Misconstruing Synonymy

Martin (1992: 300, 301):

Closely related to hyponymy is the category of synonymy.  Indeed, synonyms might well be defined as co-hyponyms for which differences in meaning do not matter. … The difference between synonyms and co-hyponyms is in other words largely a question of delicacy with respect to a particular field.

Blogger Comments:

[1] In SFL theory, the difference between hyponymy and synonymy is the difference in elaboration between class membership (attributive relation) and identity (identifying relation).  See Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 572).

[2] The focus shifts here from the ("vertical") relation of hyponymy to the ("horizontal") relation between co-hyponyms — as if the latter is also hyponymy.

Co-hyponyms, like co-meronyms, can be synonyms or not; synonyms can co-hyponyms, or co-meronyms, or not.

Misconstruing Ellipsis Of Repetition As Relational Hyp(er)onymy

Martin (1992: 299):

Depending on the field the relationship between hyponym and hyperonym has different names.  These are commonly realised through Pre-Classifier structures (for which see Martin 1988): a class of noun, a make of car, a breed of dogs etc.  And they are used cohesively as well: Like my new car? — Yes, what make is it?  A cohesive relationship between one of these items and the hyponym it relates to a hyperonym will be referred to as relational hyponymy/hyperonymy.  Typical realisations include: class, kind, type, form, breed, make, sort, style, species, order, family, variety, genre, grade, brand, caste, category.

Blogger Comments:

[1] In SFL theory, this nominal group function is termed 'extended Numerative: variety', which is the cross-classification of 'collective' and 'type'.  See Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 333).

a	make	of	car
Numerative: variety			Thing
Premodifier	Head	Postmodifier

[2] The cohesion in the response includes ellipsis of an entire clause, and anaphoric personal reference of it to my new car.  But most pertinent here is the ellipsis of the potential lexical repetition of car.

do	you	like	my new car
Finite	Subject	Predicator	Complement

yes	I	do	like	your new car
mood Adjunct: polarity	Subject	Finite	Predicator	Complement

what make of car	is	it
Subject	Finite	Complement

[3] The notion of a 'relational hyponymy/hyperonymy' therefore arises from not recognising a cohesive relation.

Misconstruing Meronymy As Hyponymy

Martin (1992: 297):

Composition taxonomies organise people, places and things in a given field with respect to part/whole rather than class/subclass relations.  An illustrative taxonomy is outlined in Fig. 5.13, drawing once again on the field of music.  The less delicate systems [Fig. 5.13] focus on the organisation of the swing bands… .  The more delicate systems [Fig. 5.14] break down the players into sections as they were typically organised on stage.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Figure 5.13 starts out as a composition taxonomy — e.g. 'management' and 'personnel' are parts of the whole 'swing band' — but then construes 'female' and 'male' as parts of the whole 'vocalists'; and 'vocalists' and 'players' as parts of the whole 'members'.  That is, it misconstrues hyponyms (types of x) as meronyms (parts of x).

The continuation of the taxonomy in Figure 5.14 is entirely hyponymic — despite being presented as meronymic; e.g. 'rhythm', 'horns' and 'reeds' are misconstrued as parts of the whole 'players'.

[2]  Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 92):

While the choice of ‘level’ in hyponymic elaboration is the choice in delicacy of categorisation, the choice of level in a meronymic taxonomy is the choice in delicacy of focus.  The focus is typically on the whole (i.e. the most inclusive region within the meronymy) even if a specific part is particularly important.

[3] This misconstrues (what is not) a composition taxonomy as a system network.

Misconstruing Field As Language

Martin (1992: 295):

The point of the network is simply to illustrate superordination from the point of view of a field specific taxonomy which would underlie statements like Cool is a kind of American improvised modern popular music performed in jazz clubs in New York and Los Angeles in the late 50's and early 60's.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This evinces that language (statements) describing social activities are the source of field networks.

[2] This misconstrues context (field) as lying under semantics (statements).

Misrepresenting Superordination (Hyponymy)

Martin (1992: 294-5):

Taxonomic relations are of two main types, depending on the kind of taxonomy they reflect.  Superordination relations reflect taxonomies based on subclassification (the "is a" relation); composition relations reflect taxonomies based on parts to wholes (the "has a" relation). … Some examples are presented in Table 5.4.

Table 5.4. Examples of superordination and composition
	superordination	composition
‘people’	player–first seed	team–player
‘places’	line–service line	court–line
‘things’	official–referee	racquet–strings
‘actions’	hit–volley	–
‘quality’	excellent-agile	–

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is the distinction between delicacy (hyponymy) and composition (meronymy).  The general sense of hyponymy is 'be a kind of' whereas for meronymy it is 'be a part of'.  The logical organisation of the former is the expansion type: elaboration, while the logical organisation of the former is the expansion type: extension.  Both of these expansion types cross-classify with the distinction between identity and class membership (see Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 144-6).

