Mistaking (Partial) Grammatical Units For Lexical Items

Martin & Rose (2007: 100-1):

In the analysis in Figure 3.16, there is one lexical string for goannas and other reptiles, and another string for their parts.

 

Blogger Comments:

Reminder:

Australia is home to 25 of the world's 30 monitor lizard species, In Australia, monitor lizards are called goannas. Goannas have flattish bodies, long tails and strong jaws. They are the only lizards with forked tongues, like a snake. Their necks are long and may have loose folds of skin beneath them. Their legs are long and strong, with sharp claws on their feet. Many goannas have stripes, spots and other markings that help to camouflage them. The largest species can grow to more than two metres in length. All goannas are daytime hunters, They run, climb and swim well. Goannas hunt small mammals, birds and other reptiles, They also eat dead animals. Smaller goannas eat insects, spiders and worms. Male goannas fight with each other in the breeding season. Females lay between two and twelve eggs.

To be clear, this is not a lexical string because it confuses lexical items with the following grammatical units:

1. the nominal group many goannas,
2. the partial nominal group complex stripes, spots and other markings
3. the partial nominal group largest species, and
4. the nominal group more than two metres in length.

This completely undermines the proposed taxonomic relations, the most ludicrous of which is the analysis of (more than two metres in) length as part of largest species.

The Argument For Classifier As Central In The Nominal Group

Martin & Rose (2007: 96):

Lexically, we are concerned with five functional elements of nominal groups. First, in Halliday’s model, the central function of a nominal group is called the Thing. The lexical noun that realises a Thing is a class of person or thing, such as girl, man, window, bed. Second, the Thing may be sub-classified by an item functioning as Classifier. Classifier and Thing together form a unified lexical element:

Blogger Comments:

Here again Martin & Rose confuse the two distinct notions of 'word', lexical item and grammatical rank unit, and use the confusion to justify their claim that Classifier, along with Thing, is 'central' to the nominal group, without identifying the sense in which they are 'central'.

To be clear, the claim that Classifier is 'central' to the nominal group rests on the claim that the grammatical structure Classifier^Thing forms a "unified lexical element". The argument is therefore invalidated by any Classifier^Thing structure that does not form "a unified lexical element", such as plastic warthog.

Lexical items composed of more than one word are also sometimes called lexical chunks, gambits, lexical phrases, lexical units, lexicalised stems, or speech formulae. The term polyword listemes is also sometimes used.

Confusing Composition With Realisation

Martin & Rose (2007: 96):

Nuclear relations below the clause
Below the clause, processes, participants and circumstances are themselves made up of groups of words, including lexical items. In Halliday’s 1994/2004 model, clause, group and word are different ranks in the grammar; a clause is realised by a configuration of word groups, each of which is realised by a configuration of words. As with the clause, nuclear relations also pertain between lexical words in groups. To describe these relations, we need to distinguish two kinds of word groups — nominal groups that realise things and people, and verbal groups that realise processes.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Here Martin & Rose confuse composition (the rank scale) with realisation (the relation between levels of symbolic abstraction).  In terms of composition, the rank unit, clause, is made up of units of the lower rank, groups and phrases.  In terms of realisation, clause functions, such as Process, are realised by forms, in this case, the verbal group.

In terms of expansion relations, composition is a type of extension, whereas realisation is a type of elaboration.  In terms of symbolic abstraction, the composition of the rank scale is of one level of abstraction, form, whereas realisation relates two distinct levels of abstraction, in this case, function and form.

[2] Here, as throughout this chapter, Martin & Rose confuse two distinct notions of 'word': 'word' as grammatical rank unit and 'word' as lexical item.  Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 568):

The folk notion of the “word” is really a conflation of two different abstractions, one lexical and one grammatical.

[3] Here again Martin & Rose confuse composition (the rank scale) with realisation (the relation between levels of symbolic abstraction).  In SFL theory, a clause is composed of groups (± phrases), each of which is composed of words.  Moreover, each is composed of syntagms of lower rank forms, not configurations, since it is functions, not forms, that are configured.

