Monday 22 June 2015

The Argument For Comparison As A Major Logical Category

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. 

Table 4.11 Contrast and similarity across discourse semantic systems

LIKE
UNLIKE
CONJUNCTION
similarity
contrast
IDENTIFICATION
semblance
difference
IDEATION
synonymy
antonymy
NEGOTIATION
(Halliday 1985: 69)
accept
undertake
acknowledge
answer
reject
refuse
contradict
disclaim


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:
  1. confusing enhancement: manner: comparison with extension: addition: adversative, and
  2. presenting a fundamental feature of all semiosis as specific to discourse semantic systems.