Martin (1992: 327):
Derivational variants were classified as repetitions in 5.3.2 above, alongside inflexional members of a lexical item's formal scatter. This implied that congruent and incongruent realisations of a particular message part would be treated under this heading. Accordingly, both the verb stand and the noun table in [4:2:] would be treated as repetition of the verb tabled in [4:2:6], both of which are antonyms of ground (taking tabled as a metaphorical variant of stand on the table).
[4:2] 6.m. With the Dachshund, a Dachsund is tabled.
8.p. With the bigger breeds of dog, they're stood on the ground.
9.s. we stand our dog on the table.
 This is invalid reasoning. Treating the various forms of a single lexical item as repetition does not imply that multiple lexical items — incongruent realisations of message parts — can also be treated as repetition. Only the repeated lexical item within the message part, by definition, constitutes a lexical repetition.
 The invalid reasoning, above, leads to an absurd conclusion: that stand is a repetition of tabled. In SFL theory, there are two instances of lexically cohesive repetition in the text: tabled-table and stood-stand.
 Obviously, neither of the lexical items, stand or table is an antonym of the lexical item ground. By definition, an antonym is a word opposite in meaning to another: stand is not the opposite of ground; table is not the opposite of ground.