On "Martin's" Instantial Reference

Bateman (1998: 12):

Two interesting further features of the analyses supported are the recognition of instantial reference [p144], where distinct reference chains may be brought together: ‘but he did not realise that it was his frog’, and some special properties of generic chains where the referring expressions refer to generic rather than specific entities [p103 and p145].

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, unknown to Bateman, Martin's 'instantial reference' is his misunderstanding of Hasan's (1984, 1985) 'instantial semblance', which is a type of lexical cohesion, not grammatical reference.  See A Misleading Analysis Of "Instantial Reference".

[2] To be clear, there is no conjoining of reference chains in the sample text ([3:84]).  Martin's false claim, accepted without question by Bateman, derives from confusing grammatical reference with lexical cohesion.  See A Misleading Analysis Of "Instantial Reference".

[3]  To be clear, Martin (1992: 103) defines the distinction between generic and specific reference distinction as: 

Generic reference is selected when the whole of some experiential class of participants is at stake rather than a specific manifestation of that class …

That is, though Martin labels the distinction as the elaborating relation of delicacy (generic vs specific), the definition confuses part-whole relations ('whole') with token-type relations ('manifestation of a class'), the former, the extending relation of composition, the latter, an elaborating relation of instantiation.  See The Re-Initiation Of Generic Reference Chains.