Such [reference] chains reflect the sequential unfolding of a text; nominal groups related according to some selection of features from the IDENTIFICATION system networks are written in chains vertically down the page. This form of representation Martin derives from the ‘reticula’ notation for discourse analysis developed within the Hartford stratificationalist school (cf. Gleason, 1968).
Blogger Comments:
[1] Following Martin, Bateman here confuses what is purported to be a structure (reference chain) with the process of logogenesis (the unfolding of a text).
[2] One thought that didn't occur to Bateman here is that nominal groups are lexicogrammatical form, not discourse semantic functions. Another is that, in mistaking nominal groups for reference items, Martin's model links the participants the boy and his frog into the same reference chain (1992: 144).
[3] A thought that didn't occur to Bateman here is that these reticula were devised to represent ideational meanings. Martin (1992: 95):
These consisted of events and the connections between them (an event-line) and participants and the roles they play in events.
As previously demonstrated, Martin's model mistakes textual reference for ideational denotation, and so Martin's use of the reticula notation as a representational device is consistent with this misunderstanding.
No comments:
Post a Comment