Identifying What People Say: Text Reference

Martin & Rose (2007: 164-5):

Beyond abstractions, it’s possible to track things people say. Helena refers to her prayers for example as all my questions and heartache:

‘God, what's happening? What's wrong with him? Could he have changed so much? Is he going mad? I can't handle the man anymore! But, I can't get out. He's going to haunt me for the rest of my life if I leave him. Why, God?' Today I know the answer to all my questions and heartache.

And Tutu refers to the question he’s just asked as this:

So is amnesty being given at the cost of justice being done?
This is not a frivolous question, but a very serious issue

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, even in the authors' own terms (p155), the system of identification is concerned with tracking participants. For 'things people say' to qualify as participants, they must be construed as participating in a Process, most congruently as the Verbiage of a verbal Process.

[2] To be clear, the only reference item in the nominal group Qualifier to all my questions and heartache is the determiner my, which refers (non-cohesively) to the speaker, not to her prayers. Moreover, in terms of the authors' model, Helena's prayers are not a participant, but an extended quote of several figures:

‘God, what's happening? What's wrong with him? Could he have changed so much? Is he going mad? I can't handle the man anymore! But, I can't get out. He's going to haunt me for the rest of my life if I leave him. Why, God?'

And trivially, heartache is not a 'prayer'.

[3] To be clear, in terms of SFL Theory, this is a genuine instance of cohesive anaphoric demonstrative reference. However, in terms of the authors' model, it is inconsistent with the notion of  participant identification, since So is amnesty being given at the cost of justice being done? is a figure, not a participant.