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 Scope As Goal [2]

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 116):

In addition to the participant roles discussed in the Survey section (Actor, Goal, Client/Recipient, Scope, Initiator), we may also find an Attribute in a material clause which has a Goal. The Attribute either specifies the state of a participant when participating in the process or as a result of the process. For example:

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, depictive Attributes also occur in material clause without a Goal:

[2] To be clear, in the first example, the bedroom construes the Scope of the Process left, not its Goal, since it enhances the Process in terms of location, rather than being impacted by the Process:

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.