[2] The claim here is that the person 'first seed' is a subclassification of the person 'player'.  Strictly speaking, 'first seed' identifies one of a group of players.  That is, it identifies a part of a whole.  The relation is therefore not one of superordination/delicacy/hyponymy.

[3] The claim here is that the quality 'agile' is a subclassification of the quality 'excellent'.  However, the two qualities are not even of the same type, since 'agile' is a behavioural propensity, whereas 'excellent' is an evaluation.  On the model of Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 211), 'agile' is a quality of expansion, and 'excellent' a quality of projection.  The relation is therefore not one of superordination/delicacy/hyponymy.

Confusing Context, Semantics And Lexicogrammar

Martin (1992: 293-4):

The network for lexical relations developed below will be organised around these three different aspects of the contextual structure of activity sequences. … At primary delicacy, the system for lexical relations is presented as Fig. 5.10.

Blogger Comments:

There are two major violations of the stratification hierarchy here.

[1] On the one hand, lexical relations (lexicogrammatical stratum) are presented as being a system of a higher stratum (discourse semantics).

[2] On the other hand, while the system is presented as located on the discourse semantic stratum, it is actually composed of the features that have been argued to be located at the stratum of context: (taxonomic, nuclear and activity).


Summary:

The system proposed for the discourse semantic stratum is concerned with the stratum below (lexicogrammar) and composed of features purported to be of the stratum above (context).

Misrepresenting Congruent Vs Incongruent

Martin (1992: 293):

The message part may or may not be realised by a single lexical item; congruent and incongruent realisations are exemplified in Table 5.3. 

Table 5.3. Simple and complex lexicalisation of message part
MESSAGE PART	CONGRUENT (1 lexical item)	INCONGRUENT (1+ lexical items)
‘person’	champion	tournament winner
‘place’	court	playing area
‘thing’	draw	playing schedule
‘quality’	outstanding	first class
‘action’	smash	hit an overhead
‘quality’	well	out of sight

Blogger Comments:

[1] In SFL theory, the distinction between congruent and incongruent realisations is the distinction between non-metaphorical and metaphorical expressions.  When the semantics and the lexicogrammar are in agreement (congruent), there is no grammatical metaphor; when the semantics and the lexicogrammar are not in agreement (incongruent), there is grammatical metaphor.

Here the distinction is not used in the SFL sense, but instead used merely to distinguish whether the semantic unit is realised by one word or more.

[2] There are two layers of confusion here.  On the one hand, the elements listed for the discourse semantic unit, the message part, are those that have been previously identified as the field variables that the message part realises.  On the other hand, these elements are not field variables, on the SFL model, but semantic elements in a description of social activities.

Misconstruing Stratification: Semantics Realising Semantics

Martin (1992: 293):

For a given field, the message part realises (i) one of the features taxonomising people, places and things, or (ii) one of the actions configuring with people, places and things and entering into activity sequences, or (iii) one of the qualities associated with people, places, things and actions.

Blogger Comments:

The proposal here is to present a model of field-specific semantics.  The method of doing so is to interpret field as semantic descriptions of social activities and to have those semantic descriptions realised by a discourse semantic unit, the message part.  That is, the level of cultural context is misconstrued as a level of language, semantics, and this semantics is then realised by discourse semantics.

This violates the theoretical principle of stratification as distinct levels of symbolic abstraction, not only because it confuses context and language, but also because it distributes the same level of symbolic abstraction, semantics, over two distinct strata.

In SFL theory, the ideational meaning realising a specific field is known as a semantic domain — the semantic profile of a field (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 323).

Misconstruing Experiential As Constituent Of Logical

Martin (1992: 293):

On the basis of this characterisation of field, the discourse semantic unit underlying lexical item and entering into cohesive lexical relations can be set up.  Since it is an experientially defined unit, it will be referred to as a message part, to bring out its metafunctional relationship with CONJUNCTION.

Blogger Comments:

[1] The characterisation of field confuses context with language by construing field as a semantic description of social activity.  That is, it violates the principle of stratification.

[2] This confuses the syntagmatic axis (structural unit) and the paradigmatic axis (lexical item).

[3] This places the higher level of symbolic abstraction (discourse semantic) below the lower level (lexical).  That is, it inverts the stratification of content.

[4] This construes the experiential unit as something that is interrelated —cohesively, so: textually — rather than as something with internal structure; cf sequences, figures, elements in SFL theory.

[5] In SFL theory, a 'message' is a unit of the textual metafunction on the semantic stratum.

[6] This misconstrues the relation between the logical and experiential metafunctions as one of constituency.  On the one hand, logical units don't consist of experiential units; on the other hand, the relation between units in complexes is not constituency but interdependency.