Types Of Reference As Recoverability

Martin & Rose (2007: 172-3):

The reference terms we have introduced above were nouns: cataphora, anaphora, exophora, etc. But each also has an adjective, which is more common than the noun, including cataphoric, anaphoric, exophoric. Here’s a table summarising what each term means. In Table 5.5, esphora is treated as a kind of pointing forward, and bridging as a type of pointing back. We can refer to the system as a whole as RECOVERABILTY.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, there are several misunderstandings in Table 5.5. Firstly, the examples of cataphoric and esphoric reference are both instances of the same time of reference: structural cataphora. Secondly, in the cataphoric example, the reference of the is resolved by following, not by the next occurrence of Act. Thirdly, homophoric reference, as the prefix homo- makes clear, is self-specifying. Fourthly, exophoric reference is to the perceptual field of the interactants. This is distinct from the situation, which is an instance of the culture as semiotic system, as construed by the meanings of a text. For (more on) esophoric and bridging reference, see [2] and [3] below.

[2] On the one hand, this is inconsistent with the authors' own characterisation of esphora as self-reference ('point into themselves'). On the other hand, it is consistent with Halliday & Hasan's original idea, structural cataphora, which Martin (1992) rebranded as esphora.

[3] As previously demonstrated, 'bridging' is a confusion of reference and lexical cohesion. To the extent that the reference component involves 'pointing back', it is anaphoric. The term 'bridging' is anomalous here because, unlike all the other types, it is not a type of 'phora'.

[4] This term is inconsistent with what it encompasses. To be clear, 'recoverability' is an ability to recover, whereas the types of phora are 'directions of pointing'. (Martin & Rose do not, in any case, represent this as a system.)