Misrepresenting The Ergative Model As The Transitive Model

 Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 283):

With all this activity going on, it is worthwhile exploring who is doing what to whom. An ergative analysis of transitivity reveals 14 effective clauses with an Agent impacting on a Medium. Agency is shared between the waves and the Bondi Boys, both of whom affect people. The main participants, in other words, don't act on one another; this is not a struggle between man and nature. Rather nature savages people, and then other people rescue them. In effect we have two protagonists, not a direct showdown with nature (antagonist) overcome by Bondi Boys (protagonist).

Blogger Comments:

[1] This confuses transitivity with ergativity. The 'impact' model is that of transitivity — Actor on Goal — not ergativity. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 334):

… the transitive model is based on the configuration of Actor + Process. The Actor is construed as bringing about the unfolding of the Process through time; and this unfolding is either confined in its outcome to the Actor or extended to another participant, the Goal. The Goal is construed as being impacted by the Actor’s performance of the Process.

In the ergative model, on the other hand, a Process is actualised through a Medium, and there may be an additional participant functioning as an external cause: an Agent; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 342). That, is an Agent does not impact on a Medium; an Agent is the external cause of a Process that is actualised through a Medium.

[2] To be clear, if nature affects/savages people, then nature (Actor) is acting on people (Goal). What is true is the vacuous observation that people don't 'act on' three enormous ocean waves and overcome them.

Misrepresenting The Interpersonal Range Of The Medium

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 158):

Thus we can now revise the table of correspondences between transitivity functions and interpersonal functions. See Table 4.23. The interesting result is that the participant function we have called the Medium stands out among the participant functions: it is the only one that serves as Subject or Complement but not as Adjunct. Agent, Beneficiary and Range are closer to circumstances in that they can also be mapped onto Adjunct. 

Blogger Comments:

This is misleading because it misrepresents the interpersonal variability of the Medium. Medium conflates with Adjunct in medio-receptive and locative-receptive clauses. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 342, 345, 351):

Problems With Transitivity Options And Examples

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 155):

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, consistent with their own views, but inconsistent with SFL Theory and reasoned argument, the authors here misrepresent an effective verbal clause they criticised IFG as an effective behavioural clause; see previous posts. Moreover, the authors have nowhere addressed the ergative roles of these clause types — e.g. "Behaver" as Agent — that they misconstrue as behavioural.

[2] To be clear, the example of an effective perceptive mental clause the kite caught her attention is metaphorical. A more congruent example would be she was assailed by the flashing lights and thumping dance music.

[3] To be clear, emotive mental clauses are labelled 'affective', and desiderative mental clauses are omitted altogether (as in IFG1&2, but not IFG3&4).

[4] To be clear, the examples of effective relational (identifying) clauses are only effective if they are encoding, and this is only if they have marked information focus, such that Token conflates with New. With unmarked information focus, Value conflates with New, and the clauses are all middle, not effective.

(a) effective identifying: encoding (marked information focus)

(b) middle identifying: decoding (unmarked information focus)

On the other hand, all assigned relational clauses, both identifying and attributive, are effective.

Omissions In The Major Options In Transitivity

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 153-4):

The major options in TRANSITIVITY as they are presented in IFG are summarised in the system network in Figure 4.7, with references to sections in IFG2 followed by references to IFG3 if different.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the problems with this network are largely minor, and are perhaps merely simplifications to accommodate the newcomer. For example, in terms of the system itself:

1. the network wiring cross-classifies middle vs effective with happening and doing and with 'like type' and 'please type', even though happening and 'like type' can only be middle, and doing and 'please type' can only be effective; 
2. the system of mental processes omits desiderative and labels emotive as affective, and 
3. the relational system omits the system of ASSIGNMENT, despite it being central to the discussion.

In terms of the participants listed according to ergative function:

1. the Range of material processes, Scope, is omitted;
2. the Medium and Range of behavioural processes, Behaver and Behaviour, are omitted;
3. the Agent of 'like type' mental processes, Inducer' is omitted;
4. the Target of verbal processes is omitted;
5. the Attributor and Assigner of relational clauses are omitted; and
6. the Token (Medium) and Value (Range) of decoding identifying clauses are omitted.

However, of these, the omissions of Scope, Behaver, Behaviour and Target are motivated, and so misleading, since the authors reinterpret material Scope and verbal Target as behavioural participants, and do not address the question of the ergative roles in the targeted verbal clauses that they reinterpret as behavioural.