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.