On 'Reminding Phoricity', 'Relevance Phoricity' And 'Bridging'

Bateman (1998: 11-2):

For capturing identification strategies, Martin sets out presumed elements as depending on presuming elements with the direction of dependence marked by an arrow linking the chain elements. ‘Reminding phoricity’ and ‘direct presumption’ are taken as unmarked cases and are not given any special indication, whereas ‘relevance phoricity’ (RL) and ‘bridging’ (BR) are marked as labels on the dependency lines connecting presuming to presumed.

Blogger Comments:

[1] A thought that did not occur to Bateman here is that presuming elements depend on presumed elements only in the sense that a reference item depends on there being a referent to refer to.

[2] A thought that did not occur to Bateman here is that "reminding phoricity" is Martin's rebranding of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) personal and demonstrative co-reference, misunderstood and relocated from non-structural grammar (cohesion) to structural discourse semantics.  See Rebranding Co-Reference As 'Reminding Phoricity'.

[3] A thought that did not occur to Bateman here is that "relevance phoricity" is Martin's rebranding of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) comparative reference, misunderstood and relocated from non-structural grammar (cohesion) to structural discourse semantics.  See Rebranding Comparative Reference As 'Relevance Phoricity'.

[4] A thought that did not occur to Bateman here is that Martin's "bridging" — taken from Havilland and Clark (1974) — is a confusion of two distinct types of cohesion: grammatical reference and lexical cohesion, relocated from non-structural grammar (cohesion) to structural discourse semantic system of IDENTIFICATION — the counterpart of reference.  See Confusing Grammatical Reference And Lexical Cohesion.