The Argument For Comparison As A Major Logical Category

Martin (1992: 203):

Taking into account these textual patterns and the fact that a similar/different opposition is basic to all other discourse semantic systems, comparison will be set up as a major category of conjunctive relation here.  The congruence of the like/unlike opposition across discourse systems is shown below. 

Table 4.11 Contrast and similarity across discourse semantic systems
	“LIKE”	“UNLIKE”
CONJUNCTION	similarity	contrast
IDENTIFICATION	semblance	difference
IDEATION	synonymy	antonymy
NEGOTIATION (Halliday 1985: 69)	accept undertake acknowledge answer	reject refuse contradict disclaim

Blogger Comment:

[1] As demonstrated in previous critiques, the analysis of 'these textual patterns' is compromised by the logical error of confusing different/unlike with contrastive/adversative.

[2] The opposition of similar/different and of like/unlike demonstrates the semantic distinction between adversative (opposition) and dissimilar (different/unlike) — dissimilar is one of the elements in opposition.

[3] Difference is the basis of semiosis itself, not just discourse semantic systems.  Similarity is the basis of agnation, including metaphorical agnation.

Conclusion:  The argument for setting up comparison as a major category of conjunctive relations rests on two misunderstandings:

1. confusing enhancement: manner: comparison with extension: addition: adversative, and
2. presenting a fundamental feature of all semiosis as specific to discourse semantic systems.