The Claim That Contrasts Between Lexical Items Construct Classifying Taxonomies

Martin & Rose (2007: 87):

Contrasts are an important resource in many genres for constructing classifying taxonomies in which one class of phenomenon is distinguished from another. The following biology report first contrasts the converse roles of producers and consumers. Sub-types of consumers are then contrasted in a series as primary, secondary and tertiary:

We have seen that organisms in an ecosystem are first classified as producers or as consumers of chemical energy. Producers in ecosystems are typically photosynthetic organisms, such as plants, algae and cyanobacteria. These organisms build organic matter (food from simple inorganic substances by photosynthesis). Consumers in an ecosystem obtain their energy in the form of chemical energy present in their 'food'. All consumers [sic] depend directly or indirectly on producers for their supply of chemical energy. 

Organisms that eat the organic matter of producers or their products (seeds, fruits) are called primary consumers, for example, leaf-eating koalas (Phascoiarctos cinereus), and nectar-eating honey possums (Tarsipes rostratus). Organisms that eat primary consumers are known as secondary consumers. Wedge-tailed eagles that prey on wallabies are secondary consumers. Some organisms consume the organic matter of secondary consumers and are labelled tertiary consumers. Ghost bats (Macroderma gigas) capture a variety of prey, including small mammals. (Kinnear and Martin 2004: 38)

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, it is the grammar, not contrastive relations between lexical items, that constructs classifying taxonomies.  The reader can verify this by considering only the highlighted text in the absence of the grammatical structures in which they function.

In SFL theory, the inherent relation in lexis between the complementary antonyms producer and consumer is a resource of the textual metafunction, lexical cohesion, in creating the texture of a text.

[2] To be clear, the wordings primary consumers, secondary consumers and tertiary consumers are not lexical items, so the relations between them are not lexical relations.  Moreover, the sub-types of consumers — primary, secondary and tertiary — are construed grammatically through the Classifier function of the nominal group, and the identities of each are construed grammatically through the Token-Value relations of identifying clauses.

[3] To be clear, as sub-types, the Classifiers primary, secondary and tertiary constitute co-hyponyms of the Thing consumers.  See also the previous post on the notion of series (scales and cycles) as sub-types of "contrast".

Misunderstanding 'Opposite' As 'Contrast'

Martin & Rose (2007: 86-7):

Contrasts

Contrasts are elements that differ significantly in meaning. They include elements that are opposed in meaning, such as win-lose, happy-sad or married-single, and series of differing meanings such as hot-warm-tepid-cold. Opposed elements include antonyms and converses. Antonyms come in pairs, e.g.:

win - lose
married - single
quickly - slowly

Converses are associated with converse social roles or locations, e.g.:

victim - perpetrator
mother - son
give - receive
on top of - underneath
before - after

Series include scales and cycles. Scales have outermost poles of meaning, e.g.:

hot - warm - tepid - cold
pass - credit - distinction - high distinction
tutor - lecturer - senior lecturer - associate professor - professor

Cycles order items between two others, such as days of the week or years:

Sunday - Monday - Tuesday - Wednesday - Thursday - Friday - Saturday
2000 - 2001 - 2002 - 2003...

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this definition does not sufficiently specify the relation under discussion, not least because, on the paradigmatic principle, meaning is contrast.  An example of elements that differ significantly in meaning but which do not fit the Martin & Rose category of 'contrast' is transubstantiation-truck.

[2] As previously noted, what Martin & Rose term "antonyms" are generally known in linguistics as complementary antonyms: opposite meanings that do not lie on a continuous spectrum.  However, their example 'quickly - slowly' is not a complementary antonym, but a graded antonym, what the authors term a scale.

[3] As previously noted, what Martin & Rose term "converses" are generally known in linguistics as relational antonyms: words that refer to a relationship from opposite points of view.  To be clear, prepositions are (closed-class) grammatical items, not lexical items.

[4] As previously noted, what Martin & Rose term "scales" are generally known in linguistics as gradable antonyms: pairs of words with opposite meanings where the two meanings lie on a continuous spectrum.  The authors' examples are not pairs, and except for the polar opposites hot and cold, not opposites.

[5] To be clear, what Martin & Rose term "cycles" do not feature opposites.  Days of the week can be interpreted as co-meronyms of 'week' and co-hyponyms of 'day', but Sunday is not the opposite of Saturday, for example.  Moreover, the names of years are neither opposites — the year 2001 is not the opposite of 2003 — nor a cycle, since, although history often repeats itself, the year 2001 is not expected to return in the foreseeable future.

Misrepresenting Synonymy And Attitude

Martin & Rose (2007: 86):

Synonyms
Synonyms are different lexical items that share similar experiential meanings. For example Tutu uses the synonyms public hearing and open session, which denote the same kind of event. Synonyms are often used by writers to avoid repetition. The meanings of synonyms also usually differ in some way, such as the contexts in which they are typically used. For example public hearing may be used in a general context, and most of us will recognise the kind of event it denotes, whereas open session may refer to various kinds of events - not just court hearings. Furthermore synonyms may also differ in the attitude they express. So public and open are neutral in attitude, whereas other synonyms for these items that express a stronger attitude could be exposed or naked.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As already explained, in contradiction of Martin & Rose's model of taxonomic relations, synonyms do not constitute taxonomies, since the relation between items, in each case, is one of elaborating identity, rather than elaborating attribution (hyponymic taxonomy) — the general sense of 'taxonomy' — or composition (meronymic taxonomy).

[2] To be clear, synonyms are words that have similar meaning, whether ideational, interpersonal or textual.  For example, lastly and finally can both realise similar textual meaning as conjunctive Adjuncts, and sadly and unfortunately can both realise similar interpersonal meaning as comment Adjuncts.

The reason Martin & Rose have singled out experiential meaning here is because they have misunderstood the textual function of synonymy in lexical cohesion as experiential discourse semantics.

[3] To be clear, the system of ATTITUDE is concerned with interpersonal assessment.  The words public, open, exposed or naked only realise features of the ATTITUDE system if they are used to make an assessment in terms of AFFECT, APPRECIATION or JUDGEMENT, and the relative intensity of the attitudinal assessment depends on both context and co-text.  Merely construing experience as public, open, exposed or naked does not necessarily constitute an interpersonal enactment of an assessment, as demonstrated by:

• public toilets
• open sandwich
• exposed rocks
• naked eye.

Interpersonal Enactment By Means Of Textual Lexicogrammar Misunderstood As Experiential Semantics

Martin & Rose (2007: 85): 

By means of this classification Tutu advocates an approach to justice that draws on implicitly positive evaluations, which he contrasts with implicitly negative evaluations. As in the contrasting attributes of Helena’s lovers, before and after their ‘operations’, taxonomic relations interact with resources of appraisal to categorise the world and evaluate the categories we construe. However, in Tutu’s philosophical argument the categories are not people and their qualities, but institutional abstractions, including legal systems, principles of justice, and moral behaviours.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This blurs the distinction between metafunctions.  To be clear, construing experiential categories is not the means of enacting interpersonal assessments.

[2] As previously demonstrated, Martin & Rose's notion of taxonomic relations

• mistakes lexical cohesion, a resource of the textual metafunction, for experiential (discourse) semantics,
• mistakes grammatical structures for lexical items, and
• mistakes the functions of grammar for relations between "lexical items".

[3] To be clear, 'philosophical' means

• relating or devoted to the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.
• having or showing a calm attitude towards disappointments or difficulties.