Identification Systems

Martin & Rose (2007: 182-3):

Identification systems involve two systems, shown in Figure 5.3: one for presenting (a young man) or presuming the identity of the participants in question, and another for optionally relating their identity to another identity through comparison (another policeman). Various resources are used to presume identity, divided into pronominal and nominal. Pronominal reference is usefully divided into speaker and addressee roles (1st and 2nd person) and other (3rd person); nominal reference involves either names (Tutu) or determined nouns, with determination split into the definite article (the Commission) and demonstratives (this chapter). Where the grammar allows, these options combine with the choice of comparative or not. This choice is shown by the simultaneous system with options of ‘comparative’ or not (shown by a dash '– ’).

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously explained, the authors' notion of 'presenting' reference is ideational denotation, not textual reference. That is, the nominal group a young man realises a participant, but it does not include a reference item whose reference needs to be resolved.

[2] As previously explained, in SFL Theory, only 3rd person forms function cohesively (the textual function of reference); see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 628).

[3] As previously explained, the use of names is ideational denotation, not textual reference. That is, the nominal group Tutu realises a participant, but it does not include a reference item whose reference needs to be resolved.

[4] As previously explained, in SFL Theory, the 'definite article' functions as a demonstrative (as both Deictic and reference item).

[5] To be clear, the authors' claim here is that comparative reference freely combines with 'presenting' and 'presuming' reference. This yields the following combinations:

• comparative + present;
• comparative + presume: pronominal: 1st and 2nd person;
• comparative + presume: pronominal: 3rd person;
• comparative + presume: nominal: named;
• comparative + presume: nominal: determined: definite;
• comparative + presume: nominal: determined: demonstrative.

From the perspective of SFL Theory, this is nonsensical, because no single reference item makes relations of both co-reference and comparative reference; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 628, 629, 633). From the perspective of the authors' misunderstanding of reference, the claim is just that reference items of either kind can appear in the same nominal group. The adverbial group as domain for both demonstrative and comparative reference is ignored in the misunderstanding of reference as participant identification.