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.
