Confusing Textual Cohesion With Ideational Construal

Martin & Rose (2007: 83):

On the other hand, taxonomies are more often constructed implicitly as a text unfolds from clause to clause, as we saw for the people in Helena’s story. A difference with technical fields, such as legal justice, is that the writer may deliberately construct a technical taxonomy as the text unfolds.

Blogger Comments:

This confuses the cohesive relations between lexical items (textual metafunction) with the construal of experience as taxonomies (ideational metafunction).

Confusing Ideational Grammar With Textual Cohesion And Rebranding The Misunderstanding Experiential Discourse Semantics (Taxonomic Relations)

Martin & Rose (2007: 83):

Now let’s turn to find how Tutu construes the field of Truth and Reconciliation through taxonomic relations. Institutional fields such as the law, government, education and so on consist largely of abstract things like amnesty, justice, truth, reconciliation. These abstractions often denote a large set of activities, which the reader is expected to recognise. Sometimes, however, the subordinate activities may be specified, particularly for pedagogic or legal purposes. For example, Tutu quotes the Act’s definition of one type of offence as a set of more specific activities:

The Act required that where the offence is a gross violation of human rights — defined as an abduction, killing, torture or severe ill-treatment

This sentence explicitly instantiates a classifying taxonomy, as in Figure 3.8.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This confuses the ideational metafunction (cultural field) with the textual metafunction (lexical cohesion rebranded as 'taxonomic relations'); see further below.

[2] To be clear, in SFL theory, the term 'institution' refers to a sub-potential of cultural context; that is, it is situation type viewed from the system pole of the cline of instantiation.  'Institutional field' thus refers to the ideational dimension of a cultural sub-potential.  Accordingly, institutional fields do not consist of abstract things, because abstract things are linguistic construals of experience.  That is, the relation between culture and language is not one of constituency, since culture and language are different levels of symbolic abstraction.  The relation between them is thus one of realisation.

[3] To be clear, this denotation is a relation between meaning (semantics) and wording (lexicogrammar) on the content plane of language.

[4] To be clear, this specification in the definition is construed in the grammar as an encoding identifying clause, wherein a superordinate Value a gross violation of human rights is encoded by reference to a more delicate Token as an abduction, killing, torture or severe ill-treatment, realised as a prepositional phrase whose Range is realised by a nominal group complex of extension: alternation.

(a gross violation of human rights)	(is) defined	as an abduction, killing, torture or severe ill-treatment
Identified Value	Process: relational	Identifier Token

as	an abduction, killing, torture or severe ill-treatment
minor Process	Range

an abduction	killing	torture	or severe ill-treatment
1	+ 2	+ 3	+ 4

That is, here Martin & Rose confuse hyponymic lexical cohesion (textual lexicogrammar) with clause transitivity (experiential grammar) and nominal group complexing (logical grammar), and rebrand the confusion as taxonomic relations (experiential discourse semantics).

Confusing Lexical Cohesion (Collocation) With Clause Ergativity ("Nuclear Relations")

Martin & Rose (2007: 83):

At the same time there are other lexical relations between each of these simple strings. These include relations between human rights violations and amnesty, and between victims and reparation. However these lexical relations are less taxonomic than nuclear — human rights violators are to be granted amnesty, and victims are to be granted reparations. The simplicity of the taxonomic strings here enables the complexity of nuclear relations between their elements to be developed comprehensibly.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, human rights violations, like violations of human rights, is not a lexical item and so does not participate in lexical relations.  Moreover, lexical items and lexical relations are lexicogrammatical, not discourse semantic.

[2] To be clear, in SFL theory, these lexical relations are those of collocation, a tendency to co-occur, one type of lexical cohesion, a non-structural resource of the textual metafunction at the level of lexicogrammar.  Collocation differs from the other types of lexical cohesion (Martin & Rose's "taxonomic relations") in that the nature of the relation is syntagmatic rather than paradigmatic (Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 572). 

