
the pain and bitterness
|
they
|
would mutter
|
the feared word
| |
The fact that these are projection relations is demonstrated by the agnate circumstance type in each case, which is Matter, a circumstance of projection:
- all my girlfriends were envious of me
- I can't explain about the pain and bitterness
- they would mutter about the feared word
No comments:
Post a Comment