Rebranding A Misunderstanding Of A Grammatical Opposition As Discourse Semantic

Martin (1992: 116):

As with superset reference, the nature of the experiential relevance of the presumed participant may or may not be specified.  It is not specified when other, same, different, identical and similar function as Post-Deictic or when the same items or such realise the Epithet; it is specified when comparative quantifiers and adjectives are deployed.  This opposition is illustrated below.

GENERAL -	the	other	four	frogs
	Deictic	Post-Deictic	Numerative	Thing
	the	four	other	frogs
	Deictic	Numerative	Epithet	Thing
EXPERIENTIALISED -
QUALITY:	the	four	bigger	frogs
	Deictic	Numerative	Epithet	Thing
	the	four	equally big	frogs
	Deictic	Numerative	Epithet (β α)	Thing
QUANTITY:	fewer	frogs
	Numerative	Thing
	equally many	frogs
	Numerative (β α)	Thing

Blogger Comments:

[1] This continues the mistaking of experiential construal for textual reference, and nominal groups for reference items; see previous posts.

[2] To be clear, Martin's opposition of general vs experientialised is a misunderstanding and rebranding of Halliday's comparative reference opposition of general vs particular on the grammatical stratum as a discourse semantic opposition.