The Claim That Attributive Relations Are Construed By Lexical Relations

Martin & Rose (2007: 85):

Retributive justice includes the two attributes retribution and punishment with little consideration for victims and hardly any for the perpetrator; The three attributes of the spirit of ubuntu are the healing of breaches, the redressing of imbalances and the restoration of broken relationships. The four attributes of restorative justice are healing, forgiveness, reconciliation and the opportunity to be reintegrated into the community. These types of legal systems and their attributes are set out in Figure 3.9.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] The claim here is that these attributive relations are construed by relations between lexical items, rather than through grammar.  Even ignoring the fact that the items involved are grammatical structures rather than lexical items, the claim can be invalidated merely by removing all of Tutu's text apart from these "lexical items", and inviting the reader to identify, from what remains, how these attributive relations are construed:

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.

This is what comes from mistaking the textual relations of lexical cohesion for experiential semantics.

[2] There are many inconsistencies in this taxonomy, not least the confusion of hyponymy (types) with meronymy (components).  Some can be identified to give the general flavour:

1. The superordinate of the entire taxonomy is not a superordinate, but a term for its hyponyms (kinds of justice).
2. Impersonal state and traditional African jurisprudence are both construed as types (or parts?) of kinds of justice.
3. Retributive justice is construed as a type (or part?) of impersonal state.
4. The spirit of ubuntu [i.e. 'the essence of being human'] is construed as a type (or part?) of traditional African jurisprudence.
5. The synonyms retribution and punishment are construed as different types (or parts?) of retributive justice.
6. Healing of breaches, redressing of imbalances and restoration of broken relationships are construed as types (or parts?) of the spirit of ubuntu [i.e. 'the essence of being human'].