Misconstruing Incongruent Realisations And Expansion Types

Martin (1992: 326):

As has just been reviewed, lexical cohesion is being developed here as an analysis of relations between message parts.  A message part is realised congruently as a lexical item and incongruently through one of the elaborating structures defined above.  These are reviewed in Table 5.19.

Table 5.19. Congruent and incongruent realisations of message parts
	multiple lexical items (incongruent)	single lexical item (congruent)
clause	Process = Range:process act = a role Process = ritual Location go = to work	Process act go
verbal group	Event = Particle think = over Event = Leisure event go = skating	Event consider skate
nominal group	Classifier = Thing skating = rink Pre-Deictic = Thing the edge of = the rink Pre-Numerative = Thing a pair = of skates Pre-Epithet = Thing the largest of = the rinks Pre-Classifier = Thing that kind of = rink Deictic (possessive) = Thing her = foot	Thing rink the rink the skates the rink the rink the foot

Blogger Comments:

[1] In SFL theory, lexical cohesion is a non-structural resource of the textual metafunction on the lexicogrammatical stratum.  Here it is being "developed" as a relation between experiential units on the discourse semantic stratum.

[2] In SFL theory, the incongruent realisation of semantics in lexicogrammar is termed grammatical metaphor.  On this basis, all the realisations in the 'multiple lexical items' column are metaphorical, whereas all those in the 'single lexical item' column are not.  That is, the incongruent act a rôle etc. are all metaphorical, whereas the congruent act etc. are not.

[3] The expansion relation between the Nucleus and Location (ritual or otherwise) is enhancement, not elaboration, since to work does not specify or describe (they) go.  Unsurprisingly, to work qualifies (they) go in terms of Location: direction.  Consequently, this example fails the criterion for being a message part.

[4] The expansion relation between such verbal groups in a verbal group complex is not elaboration, since skating does not specify or describe (they) go.  Instead, skating is the cause (purpose or result) of (they) go and, on that basis, the relation is enhancement. Consequently, this example fails the criterion for being a message part.

[5] If skating is the purpose of rink, then the expansion relation here is enhancement: cause, not elaboration;  cf a rink for skating.  Consequently, this example fails the criterion for being a message part.

[6] In the facet expression the edge of the rink, the expansion relation is extension: composition, not elaboration, since the edge is part of the rink.  Consequently, this example fails the criterion for being a message part.

[7] Unsurprisingly, the expansion relation between her and foot is extension: possession, not elaboration.  Consequently, this example fails the criterion for being a message part.