The Taxonomic Relations System

Martin & Rose (2007: 80-1):

This range of taxonomic relations is set out in Figure 3.6.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the unacknowledged source of these misunderstood ideas is the lexical cohesion of Halliday & Hasan (1976), later elaborated in Halliday ± Matthiessen (1985, 1994, 2004, 2014), which is lexicogrammatical, not semantic, in terms of stratification, and textual, not experiential, in terms of metafunction.

Cf.  Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 643-4), where the types of relation are theoretically interpreted in terms of axis (paradigmatic v syntagmatic), logical relations (elaborating v extending v enhancing) and experiential relations (identity v attribution):

The primary types of lexical relations are listed in Table 9-17. They derive from either the paradigmatic or the syntagmatic organisation of lexis. (i) The paradigmatic relations are inherent in the organisation of lexis as a resource, as represented in Roget’s Thesaurus. They can be interpreted in terms of elaboration and extension, two of the subtypes of expansion that are already familiar from the logico-semantic relations used in forming clause complexes and the corresponding conjunctive relations presented earlier in this chapter. (ii) The syntagmatic relations hold between lexical items in a syntagm that tend to occur together, or collocate with one another. Collocates of a lexical item can be found in the entries of certain modern dictionaries based on corpus investigations. Since syntagmatic organisation and paradigmatic organisation represent two different dimensions of patterning, any pair of lexical items can involve both.