On "Martin's" Solidary Relationship Between Grammar And Semantics

Bateman (1998: 24): 

Moreover, in certain respects, the approach in English Text also becomes more easily reconcilable, or at least, comparable, with many other approaches to grammar and semantics. Indeed, the position of a solidary, natural relationship between grammar and semantics has now become almost standard in many linguistic traditions: cognitive linguistics motivates linguistic forms on the basis of their ‘underlying’ cognitive structures (e.g., Langacker, 1987, Wierzbicka, 1988), the examination of ‘alternations’ in mainstream syntax posits semantic classes that explain differences in susceptibilities to undergo the various alternations in available constructions (Levin, 1993), even logical syntax has had syntax falling out of semantic structures for some time (e.g., Montague, 1974).

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is very misleading.  The natural relationship between grammar and semantics is how SFL (Halliday 1985: xvii) models language.  Here Bateman gives the false impression that this is Martin's innovation — aided by Martin's Figure 1.12 (p20):

[2]  To be clear, the term 'solidary' actually means:

(of a group or community) characterised by solidarity or coincidence of interests.
e.g. a sociable and solidary regiment of some strength and purpose