Martin (1992: 203):
Taking into account these textual patterns and the fact that a similar/different opposition is basic to all other discourse semantic systems, comparison will be set up as a major category of conjunctive relation here. The congruence of the like/unlike opposition across discourse systems is shown below.
Blogger Comment:
[1] As demonstrated in previous critiques, the analysis of 'these textual patterns' is compromised by the logical error of confusing different/unlike with contrastive/adversative.
[2] The opposition of similar/different and of like/unlike demonstrates the semantic distinction between adversative (opposition) and dissimilar (different/unlike) — dissimilar is one of the elements in opposition.
[3] Difference is the basis of semiosis itself, not just discourse semantic systems. Similarity is the basis of agnation, including metaphorical agnation.
Conclusion: The argument for setting up comparison as a major category of conjunctive relations rests on two misunderstandings:
[2] The opposition of similar/different and of like/unlike demonstrates the semantic distinction between adversative (opposition) and dissimilar (different/unlike) — dissimilar is one of the elements in opposition.
[3] Difference is the basis of semiosis itself, not just discourse semantic systems. Similarity is the basis of agnation, including metaphorical agnation.
Conclusion: The argument for setting up comparison as a major category of conjunctive relations rests on two misunderstandings:
- confusing enhancement: manner: comparison with extension: addition: adversative, and
- presenting a fundamental feature of all semiosis as specific to discourse semantic systems.
No comments:
Post a Comment