Esphoric Reference: Confusing Structural Cataphora And Homophora

Martin & Rose (2014: 172):

Finally there is one resource that identifies participants without us having to look elsewhere in the text. This happens when one thing modifies another one and answers the question ‘Which one?’. If for example Helena had referred simply to the Bethlehem district, the realities, the people or the answer we might have been entitled to ask ‘Where’s that?, ‘Which realities?’, ‘Which people?’, ‘Which answer?' But Helena short-circuits the questions by expanding a thing with a qualifier which tells us which district, which realities, which people and which answer she means:

the Bethlehem district of Eastern Free State
the realities of the Truth Commission
the people of the struggle
the answer to all my questions and heartache

Facets of things work in the same way:

the bottom of his soul
the rest of my life
the role of 'those at the top'

So the information presumed by the in these elements is resolved by the time we get to the end of them. When elements simply point into themselves like this it’s called esphora.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, as the authors' exposition demonstrates, referents are not restricted to participants.

[2] It will be seen below that one variety of what Martin & Rose term 'esphora' is indeed resolved by looking "elsewhere in the text", specifically: forward in the text.

[3] To be clear, in the intellectual source of these ideas, Halliday & Hasan (1976: 68), this type of reference is termed structural cataphora — structural, because the reference is resolved within the same nominal group, which means it is not cohesive, and cataphora, because the reference item the refers forward to the Qualifier of the nominal group.

[4] To be clear, the only facet (partitive quality) expression here is the bottom of his soul; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 395). The nominal group the rest of my life is a portion (partitive quantity) expression. In such expressions, the Thing and Head of the nominal group are dissociated. However, this is not the case in the final nominal group the role of those at the top, where role serves as both Thing and Head of the nominal group. It is only this nominal group that demonstrates structural cataphora: 'which role? of those at the top'.

[5] To be clear, the demonstrative reference item the in these two nominal groups makes homophoric (self-specifying) reference. The words soul and life serve as the Thing of their nominal groups, rather than as (elements of a) Qualifier. The reference is not resolved by asking 'which bottom?' which rest?'

[6] To be clear, this mistakes the reference item the with the nominal group ('element') in which it occurs. The reference relation obtains between the Deictic and Qualifier of the nominal group, which is why the reference is structural rather than cohesive. That is, reference is not "to itself" — though, if it was, it would be an instance of homophoric reference.

[7] To be clear, 'esphora' is merely Martin's (1992: 123) rebranding (and misunderstanding) of Halliday & Hasan's (1976: 68) structural cataphora.