The Authors' Analysis Of An 'Entity-Focused' Image

 Martin & Rose (2007: 323, 324-5):

In this framework, the photo of the young boy is a classifying image. In nuclear terms, we have a young black boy (central), with his hand raised in a fist (nuclear), in front of a crowd (peripheral). But from the perspective of field, each of these elements has at least two possible referents. The boy at once represents the past roles of black youth in the anti-apartheid resistance, and their future lives in a free South Africa. His ‘black power’ salute evokes both the schoolchildren’s historical protests against the regime, and the celebration of Inauguration Day. In his 1995 edition, Mandela refers to this gesture as the Afrika salute (in photos between pp402-3), underlining its function in indigenous solidarity. And the boy can be construed both as a member of the crowd, and as its embodiment — a leader in other words, implying a connection with Mandela. 

The potential ambiguity of visual images is part of their power: their interpretation is left relatively open to the viewer, widening their appeal, and their multiple interpretations can map onto each other in the manner of metaphors, to evoke more general or abstract categories than the simple images they depict (cf. the discussion of grammatical metaphor and mode, in section 9.1 above).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the claim here is that this photograph is a classifying image because it is 'entity-focused' rather than 'activity-focused'. However, Martin & Rose provide no rationâle, either in terms of content or expression, for this claim. It might be alternatively argued that the photograph is 'activity-focused', since the 'Afrika salute' is highly relevant to the represented event, as well as being what chiefly distinguishes this image of a boy from other images of boys.

[2] To be clear, this is not an argument for the claim that the photograph is 'entity-focused' because it analyses its content in terms of ideational meaning (nuclearity) rather than textual meaning (focus); see previous post. Moreover, the analysis, which interprets the entity as if it were a nominal group, is inconsistent with the authors' own model (p98):

If this model is applied to the authors' verbal description of the photograph, then black boy is the centre (Classifier Thing), young is nuclear (Epithet), and both with his hand raised in a fist and in front of a crowd are peripheral (Qualifier).

[3] To be clear, in SFL Theory, such "referents" are Values that are realised symbolically by Tokens.

[4] To be clear, these reinterpretations of the meanings of the photograph, the boy and his raised fist, are reconstruals of them as metaphorical realisations of a higher level, more congruent meaning; see Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 272, 289).

[5] This is a non-sequitur. If the boy "embodies" the crowd, then he "embodies" the opposite of a leader. As such, the photograph does not imply a connection with Mandela in this sense.

[6] Trivially, this ambiguity could also narrow the appeal of an image to viewers, as when one possible meaning of an image is interpreted as offensive to some members of a community.

Misapplying Their Own Model Of Nuclear Relations [3]

Martin & Rose (2007: 107-9):

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, ignoring the theoretical problems with the Martin & Rose rebranding of Halliday & Matthiessen's (1999: 165-76) degrees of participation and involvement as nuclear relations, and ignoring their replacement of the metaphors in the original text, the following discrepancies between their model and their application of their model can be noted:

Clause Element	Martin & Rose Model	Martin & Rose Analysis
as a farm girl	peripheral	nuclear
in the Bethlehem district of Eastern Free State	peripheral	(omitted)
As an eighteen-year-old	peripheral	nuclear
with all the 'Boer' Afrikaners	peripheral	(omitted)
through a good friend	peripheral	nuclear
for the first time	peripheral	nuclear

Original Text:

My story begins in my late teenage years as a farm girl in the Bethlehem district of Eastern Free State. As an eighteen-year-old, I met a young man in his twenties. He was working in a top security structure. It was the beginning of a beautiful relationship. We even spoke about marriage. A bubbly, vivacious man who beamed out wild energy. Sharply intelligent. Even if he was an Englishman, he was popular with all the 'Boer' Afrikaners. And all my girlfriends envied me. Then one day he said he was going on a 'trip'. 'We won't see each other again...maybe never ever again.’ I was torn to pieces. So was he. An extremely short marriage to someone else failed all because I married to forget. More than a year ago, I met my first love again through a good friend. I was to learn for the first time that he had been operating overseas and that he was going to ask for amnesty. I can’t explain the pain and bitterness in me when I saw what was left of that beautiful, big, strong person. He had only one desire - that the truth must come out. Amnesty didn't matter. It was only a means to the truth.