It will be seen in later posts that Martin & Rose confuse the semantic basis of lexical collocation with grammar, specifically: the ergative model of transitivity ("nuclear relations"), and present their misunderstanding of lexicogrammar as discourse semantics.  As Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 577) explain:

In general, the semantic basis of many instances of collocation is the relation of enhancement, as with dine + restaurant, table; fry + pan; bake + oven. These are circumstantial relationships, but as the example with smoke + pipe  illustrates, participant + process relationships also form the basis of collocation — the most important ones involving either Process +  Range (e.g. play +  musical instrument: piano, violin,  etc; grow + old ) and Process +  Medium (e.g. shell + peas, twinkle + star, polish + shoes). While we can typically find a semantic basis to collocation in this way, the relationship is at the same time a direct association between the words;

[3] This is a bare assertion, unsupported by theoretical argument or textual evidence, and based on misunderstandings of lexical items, lexical cohesion ("taxonomic relations") and clause ergativity ("nuclear relations").

Misrepresenting Lexical Cohesion (Repetition And Synonymy) As Discourse Semantic Ideation

Martin & Rose (2007: 82-3):

In building the purposes for the Commission and its three Committees, repetition and synonymy are used extensively to make quite clear which purpose is related to which Committee or Commission. This includes various synonyms for ‘the whole truth’, which is made explicit in the name of the Commission, and repetitions of human rights violations, amnesty, victims and reparation, which become the names of the Committees.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, merely repeating lexical items or using synonyms does not relate purposes to Committees and a Commission.  Semantically, this is achieved through sequences of figures and their elements (the counterparts of clause complexes, clause transitivity and groups/phrases).  In SFL theory, repetition and synonymy are lexical resources of textual cohesion.

[2] On the one hand, the nominal group 'the whole truth' is not a lexical item, and on the other hand, it does not feature in the text.  Moreover, contrary to Martin & Rose's claims, Truth and Reconciliation Commission is not a synonym of 'the whole truth' — or of all the relevant facts or of full disclosure or of complete a picture (the nominal groups that do appear in the text).

[3] On the one hand, the nominal group human rights violations is not a lexical item, and on the other hand, the function of these words — victims does not feature — in qualifying each of the Things (Committees) is grammatical, not lexical:

• a Committee on Human Rights Violations, 
• a Committee on Amnesty and 
• a Committee on Reparation and Rehabilitation.

Misconstruing (Abridged) Grammatical Structures As Lexical Items

Martin & Rose (2007: 82):

These lexical items are presented as lexical strings in Figure 3.7. The order in which they occur in the text is indicated by their position in the table.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, Figure 3.7 presents abridged grammatical structures (nominal groups) as lexical items.  The five lexical strings can be considered in turn.

[1] In the first lexical string, none of the four "lexical items" are lexical items:

• complete a picture
• full disclosure
• all the relevant facts
• Truth and Reconciliation Commission

Ignoring this minor detail, the spurious claims here are also that:

• complete a picture and full disclosure are synonymous
• full disclosure and all the relevant facts are synonymous
• all the relevant facts and Truth and Reconciliation Commission are synonymous.

By way of contrast, in SFL Theory, the lexical items complete and full are textually cohesive through synonymy.

[2] In the second lexical string, four of the five "lexical items" are not lexical items:

• gross violations of human rights
• violations they suffered
• violations of human rights
• Committee on Human Rights Violations

Ignoring this minor detail, the spurious claims here are also that:

• violations they suffered is a repetition of gross violations of human rights
• violations is a repetition of violations they suffered
• violations of human rights is a repetition of violations
• Committee on Human Rights Violations is a repetition of violations of human rights

By way of contrast, in SFL Theory, the repetition of the lexical item violations is textually cohesive.

[3] In the third lexical string, neither of the two "lexical items" are lexical items:

• granting of amnesty
• Committee on Amnesty

Ignoring this minor detail, the spurious claim here is also that:

• Committee on Amnesty is a repetition of granting of amnesty

By way of contrast, in SFL Theory, the repetition of the lexical item amnesty is textually cohesive.

