Martin & Rose (2007: 98):
These options in nuclearity in groups are then set out in Figure 3.15.
Blogger Comments:
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. Moreover, the network is poorly conceived, since it represents what is logically a single simultaneous system, nominal vs verbal, as three systems more delicate than the most general system.
More importantly, it presents the degrees of nuclearity as alternatives, such that only one can be chosen. That is, the "discourse semantic" choices are groups with either a central element or a nuclear element or a peripheral element.
Moreover, the network only affords one structural configuration to be selected:
- either Classifier Thing
- or Focus Thing
- or Event Particle
- or Epithet Thing
- or Event Event
- or Thing Qualifier
- or Event Quality.
This severely restricts the range of groups that can be instantiated at the level of discourse semantics, to say the least.
In short, in Figure 3.15, 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment