Martin (1992: 127, 128):
The nominal groups in [3:1] are listed below. Each is coded for the IDENTIFICATION choices made and the type of reference to the context where these choices are phoric. The analysis will be annotated for purposes of discussion, rather than presented in detail.
NOMINAL GROUP
|
REFERENCE
(terminal features)
|
RETRIEVAL
(where phoric)
|
me
|
presuming…interlocutor
|
anaphoric
|
a gorilla
|
presenting…unmarked
|
—
|
I(t)*
|
presuming…noninterlocutor
|
anaphoric
|
vii. The writer's I is being interpreted as It; few children have baby gorillas, but gorillas commonly do (note the importance of going beyond the experiential meaning of a particular group to reconstruct the reference relation here)!
Blogger Comments:
[1] This again mistakes interpersonal deixis for textual reference. To be clear, only non-interactant (3rd person) pronouns and determiners function as personal reference items, since these alone mark identifiability. The identities of the interactants (1st & 2nd person) are given by their rôles in the speech event (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 606). The confusion is one of metafunction.
[2] As previously explained, Martin's 'presenting' reference is neither reference nor textual; instead, it labels the first instantiation of an experiential participant in a text. The confusion is one of metafunction.
[3] As previously explained, this is merely Martin's rebranding of Halliday & Hasan's (1976: 43-57) personal reference, misunderstood, and relocated from lexicogrammar to his discourse semantic stratum.
[4] Here Martin provides the reasoning he used to discover a (typo)graphical error.
No comments:
Post a Comment