Misapplying Their Own Model Of Nuclear Relations [2]

Martin & Rose (2007: 105-6):

Some texts or text phases consist of activities but do not construe activity sequences; rather their primary function is classifying and describing. An example is the behaviour phase of the Goannas report above. A nuclear and activity analysis for this phase is displayed in Table 3.5. The central column includes both Process and Range:class/part. The nuclear column to the left includes both Agent in effective clauses and Medium in non-effective clauses, while the nuclear column to the right includes Range:entity/quality. 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the claim here is that the text in question construes activities, but does not construe activity sequences, despite the fact that the text consists of a sequence of activities, and despite the fact that Martin & Rose analyse the taxonomic relations between 'central' elements of different activities, as they do for activity sequences.

[2] For clarification, the text is:

All goannas are daytime hunters, They run, climb and swim well. Goannas hunt small mammals, birds and other reptiles, They also eat dead animals. Smaller goannas eat insects, spiders and worms. Male goannas fight with each other in the breeding season. Females lay between two and twelve eggs.

[3] To be clear, the 'central' column omits the attributive Process of the first 'activity' are, and includes the Manner circumstance well, which in the authors' scheme is peripheral (in the verbal group).  Moreover, it makes false claims about the relations between its elements, specifically that:

• there is a part-whole relation between daytime hunters and run, climb and swim well;
• there is a part-whole relation between run, climb and swim well and hunt;
• the material Processes hunt and eat are co-hyponyms of 'behaviour';
• the material Processes eat and fight are co-hyponyms of 'behaviour';
• the material Processes fight and lay are co-hyponyms of 'behaviour'.

[4] To be clear, the agency of the clause, effective or middle, was not presented as a factor in determining the nuclearity of elements.  Moreover, in the authors' own scheme (p95), Agents (Goannas, They, Smaller goannas, Females) are marginal, not nuclear.

[5] To be clear, there are no instances of Range:entity/quality in the the right-hand 'nuclear' column.  As the analysis below shows, the only element that is not a Medium is the Accompaniment circumstance, which, on the authors' scheme, is peripheral, not nuclear.

All goannas	are	daytime hunters
Medium Carrier	Process	Range Attribute
nuclear	central	central

They	run, climb and swim	well
Medium Actor	Process	Manner: quality
nuclear	central	peripheral

Goannas	hunt	small mammals, birds and other reptiles
Agent Actor	Process	Medium Goal
marginal	central	nuclear

They	also	eat	dead animals
Agent Actor		Process	Medium Goal
marginal		central	nuclear

Smaller goannas	eat	insects, spiders and worms
Agent Actor	Process	Medium Goal
marginal	central	nuclear

Male goannas	fight	with each other	in the breeding season
Medium Actor	Process	Accompaniment: comitative	Location
nuclear	central	peripheral	peripheral

Females	lay	between two and twelve eggs
Agent Actor	Process	Medium Goal
marginal	central	nuclear

Ignoring all the misunderstandings and inconsistencies in the authors' nuclear relations model, as previously identified, if they had analysed the text using their own model, it would have looked as follows:

marginal	central	nuclear	peripheral
	are	All goannas
	daytime hunters
	run, climb and swim	They	well
Goannas	hunt	small mammals, birds and other reptiles
They	eat	dead animals
Smaller goannas	eat	insects, spiders and worms
	fight	Male goannas	with each other
			in the breeding season
Females	lay	between two and twelve eggs

Misrepresenting Their Nuclear Relations Analysis

Martin & Rose (2007: 104-5):

 

 

The analysis displays the following patterns…

• Relative centrality, agency and ‘voice’ of people are explicitly displayed in the analysis. The narrator is the predominant Medium but never an Agent. The policemen act on and talk to Leonard, but his actions and locutions affect nobody. 

