Sunday, 3 May 2015

A Misunderstanding Of A Nominal Group And A Misleading Inference

Martin (1992: 115):
This explains both the oddity and the rhetorical effect of Sachs [sic], Schegloff and Jefferson's A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn-taking for conversation which presumes a set of turn-taking systematics without in fact claiming that theirs is uniquely identifiable among this set as simpler than the others (the effect is not the same as writing one of the simplest systematics; cf. Halliday and Hasan 1976: 81 who suggest that a latest notion means 'one of the latest notions'implying that they would prefer to crossclassify the [presenting/presuming] system with both comparison and superset reference, rather than making superset reference dependent on the feature [undirected]).
For these reasons then the [comparison/-] system is simultaneous with the options [presenting/presuming] and [generic/specific].

Blogger Comments:

[1] This again confuses construing experience with textual reference; see previous posts.

[2] This misunderstands the experiential meaning of this title.  The title a simplest systematics does claim that no others are simpler, but acknowledges that there may be others just as simple.

[3] Martin's claim is the opposite of what is true, as the reference to Halliday & Hasan (1976: 81) confirms.

[4] This is very misleading indeed, since it falsely infers that Halliday & Hasan would endorse Martin's misunderstanding of cohesive reference.

[5] On the one hand, this is a non-sequitur, since "these reasons" do not logically entail the simultaneity of these systems, and on the other hand, the conclusion is itself based on the mistaken notion that nominal groups are reference items, which, in turn, arises from confusing nominal group deixis with cohesive reference.

No comments:

Post a Comment