Martin (1992: 294-5):
Taxonomic relations are of two main types, depending on the kind of taxonomy they reflect. Superordination relations reflect taxonomies based on subclassification (the "is a" relation); composition relations reflect taxonomies based on parts to wholes (the "has a" relation). … Some examples are presented in Table 5.4.
Table 5.4. Examples of superordination and composition
|
||
superordination
|
composition
|
|
‘people’
|
player–first seed
|
team–player
|
‘places’
|
line–service line
|
court–line
|
‘things’
|
official–referee
|
racquet–strings
|
‘actions’
|
hit–volley
|
–
|
‘quality’
|
excellent-agile
|
–
|
Blogger Comments:
[1] This is the distinction between delicacy (hyponymy) and composition (meronymy). The general sense of hyponymy is 'be a kind of' whereas for meronymy it is 'be a part of'. The logical organisation of the former is the expansion type: elaboration, while the logical organisation of the former is the expansion type: extension. Both of these expansion types cross-classify with the distinction between identity and class membership (see Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 144-6).
[2] The claim here is that the person 'first seed' is a subclassification of the person 'player'. Strictly speaking, 'first seed' identifies one of a group of players. That is, it identifies a part of a whole. The relation is therefore not one of superordination/delicacy/hyponymy.
[3] The claim here is that the quality 'agile' is a subclassification of the quality 'excellent'. However, the two qualities are not even of the same type, since 'agile' is a behavioural propensity, whereas 'excellent' is an evaluation. On the model of Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 211), 'agile' is a quality of expansion, and 'excellent' a quality of projection. The relation is therefore not one of superordination/delicacy/hyponymy.