[4] In the fifth lexical string, neither of the two "lexical items" are lexical items:

• granting of reparation
• Committee on Reparation and Rehabilitation

Ignoring this minor detail, the spurious claim here is also that:

• Committee on Reparation and Rehabilitation is a repetition of granting of reparation

By way of contrast, in SFL Theory, the repetition of the lexical item reparation is textually cohesive.

Taxonomic Relations: Theorised On A Misunderstanding Of 'Lexical Item'

Martin & Rose (2007: 81-2):

Repetition and synonymy are particularly useful resources where the field of a text is very complex. They enable us to keep one or more lexical strings relatively simple, while complex lexical relations are constructed around them. For this reason, technical texts in many fields are common contexts to find repetition and synonymy. The Reconciliation Act is one such text. Its ‘purposes’ phase is presented below with some key lexical items highlighted.

To provide for the investigation and the establishment of as complete a picture as possible of the nature, causes and extent of gross violations of human rights ... ;
the granting of amnesty to persons who make full disclosure of all the relevant facts … ;
affording victims an opportunity to relate the violations they suffered;
the taking of measures aimed at the granting of reparation ... ;
reporting to the Nation about such violations and victims;
the making of recommendations aimed at the prevention of the commission of gross violations of human rights;
and for the said purposes to provide for the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, a Committee on Human Rights Violations, a Committee on Amnesty and a Committee on Reparation and Rehabilitation;
and to confer certain powers on, assign certain functions to and impose certain duties upon that Commission and those Committees;
and to provide for matters connected therewith.

Blogger Comments:

Leaving aside the fact that lexical items are lexicogrammatical, not discourse semantic, this demonstrates that Martin and Rose's entire model of taxonomic relations is built on a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes a lexical item.  In SFL theory, a lexical item is the synthetic realisation of the most delicate lexicogrammatical features.  Of the 17 highlighted elements, only 5 are genuine lexical items:

1. victims
2. violations
3. victims
4. Commission
5. Committees

The 12 that are falsely claimed to be lexical items are:

1. complete a picture
2. gross violations of human rights
3. granting of amnesty
4. full disclosure
5. relevant facts
6. violations they suffered
7. granting of reparation
8. gross violations of human rights
9. Truth and Reconciliation Commission
10. Committee on Human Rights Violations
11. Committee on Amnesty
12. Committee on Reparation and Rehabilitation

As can been seen, these are multi-word portions of (grammatical) nominal groups, all 12 of which feature multiple lexical items, and 10 of which also feature grammatical items (a, of, of, they, of, of, and, on, on, on, and).

The Notion Of Taxonomic Relations (Lexical Cohesion) Construing "Field" (Ideational Semantics)

Martin & Rose (2007: 81):

Taxonomic relations between lexical items are interpreted in terms of the field, as the reader or listener understands it. For example, a reader who is familiar with South African history would recognise the co-class relation between an Englishman and the ‘Boer’ Afrikaners, and interpret it in terms of the historical conflict between these ethnic groups. It is with this expectation of ethnic conflict that the reader interprets as remarkable the popularity of Helena’s English lover even with the ‘Boer’ Afrikaners. So taxonomic relations help construe a field of experience as a text unfolds, by building on the expectancy opened up by each lexical item, or by countering such expectancy.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This claim is falsified by the examples of taxonomic relations provided by Martin & Rose on the same page:

• repetition: marry – married – marriage
• synonyms: marriage – wedding
• antonyms: marriage – divorce
• converses: wife – husband
• scales: hot – warm – tepid – cold
• cycles: Sunday – Monday – Tuesday …
• class-member: relationship – marriage
• co-class: marriage – friendship
• whole-part: body – arms – hands
• co-part: face – hands – eyes – throat – head – brain.

Clearly, these relations are not "interpreted in terms of the field" of the text under discussion; they are, as Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 643) put it, 'inherent in the organisation of lexis'.

[2] Here again the term 'field' is mistakenly used for 'domain', the semantic counterpart of a contextual field.