[4] To be clear, Martin & Rose have not identified what it is that is scaled from nuclear to peripheral in groups, nor the basis on which it is nuclear or peripheral.  Without a clear statement of the underlying principles involved, this is merely an empty exercise in relabelling.

[5] It will be seen, in the discussion of verbal groups, that Martin & Rose mistake elements of clause structure, circumstantial Adjuncts, for elements of verbal group structure.

The Notion Of Lexical Relations "Building A Field"

Martin & Rose (2007: 90):

In contrast the discourse semantic perspective we are taking here foregrounds the ideational function of lexical relations in building a field, so our starting point is with class and part relations: a young man - my first love. Synonymy draws on common class membership to identify items with each other, with repetition as the limiting case. Contrasts then function to distinguish categories. This is a metafunctional view on discourse semantics, in which taxonomic relations complement reference relations to build the field and maintain cohesion as a text unfolds.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, to take a discourse semantic perspective on lexical relations is to take a discourse semantic perspective on lexicogrammar, since lexical items are the synthetic realisation of lexicogrammatical features.  And to take any perspective on lexicogrammar is to model lexicogrammar, not discourse semantics.

Moreover, as previously demonstrated, Martin & Rose do not understand the notion of 'lexical item', having previously (p84) regarded instances like each of the following as single lexical items:

• punishment with little consideration for victims and hardly any for the perpetrator
• opportunity to be reintegrated into the community (the perpetrator) has injured by his or her offence

[2] There are multiple confusions here.  On the one hand, lexical relations do not "build a field", and on the other hand, Martin & Rose, like Martin (1992), do not understand the SFL notion of field, and unwittingly use the term for quite distinct theoretical dimensions.  These will be explained in turn.

Firstly, as Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 643) point out, the relations between lexical items (synonymy, antonymy etc.) are inherent to the organisation of lexis itself, and so do not "build a field".  For example:

• how does the inherent lexical relation of synonymy between big and large "build a field"?
• how does the inherent lexical relation of antonymy between good and bad "build a field"?
• how does the inherent lexical relation of hyponymy between colour and purple "build a field"?
• how does the inherent lexical relation of meronymy between toe and foot "build a field"?

Secondly, the notion of "building a field" (Martin 1992) is itself a tangle of multiple confusions. To take field first, in SFL theory, field is the ideational dimension of context; that is: the culture construed as a semiotic system. However, Martin misconstrues field as the ideational dimension of register, a functional variety of language, which, in turn, he misconstrues as context.

However, again, from the perspective of SFL theory, the notion of field in build a field does not correlate with context, but with the ideational semantics of a text. Martin's notion of "building a field" corresponds to the instantiation of ideational meaning during logogenesis.

[3] To be clear, these two instances are nominal groups, not single lexical items, and there are no hyponymic or meronymic relations between the lexical items young, man, first, love.

[4] This misunderstands synonymy and repetition.  As Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 644) point out, both relations involve identity, not class membership.  It is hyponymy that is based on class membership.

[5] To be clear, even ignoring the previously identified problems with Martin & Rose's notion of 'contrast' — e.g. here, here and here — this is nonsensical.  Contrast doesn't "function to distinguish categories" any more than meronymy or hyponymy do.  Contrast is proposed as a taxonomic relation between lexical items.

[6] To be clear, SFL theory is a "metafunctional view" on language.  In terms of metafunction, Martin's (1992) system of IDEATION, including taxonomic relations, is a rebranding of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) textual system of lexical cohesion as a system of the experiential metafunction, misunderstood, and relocated from lexicogrammar to discourse semantics, despite being concerned with lexicogrammar — relations between (misunderstood) lexical items — rather than semantics.  For a thorough examination of Martin's (1992) system of IDEATION, see the clarifying critiques here.

Misconstruing (Abridged) Grammatical Structures As Lexical Items

Martin & Rose (2007: 82):

These lexical items are presented as lexical strings in Figure 3.7. The order in which they occur in the text is indicated by their position in the table.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, Figure 3.7 presents abridged grammatical structures (nominal groups) as lexical items.  The five lexical strings can be considered in turn.

