For the structural description of IDENTIFICATION Martin turns directly to a covariate dependency structure for constructing reference chains.
Blogger Comments:
[1] Two thoughts that didn't occur to Bateman here are:
[2] One thought that didn't occur to Bateman here is that the notion of 'covariate structure' derives from Lemke (1985), who later (Lemke 1989) conceded that it is not a type of structure. Martin lists Lemke (1989) in his list of references. A second thought that didn't occur to Bateman here is that, in SFL theory, dependency is a tactic relation between logically related forms (clauses, groups, etc.), not a relation of the textual metafunction between reference item and referent.
[3] A thought that didn't occur to Bateman here is that Martin's (1992) notion of 'reference chain' derives from Hasan's (1985/9: 83-5) notion of 'cohesive chain', which she applies to reference, ellipsis–&–substitution and lexical cohesion.
- even though grammatical reference is not a structural system, Martin models its semantic counterpart, IDENTIFICATION, as structural;
- Martin's system of IDENTIFICATION does not include any realisation statements that specify the structure of its unit, the participant (cf. systems of the clause).
[2] One thought that didn't occur to Bateman here is that the notion of 'covariate structure' derives from Lemke (1985), who later (Lemke 1989) conceded that it is not a type of structure. Martin lists Lemke (1989) in his list of references. A second thought that didn't occur to Bateman here is that, in SFL theory, dependency is a tactic relation between logically related forms (clauses, groups, etc.), not a relation of the textual metafunction between reference item and referent.
[3] A thought that didn't occur to Bateman here is that Martin's (1992) notion of 'reference chain' derives from Hasan's (1985/9: 83-5) notion of 'cohesive chain', which she applies to reference, ellipsis–&–substitution and lexical cohesion.
No comments:
Post a Comment