[3] To be clear, the "co-class relation" between the lexical items Englishman and Boer or Afrikaner is given in the words themselves, and so, is recognisable to English speakers in general, rather than just to the subset who are familiar with South African history.

The counter-expectancy, on the other hand, is available to the reader in the actual text (misquoted by Martin & Rose):

Even if he was an Englishman, he was popular with all the ‘Boer’ Afrikaners.

The logico-semantic relation between the two attributive clauses is concessive condition, whose meaning is if P then contrary to expectation Q:

If: he was an Englishman
then contrary to expectation: he was popular with all the ‘Boer’ Afrikaners

[4] As demonstrated above, this causal-conditional conjunctive relation (so) is unwarranted.  The conclusion does not follow from the preceding argument.

[5] To be clear, in SFL theory, what "taxonomic relations" actually do — since they are a rebranding of the textual system of lexical cohesion — is contribute to the texture of a text.

[6] In terms of SFL theory, the expression "field of experience" confuses the ideational dimension of a culture (field) with the non-semiotic realm (experience) which language transforms into meaning.  

This is compounded by the fact that Martin & Rose misconstrue field as a dimension of register, itself misconstrued as context, and compounded further still, by the fact what they refer to as field is actually, in SFL terms, the ideational domain (semantics) that realises a field (context).

[7] As demonstrated above (in [3]), the counter-expectancy that Martin & Rose attribute to taxonomic relations was actually realised in the logico-semantic relation between two clauses.

Misconstruing Ideational Semantics As Contextual Field

Martin & Rose (2007: 81):

Each lexical item in a text expects further lexical items to follow that are related to it in one of these five general ways. A lexical item initiates or expands on the field of a text, and this field expects a predictable range of related lexical items to follow.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, lexical items, as the name suggests, are located on the stratum of lexicogrammar.  Here, as throughout this chapter, lexical items are misunderstood as being located on Martin's stratum of discourse semantics, a higher level of symbolic abstraction.

[2] To be clear, in SFL theory, 'field' is the ideational dimension of context, the culture modelled as a semiotic system.  Here, and throughout, Martin & Rose unwittingly use 'field' to refer to the semantic correlate of a field — what Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 323) term a 'domain'.  The misunderstanding is further complicated by the fact that Martin & Rose mistake 'field' for a dimension of register, misunderstood as context.

[3] In terms of SFL theory, this confuses the tendency of lexical items to co-occur — in lexical cohesion: the syntagmatic relation of collocation — with paradigmatic relations in lexical sets (repetition, synonymy, antonymy, hyponymy and meronymy); see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 644).  To be clear, collocation is the one type of lexical cohesion that has not been rebranded by Martin & Rose as feature of their discourse system of taxonomic relations.

[4] This misunderstands the relation between lexical item and field.  A Lexical item does not "initiate" or "expand" the "field of a text".  In SFL theory, a lexical item is the synthetic realisation of a bundle of the most delicate lexicogrammatical features, which realise semantic features, including those of ideational semantics, which realise contextual features, including those of field.  But see [2] above for what Martin & Rose misunderstand as field.

[5] To be clear, in SFL theory, the relative probabilities of lexical item instantiation in a text are a property of the lexicogrammatical systems of a register that realises a specific field.  Those probabilities rise and fall on the basis of ongoing instantiations during logogenesis.

The Taxonomic Relations System

Martin & Rose (2007: 80-1):

This range of taxonomic relations is set out in Figure 3.6.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the unacknowledged source of these misunderstood ideas is the lexical cohesion of Halliday & Hasan (1976), later elaborated in Halliday ± Matthiessen (1985, 1994, 2004, 2014), which is lexicogrammatical, not semantic, in terms of stratification, and textual, not experiential, in terms of metafunction.

