Martin (1992: 137):
Finally, it has to be noted … that the grammar may be actively involved in creating participants in discourse. Once the decision for example has been made to realise a process as a Process + Range structure (e.g. have a bath), then the fact that the process has been nominalised potentialises it as a participant; and a text can pick it up and develop it along these lines:
[3.74] Where have you been?— Oh I had a bath;in fact it was quite a splendid one.There was plenty of hot water;so I just luxuriated in it for hours.
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, if the grammar isn't "actively involved in creating participants in discourse", then there are no "participants in discourse".
[2] To be clear, in SFL theory, a Range is a participant, whereas in Martin's discourse semantics, it is not, since he has defined participants in terms of nominal groups functioning as the Agent or Medium of a clause (p129).
[3] To be clear, in Martin's model, identification involves reference chains that link presuming and presumed participants (p140), the participant being the unit of identification (p325). By proposing a reference link between a non-participant and a participant, Martin violates his own model in its own terms.
[4] To be clear, this it is not a participant, but the Range of a minor Process of a prepositional phrase realising a circumstance of Location.
As a consequence, the reference chain of "participants" in this example begins with a non-participant (in Martin's terms) and ends with a circumstance (in SFL terms).
[2] To be clear, in SFL theory, a Range is a participant, whereas in Martin's discourse semantics, it is not, since he has defined participants in terms of nominal groups functioning as the Agent or Medium of a clause (p129).
[3] To be clear, in Martin's model, identification involves reference chains that link presuming and presumed participants (p140), the participant being the unit of identification (p325). By proposing a reference link between a non-participant and a participant, Martin violates his own model in its own terms.
[4] To be clear, this it is not a participant, but the Range of a minor Process of a prepositional phrase realising a circumstance of Location.
As a consequence, the reference chain of "participants" in this example begins with a non-participant (in Martin's terms) and ends with a circumstance (in SFL terms).
No comments:
Post a Comment