"Martin’s (1992) Work In This Area Is Noteworthy"

Fontaine (2017: 7):

Martin’s (1992) work in this area is noteworthy, in particular chapter five in English Text draws out some important issues and offers a very useful overview of how lexical relations can be approached within SFL. In particular, he discusses very well the “problem of units” (1992:290), which raises important questions about lexical representation. Indeed, as I do here, he asks how we can define lexical items. Interestingly, he proposes an alternative, suggesting it would be fruitful to “turn to the level of context” (p.291) and he shows that it is, but his interests and the types of questions he seeks to address lead the discussion towards register variables. This is not in any way a criticism since this perspective brings with it important insights. However it nevertheless remains concentrated on system networks and therefore the dimension of delicacy. Most approaches to lexis within SFL adhere to the dimension of delicacy. Martin (2016: 46-47) points out important contributions to studies of lexis in the area of phraseology, e.g. Tucker (2006) and Bednarek (e.g. 2008), where the focus is on corpus-based approaches to lexis; both make significant contributions to phraseology.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading. Martin (1992) is a rebranding of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) lexicogrammatical cohesion as Martin's model of discourse semantics (evidence here), with his Chapter 5 being his rebranding of their lexical cohesion as his experiential system of IDEATION (evidence here). Halliday & Hasan's lexical cohesion is not so much concerned with lexical relations, but with how relations between lexical items can be used to create textual cohesion.

[2] To be clear, Martin's discussion is concerned with the problem of 'semantic units' (p290), and the unit he comes up with is a 'message part' (p293), which 'may or may not be realised by a single lexical item' (p293).

[3] To be clear, Martin's discussion of his semantic unit, the message part, does not raise important questions about lexical representation, even if the notion of lexical representation in a mental lexicon were consistent with SFL Theory and the known facts of human biology and brain science.

[4] To be clear, Martin's discussion of the problem of delimiting lexical items (p290-1) takes the syntagmatic perspective of collocation, instead of the paradigmatic perspective of agnation. Systemically, the argument for a lexical item involves providing evidence that the wording in question can be replaced by a single lexical item.

[5] To be clear, Martin (1992) misunderstands the SFL notion of context, confusing it with varieties of language: genre and register (evidence here). In Hjelmslevian terms, he mistakes varieties of a denotative semiotic for the content plane of a connotative semiotic. Because of these misunderstandings, Martin's discussion is neither fruitful nor insightful.

[6] Here Fontaine misunderstands Martin's text. To be clear, what Martin purports to be doing is using field, the ideational dimension of context, which Martin mistakes as a register variable, to 'set up' his experiential semantic unit 'message part'.

[7] To be clear, there are two reasons why approaches to lexis in Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory remain "concentrated" on system networks. The first is that the system network is the formalism for representing language as meaning potential. The second is that SFL defines lexis as most delicate grammar.

"On What Basis Is There A Lexical Tie Between Two Items" In Lexical Cohesion

Fontaine (2017: 6-7):

There are several research topics in SFL that do come close to a lexicological perspective. The first will be obvious to those familiar with the work. Cohesion in English (Halliday and Hasan, 1976) is the greatest contribution so far in terms of developing an approach to lexicology in SFL. This seminal work was ahead of its time when first published and remains an important source in any work related to cohesion. While it moved the field forward and was in many respects “ahead of its time” (Sanders and Maat, 2006:592), it does not address issues of concern to lexicologists. For example, on what basis is there a lexical tie between two items, i.e. what is the nature of the relationship? In some cases, lexical cohesion relies on an assumption that “a shared lexico-semantic relationship holds” (ibid.:591). This suggests that, for lexicologists, a more detailed account of lexical representation is needed for the SFL account of lexical relations to be more robust and usable in other approaches.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Halliday & Hasan (1976) is not a contribution to developing an approach to lexicology in SFL Theory, since the theoretical assumptions that define lexicology as a field are inconsistent with the theoretical assumptions of SFL Theory.

[2] This is misleading, because the types of relations between lexical items in a cohesive tie are explicitly stated in Halliday & Hasan (1976: 288) as reiteration (repetition, synonym, superordinate, general word) or collocation:

Moreover, the model has since been made more explicit in terms of axis and logical and experiential relations. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 644):

[3] On the contrary, what this suggests is that the cognitive linguists, Sanders and Maat, have a very superficial acquaintance with the work they regard as "ahead of its time". Moreover, as previously explained, the notion of 'lexical representation' in a mental lexicon is inconsistent with both SFL Theory and 'the known facts of human biology and brain science' (Edelman 1989).