Cf.  Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 643-4), where the types of relation are theoretically interpreted in terms of axis (paradigmatic v syntagmatic), logical relations (elaborating v extending v enhancing) and experiential relations (identity v attribution):

The primary types of lexical relations are listed in Table 9-17. They derive from either the paradigmatic or the syntagmatic organisation of lexis. (i) The paradigmatic relations are inherent in the organisation of lexis as a resource, as represented in Roget’s Thesaurus. They can be interpreted in terms of elaboration and extension, two of the subtypes of expansion that are already familiar from the logico-semantic relations used in forming clause complexes and the corresponding conjunctive relations presented earlier in this chapter. (ii) The syntagmatic relations hold between lexical items in a syntagm that tend to occur together, or collocate with one another. Collocates of a lexical item can be found in the entries of certain modern dictionaries based on corpus investigations. Since syntagmatic organisation and paradigmatic organisation represent two different dimensions of patterning, any pair of lexical items can involve both.

Misunderstanding Taxonomy And Antonymy

Martin & Rose (2007: 80):

These taxonomies give rise to several types of lexical relation in discourse, including class-member and co-class, whole-part and co-part. We can also include here repetition, in which the same lexical item is repeated, sometimes in different grammatical forms, such as marry - married - marriage. There is also synonymy, in which a similar experiential meaning is shared by a different lexical item, such as marriage - wedding.

Then of course there are contrasts between lexical items. The most familiar is perhaps antonymy, in which two lexical items have opposing meanings, such as marriage - divorce. But another type of opposition is converse roles, such as wife - husband, parent - child, teacher - student, doctor - patient, and so on. Although these are oppositional relations, they are not strictly speaking antonyms.

In addition to such oppositions, another type of contrast is series. These include scales such as hot - warm - tepid - cold, but also cycles such as days of the week Sunday - Monday - Tuesday - Wednesday and so on.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, repetitions and synonyms do not constitute taxonomies, since the relation between items, in each case, is one of elaborating identity, rather than elaborating attribution (hyponymic taxonomy) — the general sense of 'taxonomy' — or extension (meronymic taxonomy).  Incidentally, Plotkin (1995: 44-5) terms hyponymic and meronymic taxonomies 'structural hierarchies'.

Consequently, Martin & Rose's rebranding of Halliday & Hasan's lexical cohesion as discourse semantic 'taxonomic relations' is based on a fundamental misunderstanding.

[2] To be clear, these are generally known in linguistics as complementary antonyms.

[3] To be clear, these are generally known in linguistics as relational antonyms.

[4] To be clear, these are generally known in linguistics as graded antonyms.

[5] To be clear, these "oppositions" can be interpreted as co-meronyms of 'week' and co-hyponyms of 'day'.

Confusing Contextual Field With Field-Specific Ideational Semantics

Martin & Rose (2007: 80):

Relations between classes and members, and between parts and wholes, make up two types of taxonomies by which we construe fields of experience. People, things and places belong to more general classes of entities, and at the same time they are parts of larger wholes, and are composed of smaller parts. These are known as classifying and compositional taxonomies respectively. Both hierarchies may have many layers, particularly in technical fields, for example (classifying) kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species, sub-species and (composing) ecosystem, food-chain, organism, organ system, organ, tissue, cell, organelle, metabolism…  Processes can also be viewed as instances of more general types, or as parts of larger activities, but their taxonomies are not as multi-layered as for people, things and places.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, on the SFL model, we construe experience as ideational meaning.  Field, on the other hand, is the ideational dimension of context: the culture as a semiotic system.  Field does not refer to the ideational dimension of language.  Following Martin (1992), Martin & Rose confuse contextual field with the semantic counterpart of a field: a domain; see Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 322-3).  The theoretical inconsistency is one of stratification (levels of symbolic abstraction).

[2] This confuses a type of circumstance ('places') with types of participant ('people, things').  Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 54):

Participants are inherent in the process; they bring about its occurrence or mediate it. There are a number of specific ways in which a participant may take part in a process; it may act out the process, it may sense it, it may receive it, it may be affected by it, it may say it, and so on. The different configurations of participants are the bases for a typology of process types. The distinction between participants and circumstances is a cline rather than a sharp division, but it is semantically quite significant. 

Circumstances are typically less closely associated with the process and are usually not inherent in it. They specify the spatial or temporal location of the process, its extent in space or time (distance or duration), its cause, the manner of its occurrence, and so on.