[1] In the first lexical string, none of the four "lexical items" are lexical items:

• complete a picture
• full disclosure
• all the relevant facts
• Truth and Reconciliation Commission

Ignoring this minor detail, the spurious claims here are also that:

• complete a picture and full disclosure are synonymous
• full disclosure and all the relevant facts are synonymous
• all the relevant facts and Truth and Reconciliation Commission are synonymous.

By way of contrast, in SFL Theory, the lexical items complete and full are textually cohesive through synonymy.

[2] In the second lexical string, four of the five "lexical items" are not lexical items:

• gross violations of human rights
• violations they suffered
• violations of human rights
• Committee on Human Rights Violations

Ignoring this minor detail, the spurious claims here are also that:

• violations they suffered is a repetition of gross violations of human rights
• violations is a repetition of violations they suffered
• violations of human rights is a repetition of violations
• Committee on Human Rights Violations is a repetition of violations of human rights

By way of contrast, in SFL Theory, the repetition of the lexical item violations is textually cohesive.

[3] In the third lexical string, neither of the two "lexical items" are lexical items:

• granting of amnesty
• Committee on Amnesty

Ignoring this minor detail, the spurious claim here is also that:

• Committee on Amnesty is a repetition of granting of amnesty

By way of contrast, in SFL Theory, the repetition of the lexical item amnesty is textually cohesive.

[4] In the fifth lexical string, neither of the two "lexical items" are lexical items:

• granting of reparation
• Committee on Reparation and Rehabilitation

Ignoring this minor detail, the spurious claim here is also that:

• Committee on Reparation and Rehabilitation is a repetition of granting of reparation

By way of contrast, in SFL Theory, the repetition of the lexical item reparation is textually cohesive.

Taxonomic Relations: Theorised On A Misunderstanding Of 'Lexical Item'

Martin & Rose (2007: 81-2):

Repetition and synonymy are particularly useful resources where the field of a text is very complex. They enable us to keep one or more lexical strings relatively simple, while complex lexical relations are constructed around them. For this reason, technical texts in many fields are common contexts to find repetition and synonymy. The Reconciliation Act is one such text. Its ‘purposes’ phase is presented below with some key lexical items highlighted.

To provide for the investigation and the establishment of as complete a picture as possible of the nature, causes and extent of gross violations of human rights ... ;
the granting of amnesty to persons who make full disclosure of all the relevant facts … ;
affording victims an opportunity to relate the violations they suffered;
the taking of measures aimed at the granting of reparation ... ;
reporting to the Nation about such violations and victims;
the making of recommendations aimed at the prevention of the commission of gross violations of human rights;
and for the said purposes to provide for the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, a Committee on Human Rights Violations, a Committee on Amnesty and a Committee on Reparation and Rehabilitation;
and to confer certain powers on, assign certain functions to and impose certain duties upon that Commission and those Committees;
and to provide for matters connected therewith.

Blogger Comments:

Leaving aside the fact that lexical items are lexicogrammatical, not discourse semantic, this demonstrates that Martin and Rose's entire model of taxonomic relations is built on a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes a lexical item.  In SFL theory, a lexical item is the synthetic realisation of the most delicate lexicogrammatical features.  Of the 17 highlighted elements, only 5 are genuine lexical items:

1. victims
2. violations
3. victims
4. Commission
5. Committees

The 12 that are falsely claimed to be lexical items are:

1. complete a picture
2. gross violations of human rights
3. granting of amnesty
4. full disclosure
5. relevant facts
6. violations they suffered
7. granting of reparation
8. gross violations of human rights
9. Truth and Reconciliation Commission
10. Committee on Human Rights Violations
11. Committee on Amnesty
12. Committee on Reparation and Rehabilitation

As can been seen, these are multi-word portions of (grammatical) nominal groups, all 12 of which feature multiple lexical items, and 10 of which also feature grammatical items (a, of, of, they, of, of, and, on, on, on, and).