Misrepresenting Scope As Goal [1]

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 109-10):

From the transitive perspective, the question we are asking is whether the action carries over to affect an additional participant or not, and this provides the contrast between transitive and intransitive clauses. See Table 4.11:

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the second of the "transitive" clauses in Table 4.11 does not feature a Goal. If the militia were Goal, it would be affected by the Process fled. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 167):

The Goal is impacted in some way by its participation in the Process; the "impact" either (i) brings a participant into existence or else (ii) manipulates one that already exists.

Clearly the militia is neither brought into existence nor manipulated by the Process fled. Instead, the militia functions as Scope, because it construes the domain of the Process fled. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 239):

In contrast, the Scope of a ‘material’ clause is not in any way affected by the performance of the process. Rather it either (i) construes the domain over which the process takes place … or (ii) construes the process itself, either in general or specific terms…

cf.