Bateman (1998: 12):
The chains are neutral with respect to grammatical structure and semantic reference relations are always indicated (in contrast to Cohesion in English). The manifestation of these chains in the lexicogrammar is generally (i.e., congruently) within closed-class terms within the nominal group.
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, leaving aside the fact that, as previously demonstrated, reference chains are not actually structures, Martin's reference chains are said to be the structural realisation of the textual system of IDENTIFICATION, the discourse semantic counterpart of grammatical reference. Since grammatical reference is not realised structurally, there are no grammatical structures to realise its discourse semantic counterpart.
[2] To be clear, on the one hand, the source of most of Martin's ideas, Cohesion in English (Halliday & Hasan 1976), is concerned with grammatical reference, and on the other hand, reference chains do not feature in their work. Martin takes the idea of reference chains from the notion of cohesive chains in Hasan (1985/9: 84).
[3] This misrepresents Martin's model. In terms of the grammar, it is nominal groups that are said to be "phoric" and that are linked in reference chains. This is because Martin's "reference" is actually ideational denotation ('participant identification'), not textual reference.
Moreover, it is not only "closed-class terms in the nominal group" that "manifest" these chains, since, Martin (1992: 99, 121) includes proper names as 'phoric', and according to Martin (1992: 135):
[4] This gloss of 'generally' misunderstands 'congruently'. In SFL theory, 'congruence' refers to meaning (semantics) and wording (lexicogrammar) being in agreement, as is the case in the absence of ideational or interpersonal grammatical metaphor.
[2] To be clear, on the one hand, the source of most of Martin's ideas, Cohesion in English (Halliday & Hasan 1976), is concerned with grammatical reference, and on the other hand, reference chains do not feature in their work. Martin takes the idea of reference chains from the notion of cohesive chains in Hasan (1985/9: 84).
[3] This misrepresents Martin's model. In terms of the grammar, it is nominal groups that are said to be "phoric" and that are linked in reference chains. This is because Martin's "reference" is actually ideational denotation ('participant identification'), not textual reference.
Moreover, it is not only "closed-class terms in the nominal group" that "manifest" these chains, since, Martin (1992: 99, 121) includes proper names as 'phoric', and according to Martin (1992: 135):
- the 'realisational domain' of reminding phoricity includes the Thing,
- the 'realisational domain' of relevance phoricity includes the Epithet,
- the 'realisational domain' of redundancy phoricity includes the Epithet, Classifier and Thing,
all of which can be realised by (open set) lexical items.
[4] This gloss of 'generally' misunderstands 'congruently'. In SFL theory, 'congruence' refers to meaning (semantics) and wording (lexicogrammar) being in agreement, as is the case in the absence of ideational or interpersonal grammatical metaphor.
No comments:
Post a Comment