Martin (1992: 100):
English nominal groups not only code all three types of phoricity, but combine them freely; for example:
the bigger frog reminding + relevancethe big one reminding + redundancya bigger one relevance + redundancythe bigger one reminding + relevance + redundancy
 As previously explained, this misattributes the function of reference items to the structure of the domain in which they appear, in this instance: nominal groups.
 Not one of the four examples is from text [3:88] — each is a constructed example, isolated without co-text. It is therefore impossible to know whether the demonstrative reference of the is cohesive (anaphoric), structural (cataphoric) or neither (exophoric/homophoric).
 As previously explained, Martin's "reminding phoricity" is merely a rebranding of personal and demonstrative reference (Halliday & Hasan 1976), which Halliday & Matthiessen (2004, 2014) characterise as two types of co-reference.
 As previously explained, Martin's "relevance phoricity" is merely a rebranding of comparative reference (Halliday & Hasan 1976).
 As previously explained, Martin's "redundancy phoricity" is a rebranding of ellipsis–&–substitution (Halliday & Hasan 1976), a non-referential cohesive system which he misconstrues as a type of reference.