Misrepresenting And Misunderstanding Lexical Cohesion

Martin & Rose (2007: 90):

In the past, studies of taxonomic relations have tended to focus on their roles in maintaining the cohesion of a text, through lexical ties between clauses (e.g. Halliday and Hasan 1976). The starting point in such cohesive models is with repetition, since the most explicit possible way of tying one item to the next is by repeating it. Next come synonymy and antonymy, which tie items to each other by similarity and contrast, with hyponymy and meronymy considered last. This is a grammar-based perspective, in which lexical relations are seen as serving textual functions, linking grammatical elements to each other in strings, similar to cohesive relations between reference items such as pronouns and articles: a young man - this man - he (see Chapter 5 below).

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading.  Halliday & Hasan (1976) provides the original theory, lexical cohesion, a textual system of lexicogrammar, which Martin & Rose, following Martin (1992), have merely reinterpreted as an experiential system, thereby creating multiple theoretical inconsistencies, rebranded as IDEATION, and relocated to Martin's stratum of discourse semantics.  For a thorough examination of Martin's "original" theorising, see the clarifying critiques here.

[2] This misunderstands lexical cohesion. Lexical cohesion actually operates independently of grammatical structure, with relations also potentially obtaining between lexical items within the same clause.

[3] To be clear, the sequencing in this description ('starting point', 'next', 'last') is irrelevant. Unknown to the authors, the different types of lexical cohesion align with different types of expansion.  Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 644):

[4] This is another misunderstanding of lexical cohesion.  As the name makes crystal clear, lexical cohesion involves relations between lexical items, not grammatical elements.

[5] Here the authors follow Martin (1992) in mistaking the 'indefinite article' for a reference item.  Martin's misinterpretation of Halliday & Hasan's reference, rebranded as his system of IDENTIFICATION, confuses DEIXIS, a system of nominal group structure, with the non-structural system of REFERENCE, and confuses textual reference with ideational denotation, as demonstrated in great detail here.

Misunderstanding Meronymy

Martin & Rose (2007: 90):

Wholes to parts

Likewise relationships of wholes to parts are also given various names in English, depending on the field, e.g. part, content, ingredient, constituent, stratum, rank, plane, element, factor, fitting, member, component, faction, excerpt, extract, episode, chapter, selection, piece, segment, section, portion, measure. 

In addition, facets name parts that are locations of wholes, e.g. the bottom of his soul, top, inside, outside, side, edge, middle, perimeter, environs, start, finish, beginning, rest. 

Measures name some portion of the whole, e.g. a cup of coffee, glass, bottle, jug, can, barrel, loaf mouthful, spoonful, ounce, pound, kilo, metre, acre. Again part-whole relations can be used cohesively between messages:

parts The chair's broken, – Which part?
facets Was it a good marriage? – Only at the start.
measures How much is petrol today? – More than a dollar a litre.

Technically whole-part relations are known as meronymy (mero- from Greek ‘part’).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, here Martin & Rose misconstrue the names of parts as names of part-whole relations.

[2] To be clear, the notion that a part is the location of a whole is nonsensical, as demonstrated by the simple fact that the side of a triangle is not the location of the whole triangle.

[3] To be clear, facets and portions serve as extended Numeratives in nominal groups such as the bottom of his soul, a cup of coffee; Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 395):

 

[4] More importantly, in the authors' terms, the concern here is meant to be the taxonomic relation of meronymy, as a feature within the experiential discourse semantic system of IDEATION.  Instead, however, the authors have again unwittingly confused two distinct metafunctional systems of lexicogrammar: nominal group (experiential) and lexical cohesion (textual).

Misunderstanding Hyponymy

Martin & Rose (2007: 89)

Relations of class to member are given various names in English, depending on the field, e.g. a class of words, a make of car, a breed of dogs. Common examples include class, kind, type, category, sort, variety, genre, style, form, make, breed, species, order, family, grade, brand, caste. These can be used cohesively between messages, e.g. Like my new car? Yes, what make is it? Technically, class-member relations are known as hyponymy (hypo- from Greek ‘under’).

Blogger Comments:

Here Martin & Rose first claim that terms like class, make, breed etc. are names of hyponymic relations, and immediately contradict this by misinterpreting them as the superordinate terms in hyponymic relations ('car-make'); cf genuine hyponymic relations such as verb-word, Bentley-car, kelpie-dog.

To be clear, such terms are all synonyms for 'variety', which is the function they serve as extended Numerative in nominal groups such as a class of words, a make of car, a breed of dogs; Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 395):

 

Moreover, in the authors' terms, the concern here is meant to be the taxonomic relation of hyponymy, as a feature within the experiential discourse semantic system of IDEATION.  Instead, however, the authors unwittingly confuse two distinct metafunctional systems of lexicogrammar: nominal group (experiential) and lexical cohesion (textual).

Misconstruing Temporal Circumstances As Lexical Items

Martin & Rose (2007: 88-9):

In other genres, series are an important resource for interpreting things and events. Newspaper stories for example jump around in time, so that readers must be able to recover relations between times in order to construe the sequence of events. The following extract recounts the events surrounding the 2001 rescue of shipwrecked refugees trying to reach Australia by the Norwegian freighter Tampa, and the Australian government’s shameful refusal to help them:

DRIFTING 22km off Christmas Island and with food and supplies running low, Captain Arne Rinnan was last night trying to maintain order on his besieged ship after being turned away by Australia and warned off by Indonesia. The Norwegian captain of the MS Tampa last night told The Daily Telegraph by satellite phone many of the 438 men, women and children on his ship were ill after their 11th day at sea ... 

But Prime Minister John Howard said after a cabinet meeting yesterday afternoon that the ship would not be allowed to enter Australian waters ... Hours later, the Indonesian Government responded by saying the boat people - who are believed to be from Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan and Indonesia - could not return to Indonesia. 

Capt Rinnan told The Daily Telegraph he had not yet informed the boat people last night that Australia had refused them permission to land at Christmas Island. Asked if he was afraid of violence, he said: ‘Not at the moment, but we were and we will be if they are turned away. They are starting to get frustrated.' .., 

When he picked up the distress call 24 hours earlier, he believed he would be carrying out a rescue operation, delivering the boat people to the nearest Indonesian port. After reaching the stricken 20m wooden vessel, KM Palapa 1, the crew helped the boat people on board. With the strong south-easterly winds which buffet the area at this time of year, it took the Tampa crew three hours to get them all on board ... 

Capt Rinnan said the boat people had become distressed when told they might have to return to Indonesia earlier in the day, with some threatening to jump overboard. 'I said we are heading towards Indonesia and they said "No, you must head to Australia".' Capt Rinnan said they were 'just hanging around' late yesterday, waiting for Australian officials to come on board. (Tsavdaridis 2001: 1).

The potential complexity of tracking the events through the story is evident in the following list of times as they appear in the text:

last night
their 11th day at sea
yesterday afternoon
hours later
last night
at the moment
24 hours earlier
three hours
earlier in the day
late yesterday

As these times are out of sequence in such genres, time cycles are an essential lexical resource for recognising a sequence of events.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the wordings that Martin & Rose misrepresent as instances of taxonomically related lexical items are actually grammatical functions: temporal circumstances of Extent (three hours) or Location (all the rest).  In addition, two of these are only partially identified:

• their 11th day at sea features in the Location after their 11th day at sea
• at the moment features in the Location not at the moment.

In providing the location and extent of processes in time, such circumstances "are an essential grammatical resource for recognising a sequence of events".