Martin & Rose (2007: 100-1):
Including nuclear relations with the taxonomic relations analysis allows us to consistently track the relations of qualities and locations to each element in the lexical strings, despite their structural dispersal across various grammatical categories. A particularly complex example is the sentence They are the only lizards with forked tongues, like a snake, which simultaneously classifies goannas as lizards, implicitly includes both lizards and snakes in a higher class (i.e. reptiles), assigns forked tongues as a part of both goannas and snakes, and excludes other lizards from having forked tongues. This configuration of relations is brought out very simply in the combined taxonomic and nuclear relations analysis, highlighted in Figure 3.16.
Blogger Comments:
Text:
…Goannas have flattish bodies, long tails and strong jaws. They are the only lizards with forked tongues, like a snake. Their necks are long and may have loose folds of skin beneath them. Their legs are long and strong, with sharp claws on their feet. Many goannas have stripes, spots and other markings that help to camouflage them. The largest species can grow to more than two metres in length. …
[1] To be clear, this is the opposite of what is true. The nuclearity of Qualities and Locations depends on their function within a grammatical unit, and so does not apply to their function in other grammatical environments ("their structural dispersal across various grammatical categories").
[2] To be clear, taxonomic relations are inherent in the organisation of lexis. In Halliday's model — the source of the authors' ideas — taxonomic relations within lexis are used for the purposes of lexical cohesion, a resource of the textual metafunction. The authors' model of taxonomic relations misunderstands textual lexicogrammar as experiential (discourse) semantics.
[3] To be clear, this "complex example" does not construe class membership. Rather, it identifies goannas as the only lizards with forked tongues like a snake:
They (goannas)
|
are
|
the only lizards [with forked tongues [like
a snake] ]
|
Identified Token
|
Process: relational
|
Identifier Value
|
[4] To be clear, this "complex example" does not construe lizards and snakes as members of the higher class 'reptile'. This assumption is supplied by Martin & Rose, and derives from their ignorance of species with forked tongues in other (non-reptilian) biological taxa, such as amphibians (frogs), birds (hummingbirds) and mammals (galagos). The example merely makes a phenotypic comparison: between the forked tongues of goannas and the (more familiar) forked tongues of snakes.
[5] To be clear, this "assignment" is construed by the Qualifier of the nominal group the only lizards with forked tongues like a snake.
[6] To be clear, this "exclusion" is construed by the Numerative of the nominal group the only lizards with forked tongues like a snake.
[7] To be clear, even ignoring all of the above, the combined taxonomic and nuclear relations analysis in Figure 3.16 misconstrues the extension (part-whole) relation between snake and tongues as elaboration (=), and misconstrues the elaboration relation between tongues and forked as extension (+), due to the authors' misapplication of both expansion relations and nuclearity to grammatical functions, as explained in previous posts.
