Misconstruing Ellipsis Of Repetition As Relational Meronymy [1]

Martin (1992: 305):

As with hyponymy, the relationship between part and whole may be named.  Thus a kind of chair is proportional with a part of the chair, but with the name of the relational [sic] filling a Pre-Numerative (Halliday 1985: 174) rather than a Pre-Classifier position.  The relational items may function cohesively between clauses, as in The chair's broken. — Which part?  The following items are among those realizing relational meronymy:

part, content, ingredient, fitting, member, constituent, stratum, rank, plane, element, factor, component, faction, excerpt, extract, selection, piece, segment, section, portion, measure

Blogger Comments:

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

a	part	of	the	chair
Numerative: portion			Deictic	Thing

[2] The cohesion in the response is ellipsis of the potential lexical repetition of chair (and of the Finite and Residue).

the chair	’s	broken
Subject	Finite	Complement

which part of the chair	’s	broken
Subject	Finite	Complement

The notion of a 'relational meronymy' therefore arises from not recognising a cohesive relation.

[3] Not all of these items necessarily represent parts of wholes.

Misconstruing Antonymy

Martin (1992: 301-2):

One further category that needs to be brought in here is antonymy.  Whereas synonyms are co-hyponyms for which differences in meaning may not matter, antonyms are co-hyponyms for which they must — because the items in question are opposed in meaning rather than complementing each other; 

Blogger Comments:

[1] Definitionally, synonyms are not types (hyponyms) of co-hyponyms.  In SFL theory, synonymy is a lexical means of creating cohesion in discourse.

[2] Definitionally, antonyms are not types (hyponyms) of co-hyponyms.  In SFL theory, antonymy is a lexical means of creating cohesion in discourse.

[3] Complementing is most generally concerned with completion, and often involves not just opposites (e.g. art: complementary colours), but contradiction (e.g. physics: particle-wave-field).  Halliday (2008: 84):

In the most general sense, complementarity is a special form of complexity; one can think of it perhaps as the management of contradiction.

Confusing Lexis With Grammar

Martin (1992: 301):

Setting aside the fact that for many texts these fine differences in meaning do not matter, it could be argued that the only true synonymy is repetition, including a lexical item's formal scatter (e.g. defeat, defeats, defeated, defeating).  But even here, an item's derivational scatter gives one pause.  Looked at from the point of view of repetition, the difference between synonymy and co-hyponymy can be thought of as an [sic] a kind of scale, graded along the following lines:

same meaning
	defeat:defeat	repetition
	defeat:defeats	inflectional difference
	defeating:defeat	derivational difference
	defeat:down	synonym
	defeat:trounce	attitudinal difference
	defeat:subjugate	co-hyponyms
another meaning

Blogger Comments:

[1] In SFL theory, synonymy is a means of lexical cohesion, where 'a speaker or writer creates cohesion in discourse through the choice of lexical items' (Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 570).

[2] Synonymy and repetition are both relations of identity; that is what they have in common.  In synonymy, the token and value are different lexical items, whereas in repetition, the token and value are the same lexical item; that is how they differ.  Repetition is not 'the only true synonymy', it is a limiting case of synonymy.

[3] This confuses the two abstractions, lexical and grammatical, of the notion of 'word'.  The variation in the form of words according to their grammatical function is the word as one the ranks in grammatical systems, not the word as lexical item or lexeme.  See Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 568).

[4] The difference between synonymy and co-hyponymy is that synonyms are similar in meaning, whereas co-hyponyms are members of the same class.  Dogs and cats are co-members of many classes (domestic pets, carnivores), but they are not synonyms.  Cf co-meronyms: parts of the same whole (brain, stomach).

[5] The 'grading' confuses a number of variables, including lexis vs grammar, and experiential vs interpersonal meaning.

[6] The difference between 'defeat' and 'defeating' (note the change in order) is inflectional rather than derivational, except in the comparatively rare case where the latter functions as a nominal.

[7] The words 'defeat' and 'trounce' are also synonyms (experiential meaning), whatever their difference in attitude (interpersonal meaning).

[8] The words 'defeat' and 'subjugate' are also synonyms; a specific class of which their meanings are both hyponyms is less obvious.

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.