• In the peripheral column, the chair stands out as the location of torture.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the nuclear relations analysis, even when properly understood, merely labels elements of clause structure in terms of their degree of participation in the Process.  The actual rôles undertaken by participants are identified by the ergative functions (Medium, Agent, etc.) that Martin & Rose have inconsistently rebranded as nuclear, marginal, etc.

[2] To be clear, Martin & Rose have classified Agent as marginal in the exposition of "their" theory, but classified it as nuclear in their text analysis.  Moreover, all but two of the Agents were inserted into the text by Martin & Rose, thereby misrepresenting the text.

[3] To be clear, 'voice' is a feature of clauses and verbal groups, not 'people', and it serves a textual function, not an experiential function.  Moreover, 'voice' is not explicitly displayed in the analysis, and is actually hidden by the omission of the Finite element of the verbal groups serving as Processes (e.g. abused instead of was abused, slapped around instead of was slapped around, and 11 more).

[4] To be clear, Martin & Rose classify the narrator as Medium even when he construes himself as Beneficiary (the Receiver of the verbal Processes was told (twice) and was questioned) and Location (orientation) of the behavioural Process was screamed.

[5] To be clear, there are no locutions (verbal projections) in the text, by the narrator or anyone else.

[6] To be clear, the peripherality of the circumstances featuring the chair merely construes it as an indirect participant in various Processes. It is the transitivity of the clause that construes the Locations of the Processes:

• in a chair as the Location of the Process sit
• off the chair as the Location of the Process jumped
• on the chair as the Location of the Process put (back)
• through the chair as the Location of the Process handcuffed.

Misapplying Their Own Model Of Nuclear Relations [1]

Martin & Rose (2007: 104-5):

To prepare this text for analysis, we will:

• lexicalise pronouns and implicit participants,
• re-order the elements of clauses into consistent columns.

The central column in Table 3.4 includes Process and Quality, the left-hand nuclear column includes Agent of effective and Medium of non-effective clauses, the righthand nuclear column includes Medium of effective and Range of non-effective clauses, and the peripheral column is for Circumstances.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, by inserting participants that the speaker deliberately omitted, Martin & Rose are analysing a misrepresentation of the speaker's text.

[2] This is inconsistent with the authors' own model (p98), which treats Quality as peripheral, not central, to the verbal group, not clause.

[3] This is inconsistent with the authors' own model (p95), which treats Agent as marginal, not nuclear.

[4] To be clear, the agency of the clause, middle or effective, was not presented by the authors as the criterion for Range as nuclear.  On their model, Range: process is central, and Range: entity is nuclear.

[5] The ergative analysis below highlights the major errors in the authors' application of their own model, the most frequent being the misinterpretation of Receiver as Medium (nuclear) instead of Beneficiary (marginal).

On	arriving	back at Sandton Police Station, at what they call the Security Branch
	Process	Location

the whole situation	changed
Medium	Process

I	was screamed at
Location* = peripheral	Process

verbally	abused
Manner	Process

I	was slapped around
Medium	Process

I	was punched
Medium	Process

I	was told
Beneficiary  = marginal	Process

to	shut up
	Process

sit	in a chair
Process	Location

then	I	was questioned
	Beneficiary  = marginal	Process

When	I	answered	the questions
	Medium	Process	Range

I	was told
Beneficiary  = marginal	Process

that	I	was lying
	Medium	Process

I	was smacked	again
Medium	Process	Extent

And	this	carried on
	Medium	Process

to an extent where	I	actually	jumped	up	off the chair
	Medium		Process	Location	Location

and	started fighting back
	Process

Four, maybe five policemen	viciously	knocked	me	down
Agent  = marginal	Manner	Process	Medium	Location

and	they	put	me	back	on the chair
	Agent  = marginal	Process	Medium	Location	Location

and	handcuffed	my hands	through the chair
	Process	Medium	Location

which resulting that	I	could not get up
	Medium	Process

I	was	then	continuously	smacked and punched
Medium	Pro-		Manner	-cess

* See Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 351) on medio-receptive clauses.