Bateman (1998: 17):
This naturally leads to a consideration of lexical cohesion: both stratificational and systemic work on cohesion posit cohesive ties between lexical items that include classifications such as ‘same item repeated’, ‘synonym or near synonym’, ‘superordinate’, ‘general term’, ‘collocation’ or ‘same co-occurrence group’ [p286-7]. However, these relations are often difficult or impossible to ascertain without also considering the field of discourse, despite the fact that, as Martin notes, discussions of lexical cohesion have typically defocused this issue. Martin suggests as a possible solution the following:
“One way of keeping the grammar neutral would be to locate specialised taxonomies in the register variable field, allowing the grammar to focus on field neutral oppositions. This would mean for example that the similarity between morphology in linguistics and in geology could be brought out in lexicogrammar and the differences between them in field taxonomies.’’ [p289]
Thus the ‘lexis as most delicate grammar’ alternations are to be considered as taxonomies, that are neutral with respect to field, and particular ‘lexical sets’ [p290]. These serve as realisations of discourse semantic lexical relations, which in turn serve as realisations of the field specific taxonomies of register.
Blogger Comments:
[1] On the one hand, ascertaining lexical relations is a problem for the text analyst, not for the speaker of the text. On the other hand, the claim is manifestly untrue, since even the most field-ignorant text analyst can ascertain such relations by consulting a thesaurus (± dictionary); see also Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 643-4).
[2] To be clear, this issue does not feature in discussions of lexical cohesion because it only arises through Martin's misunderstanding of SFL theory in general, and lexical cohesion in particular; see further below.
[3] To be clear, the 'similarity between morphology in linguistics and in geography' is formal, not functional. In Systemic Functional terms, the two uses of the form are specified by different bundles of lexicogrammatical features. That is, the "problem" only arises because Martin gives priority to form over function.
[3] To be clear, the 'similarity between morphology in linguistics and in geography' is formal, not functional. In Systemic Functional terms, the two uses of the form are specified by different bundles of lexicogrammatical features. That is, the "problem" only arises because Martin gives priority to form over function.
Martin's solution to his imaginary problem is to separate lexical taxonomies by two strata, leaving "field-neutral" lexical taxonomies within the lexicogrammar and moving "field-specific" lexical taxonomies to context (field), which is not even language, let alone semantics.
Leaving aside the absurdity of locating words outside language, in SFL terms, as explained in the previous post, Martin misunderstands a difference along the cline of instantiation (potential vs sub-potential) as a difference in symbolic abstraction (lexicogrammar vs context), with the sub-potential ("field-specific") construed as two levels of symbolic abstraction above the potential ("field-neutral"), despite lexical taxonomies, as the term suggests, being on the same level of symbolic abstraction (lexicogrammar).
[4] Here again Bateman follows Martin in confusing lexical items (as the realisations of lexicogrammatical features) with the relations between lexical items that provide cohesion in a text.
[5] To be clear, Martin (p290) uses the term 'lexical sets' for collocation patterns. However, in SFL theory, 'lexical set' is opposed to 'collocation'. That is, it describes the types of lexical cohesion in which the nature of the relation is paradigmatic (repetition, synonymy, hyponymy and meronymy). However, Martin misapplies the term to the opposite type of lexical cohesion, collocation, in which the nature of the relation is syntagmatic. See Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 644).
[6] To be clear, Martin's proposal (Table 5.2 below) is that field-specific taxonomies of lexical relations at the level of context are realised by cohesive lexical relations at the level of discourse semantics, that are realised by field neutral taxonomies of lexical relations at the level of lexicogrammar.
Table 5.2. Lexical relations
across planes and strata
Context
|
Language
|
|
DISCOURSE
SEMANTICS
|
LEXICOGRAMMAR
|
|
| field specific taxonomies | lexical relations (cohesion) | field neutral taxonomies (as delicate grammar) collocation patterns (lexical sets) |
Given all of the above, it is fair to say that neither Martin nor Bateman have sufficient understanding of the principles on which the architecture of SFL theory is constructed.
For more detailed argument on these matters, see:
No comments:
Post a Comment