Martin (1992: 138):
High levels of nominalisation characterise abstract written English, especially in the context of science, the humanities and administration. The texts typically involve generic rather than specific reference and so few of the nominalised participants play a role in long reference chains; esphoric the is common in these participant creating nominal groups (e.g. the implementation of key targets as operational components of the new strategy — and hence also of the process of negotiation).
 On the one hand, this is a bare assertion, unsupported by evidence, such as the analysis of data. On the other hand, the distinction between generic and specific reference, which Martin (1992: 103) defines as:
Generic reference is selected when the whole of some experiential class of participants is at stake rather than a specific manifestation of that class…though labelled as a relation of delicacy (generic vs specific), confuses part-whole relations ('whole') with token-type relations ('manifestation of a class'), the former, the extending logical relation of composition, the latter, an elaborating logical relation of instantiation; see Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 145-6).
 On the one hand, no reason is given why generic reference should affect the length of reference chains, and on the other hand, this is a bare assertion, unsupported by evidence, such as the analysis of data.
 To be clear, 'esphoric' reference is Martin's rebranding of Halliday & Hasan's structural (rather than cohesive) cataphoric reference.