The Notion Of Lexical Relations "Building A Field"

Martin & Rose (2007: 90):

In contrast the discourse semantic perspective we are taking here foregrounds the ideational function of lexical relations in building a field, so our starting point is with class and part relations: a young man - my first love. Synonymy draws on common class membership to identify items with each other, with repetition as the limiting case. Contrasts then function to distinguish categories. This is a metafunctional view on discourse semantics, in which taxonomic relations complement reference relations to build the field and maintain cohesion as a text unfolds.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, to take a discourse semantic perspective on lexical relations is to take a discourse semantic perspective on lexicogrammar, since lexical items are the synthetic realisation of lexicogrammatical features.  And to take any perspective on lexicogrammar is to model lexicogrammar, not discourse semantics.

Moreover, as previously demonstrated, Martin & Rose do not understand the notion of 'lexical item', having previously (p84) regarded instances like each of the following as single lexical items:

• punishment with little consideration for victims and hardly any for the perpetrator
• opportunity to be reintegrated into the community (the perpetrator) has injured by his or her offence

[2] There are multiple confusions here.  On the one hand, lexical relations do not "build a field", and on the other hand, Martin & Rose, like Martin (1992), do not understand the SFL notion of field, and unwittingly use the term for quite distinct theoretical dimensions.  These will be explained in turn.

Firstly, as Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 643) point out, the relations between lexical items (synonymy, antonymy etc.) are inherent to the organisation of lexis itself, and so do not "build a field".  For example:

• how does the inherent lexical relation of synonymy between big and large "build a field"?
• how does the inherent lexical relation of antonymy between good and bad "build a field"?
• how does the inherent lexical relation of hyponymy between colour and purple "build a field"?
• how does the inherent lexical relation of meronymy between toe and foot "build a field"?

Secondly, the notion of "building a field" (Martin 1992) is itself a tangle of multiple confusions. To take field first, in SFL theory, field is the ideational dimension of context; that is: the culture construed as a semiotic system. However, Martin misconstrues field as the ideational dimension of register, a functional variety of language, which, in turn, he misconstrues as context.

However, again, from the perspective of SFL theory, the notion of field in build a field does not correlate with context, but with the ideational semantics of a text. Martin's notion of "building a field" corresponds to the instantiation of ideational meaning during logogenesis.

[3] To be clear, these two instances are nominal groups, not single lexical items, and there are no hyponymic or meronymic relations between the lexical items young, man, first, love.

[4] This misunderstands synonymy and repetition.  As Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 644) point out, both relations involve identity, not class membership.  It is hyponymy that is based on class membership.

[5] To be clear, even ignoring the previously identified problems with Martin & Rose's notion of 'contrast' — e.g. here, here and here — this is nonsensical.  Contrast doesn't "function to distinguish categories" any more than meronymy or hyponymy do.  Contrast is proposed as a taxonomic relation between lexical items.

[6] To be clear, SFL theory is a "metafunctional view" on language.  In terms of metafunction, Martin's (1992) system of IDEATION, including taxonomic relations, is a rebranding of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) textual system of lexical cohesion as a system of the experiential metafunction, misunderstood, and relocated from lexicogrammar to discourse semantics, despite being concerned with lexicogrammar — relations between (misunderstood) lexical items — rather than semantics.  For a thorough examination of Martin's (1992) system of IDEATION, see the clarifying critiques here.