Making False Claims About Nuclear Relations

Martin & Rose (2007: 103):

Earlier we showed how nuclear relations can inform an analysis of taxonomic relations in an entity focused text. Here we combine analysis of activity sequences with nuclear relations, together with taxonomic relations between processes. Nuclear relations can show us the roles of people and things in activity sequences;

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue.  See the previous posts:

• Misrepresenting The Analytical Utility Of Nuclear Relations
• Misunderstanding Their Own Model Of Nuclear Relations
• Sample Nuclear Relations Analysis
• A Combined Taxonomic And Nuclear Relations Analysis

[2] This is misleading, because it is untrue.  Nuclear relations do not "show us the roles of people and things in activity sequences".  Nuclear relations in a clause, even when properly understood, only construe the degree of participation in a process.  The "roles of people and things" in an "activity" are construed by the clause transitivity, whose ergative functions the authors have relabelled as central, nuclear etc.  None of these labels identifies the rôle of a participant in a process.