Misconstruing Cataphoric Reference

Martin (1992: 388-9):

The difference between presuming grammatical items and presuming meanings is illustrated in [6:4] and [6:5] below.  The lengthy monograph in [6:4bi] does not refer to any particular grammatical unit in [6:4a]; it simply presumes meaning that was there implied:

[6:4]	a.		It took several months of writing
	b.	i.	but in the end the lengthy monograph was complete
		ii	?? but in the end the lengthy one was complete

Blogger Comment:

This has the reference relation the wrong way around.  The reference in this instance is cataphoric, not anaphoric: it refers to the lengthy monograph.  In SFL theory, the nominal group the lengthy monograph is not a reference item.

To be clear, reference is a semantic relation between elements, whereas substitution–&-ellipsis is a lexicogrammatical relation (Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 538, 561-2).