Martin (1992: 117):
The distinction between [similarity] and [identity] also accounts for the difference between so and that where they realise comparison in Attributes. Both are colloquial in register. So realises similarity and points to the non-verbal context, often to an iconic measuring gesture:
[3:40] The frog was about so big.
That realises [identity] and depends on information recoverable from either the verbal or non-verbal context; it is exclamatory in intensity:
[3:41] You mean he was that stupid!
Blogger Comments:
[1] This is very misleading. Having falsely presented this distinction in Halliday & Hasan (1976: 76) as his own work — see the two previous posts — Martin reinforces this falsehood by purporting to argue for the value of "his" distinction.
plagiarism (noun)
the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.
synonyms: copying, infringement of copyright, piracy, theft, stealing, poaching, appropriation;
See also Jim Martin "Honouring" The Late Ruqaiya Hasan where Martin falsely accused the late Ruqaiya Hasan of plagiarism at a symposium organised to honour her.
[2] This confuses the nominal group structure that realises Attributes (experiential metafunction) with comparative reference (non-structural textual metafunction). Comparative reference involves a cohesive relation between a reference item and some reference point by which a comparison is made (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 632-3). (Martin's system of IDENTIFICATION purports to theorise the semantics of reference.)
[3] Any referential function of so in this constructed instance is demonstrative, not comparative, since it serves the same function as this in The frog was about this big. The item is exophoric to a gesture that indicates the size of the frog.
[4] Any referential function of that in this constructed instance is demonstrative, not comparative, since it serves the same function as that in You mean he was stupid to that extent.
That is, Martin has used two instances of demonstrative reference ([3] and [4]) to illustrate a distinction in comparative reference that he has falsely presented as his own work.
[5] Trivially, this misconstrues speech function (exclamatory) as intensity.
[3] Any referential function of so in this constructed instance is demonstrative, not comparative, since it serves the same function as this in The frog was about this big. The item is exophoric to a gesture that indicates the size of the frog.
[4] Any referential function of that in this constructed instance is demonstrative, not comparative, since it serves the same function as that in You mean he was stupid to that extent.
That is, Martin has used two instances of demonstrative reference ([3] and [4]) to illustrate a distinction in comparative reference that he has falsely presented as his own work.
[5] Trivially, this misconstrues speech function (exclamatory) as intensity.
No comments:
Post a Comment