Adjusting A Taxonomic Relations Analysis To Fit Theoretical Claims

Martin & Rose (2007: 104-5):

 

The analysis displays the following patterns:

• Taxonomic relations between processes organise the activity sequence into distinct phases. … Such taxonomic relations are the basis for expectancy between processes. 

• Boundaries between phases are realised lexically, by a break in taxonomic relations between processes, or by a lexical contrast between processes, such as the converse relation between (Leonard) started fighting back and (policemen) knocked down viciously.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Here again, as throughout, Martin & Rose confuse grammar (processes) with lexis, and present the lexicogrammatical confusion as discourse semantics.

[2] As can be seen from the analysis below, this is not true.  On the one hand, processes that don't fit the claim are ignored (sit) or omitted from the analysis (arriving, carried on).  On the other hand, relations between processes within phases are misinterpreted in order to fit the claim.  For example:

• in the 'problem 1' phase, behavioural (screamed at), verbal (abused) and material Processes (was slapped around, was punched) are falsely analysed as co-hyponyms of an unidentified superordinate;
• in the 'reaction' phase, the material Processes jumped (up) and started fighting back are falsely analysed as co-hyponyms of an unidentified superordinate;
• in the 'effect' phase, the material Processes knocked (down), put (back), handcuffed and could not get up are falsely analysed as co-hyponyms of an unidentified superordinate.

Processes	Taxonomic Relation	Phase
arriving	<not analysed>
changed		setting
was screamed at	co-class	problem 1
abused
was slapped around
was punched
was told	co-class	problem 2
to shut up
sit
was questioned	co-class
answered
was told
was lying
was smacked		problem 3
carried on	<not analysed>
jumped	co-class	reaction
started fighting back
knocked (down)	converse	effect
put (back)	co-class
handcuffed
could not get up
was smacked and punched		unnamed

[3] As previously noted, any 'expectancy' is a mental process of listeners or readers of a text, not a relation in a text projected by a verbal process of its author.  Collocation and logogenetic patterns of instantiation are another matter.