Martin (1992: 477-8):
Text [6:50] is taken from Halliday's (1982) analysis of de-automatisation and interpersonal metaphor in Priestley's An Inspector Calls. … The participants at risk in [6:50] include the Inspector and members of the Birling family (Mrs Birling, Birling, Sheila) except Gerald, but not the woman they have wronged. Taking the congruent unpacking of interpersonal metaphor outlined in Table 6.27 as a baseline, the woman wronged is made modally responsible on four occasions ([6:50r, s, nn, qq] — and [6:50nn, qq] are dependent clauses); she is realised four times as often in the Residue. The family (except Gerald) and the Inspector on the other hand are modally responsible as often as not.
Blogger Comments:
[1] The interpersonal meaning of Subject, modal responsibility, is here misconstrued as experiential meaning: "participants at risk".
[2] This confuses the interlocutors in the play with the pronoun Subjects of the clauses they project. The words Mrs Birling, (Mr) Birling and Sheila do not serve as the Subject of any of the clauses in the play. In this discussion of interpersonal meaning, the pronouns are being interpreted experientially, instead of interpersonally. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 525):
If the ideational metafunction is language in its "third person" guise, the interpersonal is language in its “first and second person” guise; the interaction of a ‘me’ and a ‘you’. The ‘me’ and the ‘you’ are of course constructed in language; they have no existence outside the social semiotic. Once constructed, me and you become a part of experience and can be referred to alongside the him, the her and the it; but note that (unlike the interpersonal meaning, which does not change) their ideational meaning changes every time there is a change of speaker (this is what makes me and you so difficult for children to learn).
[3] This contradicts the analysis in Table 6.27, which claims that 'Gerald' serves as Subject twice. Actually, in Martin's terms, 'Gerald' serves as Subject three times: in [b] as I, in [rr] as Gerald, and in [ss] as the ellipsed Subject.
[4] This contradicts the analysis in Table 6.27, which claims that 'the woman they have wronged' serves as Subject thirteen times, and the sentence that follows which claims that she serves as Subject four times.
[5] This contradicts the analysis in Table 6.27, which claims that 'the woman they have wronged' serves as Subject thirteen times. Actually, in Martin's terms, 'the woman they have wronged' serves as Subject only twice: in [r, qq] as she.
[6] This contradicts the analysis in Table 6.27, which claims that 'the woman they have wronged' serves as Subject thirteen times, and in the Residue six times. 4 x 13 ≠ 6.
[7] This contradicts the analysis in Table 6.27, which claims that
- 'Inspector' serves as Subject fifteen times, but in the Residue only six times (15–6);
- 'Mrs Birling' serves as Subject sixteen times, but in the Residue only six times (16–6);
- 'Sheila' serves as Subject three times, but in the Residue only once (3–1).
