Misunderstanding Hyponymy And Misrepresenting Grammatical Relations As Lexical

Martin & Rose (2007: 83-4):

In his third Argument stage, Tutu constructs a model of 'kinds of justice’. He does this by explicitly naming the superordinate class as form of justice or kind of justice, and explicitly contrasting sub-types, with not the only form and another kind:

Further, retributive justice -- In which an impersonal state hands down punishment with little consideration for victims and hardly any for the perpetrator - is not the only form of justice. I contend that there is another kind of justice, restorative justice, which is characteristic of traditional African jurisprudence. Here the central concern is not retribution or punishment but, in the spirit of ubuntu, the healing of breaches, the redressing of imbalances, the restoration of broken relationships. This kind of justice seeks to rehabilitate both the victim and the perpetrator, who should be given the opportunity to be reintegrated into the community he or she has injured by his or her offence. This is a far more personal approach, which sees the offence as something that has happened to people and whose consequence is a rupture in relationships.
Thus we would claim that justice, restorative justice, is being served when efforts are being made to work for healing, for forgiveness and for reconciliation.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Here Martin & Rose misunderstand the principle of hyponymy, since not the only form is not a hyponym (sub-type) of form of justice, just as another kind is not a hyponym of kind of justice.  The superordinate here is 'justice', and 'form/kinds of justice' are its hyponyms.

[2] It is instructive to consider what Martin & Rose deem to be lexical items:

• retributive justice
• an impersonal state
• punishment with little consideration for victims and hardly any for the perpetrator
• form of justice
• kind of justice
• restorative justice
• traditional African jurisprudence
• the spirit of ubuntu
• healing of breaches
• redressing of imbalances
• restoration of broken relationships
• kind of justice
• rehabilitate both the victim and the perpetrator
• opportunity to be reintegrated into the community
• a far more personal approach
• the offence
• something that has happened to people
• rupture in relationships
• restorative justice

As can be seen, most of these "lexical items" are nominal groups in which the Deictic is sometimes included and sometimes not.  That is, the meanings that Martin & Rose are concerned with are realised in the relations of grammatical structure, not in relations between lexical items:

• Deictic: an, the, a
• Extended Numerative (variety): form, kind
• Epithet: impersonal, far more personal
• Classifier: retributive, restorative, traditional African 
• Thing: justice, state, jurisprudence, spirit, healing, redressing, restoration, opportunity, approach, offence, something, rupture
• Qualifier (embedded prepositional phrase): of Ubuntu, of breaches, of imbalances, of broken relationships, in relationships
• Qualifier (embedded clause): to be reintegrated into the community, that has happened to people

Another two "lexical items":

• punishment with little consideration for victims and hardly any for the perpetrator
• rehabilitate both the victim and the perpetrator

involve grammatical relations within the clause:

In which	an impersonal state	hands down	punishment	with little consideration for victims and hardly any for the perpetrator
Location	Actor	Process: material	Scope	Manner

This kind of justice	seeks to rehabilitate	both the victim and the perpetrator
Actor	Process: material	Goal

These last two examples also demonstrate that Martin & Rose have difficulty identifying constituency in the texts they analyse.