Confusing Text Comprehension With Text Production

Martin & Rose (2007: 159-60):

Helena didn’t name her first love, although she did make up a name for herself, as introduced by Tutu:

a woman calling herself Helena

The name gives us a useful way of referring to Helena, although in her story of course she relies on pronouns (I, my; we, our).

Another tracking resource is ‘the’, which Helena uses later to refer to her second love:

I can't handle the man anymore!

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, a name is an instance of ideational denotation, not textual reference.

[2] Here again Martin & Rose confuse the meaning potential of a speaker/writer — the language that constitutes the data for linguistic theorising — with the comprehension strategies of a listener/reader/analyst. In the text, it is the speaker/writer who refers, not the listener/reader/analyst.

[3] To be clear, in SFL Theory, personal reference items are restricted to the 3rd person (non-interactants). Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 628):

This is because the SFL model of reference is a system of textual cohesion, not ideational denotation. Halliday & Hasan (1976: 51):

[4] To be clear, the speaker, Helena, does not need to keep track of the participants in her story, since she demonstrably knows who she is talking about. This is the task of her audience, and so does not constitute a resource of the speaker, which is what linguistic theory models.