[3] Trivially, metabolism is not a part of a organelle (e.g. mitochondrion).  'Metabolism' refers to the chemical processes that occur within a living organism in order to maintain life. 

[4] This confuses two distinct types of class membership: delicacy ('general') and instantiation ('instance'); see Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 145).

Construing A Lover As "An Organism Composed Of Parts"

Martin & Rose (2007: 79-80):

In the ‘repercussions’ phase of the second Incident in her story, Helena construes her second love as a tortured organism composed of various parts, including his anatomy and physiology, and his soul, highlighted below.

Sometimes he would just press his face into his hands and shake uncontrollably. I realised he was drinking too much. Instead of resting at night, he would wander from window to window. He tried to hide his wild consuming fear, but I saw it. In the early hours of the morning between two and half-past-two, I jolt awake from his rushed breathing. Rolls this way, that side of the bed. He's pale. Ice cold in a sweltering night - sopping wet with sweat. Eyes bewildered, but dull like the dead. And the shakes. The terrible convulsions and blood-curdling shrieks of fear and pain from the bottom of his soul. Sometimes he sits motionless, just staring in front of him. 1 never understood. I never knew. Never realised what was being shoved down his throat during the 'trips', I just went through hell. Praying, pleading: 'God, what's happening? What's wrong with him? Could he have changed so much? Is he going mad? I can't handle the man anymore!

We will refer to the relation between one part of a whole and the next as a co-part relation. The parts of Helena’s man are analysed as a lexical string in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2 Parts of Helena's second love
the man
part
his face
co-part
his hands
co-part
eyes
co-part
the bottom of his soul
co-part
his throat

In contrast to the classifying taxonomy in Figure 3.4 above, these parts of the man together make up a compositional taxonomy, consisting of wholes and their parts and sub-parts, which we can express as a tree diagram in Figure 3.5.

Figure 3.5 Parts of Helena's second love

Blogger Comments:

[1] Martin & Rose's absurd — though highly amusing — claim, that the author is construing her lover as an organism composed of parts, arises from their re-interpreting the textual system of lexical cohesion at the level of lexicogrammar (Halliday & Hasan 1976) as an experiential system at the level of discourse.  The theoretical inconsistency is primarily one of metafunction.

In the original work that provides the source for these ideas — unacknowledged by Martin & Rose — meronymic relations between lexical items help to create the texture that differentiates a unified text from a collection of unrelated instances.

[2] To be clear, a lexical string is a string of lexical items, not of nominal groups; that is, here Martin & Rose confuse lexis with grammar.  Moreover, lexical items, as the term suggests, are located at the level of lexicogrammar, not discourse semantics.  In this latter case, the theoretical inconsistency is one of stratification (levels of symbolic abstraction).

Misunderstanding The Nature Of The Metafunctions

Martin & Rose (2007: 77):

Helena describes herself in terms of her youth and her origins, and her lover in terms of his youth and English ethnicity, and she then contrasts this with another ethnic group he was popular with. As he is the focus of the story, her description of him is far more developed, including many positive attributes, such as bubbly, vivacious, beamed out wild energy, sharply intelligent, popular. However, these inscribed judgements are dealt with as appraisals in Chapter 2, and we will set them aside in the discussion here, limiting ourselves to purely ideational categories.

Blogger Comments:

This misunderstands the metafunctions.  Such wordings serve both ideational and interpersonal functions; that is, they both construe experience as meaning and enact intersubjective relations as meaning.  The notion of "purely ideational categories" reflects Martin's misunderstanding of metafunctions as interacting modules, instead of orders of a dimension; see, for example, Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 20, 32).  Martin (1992: 390): 

Each of the presentations of linguistic text forming resources considered above adopted a modular perspective. As far as English Text is concerned this has two main dimensions: stratification and, within strata, metafunction.

Theoretical Inconsistencies Created By The Three Systems Of Ideation

Martin & Rose (2007: 76):

These three systems of ideation are summarised in Figure 3.2.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, these three systems of ideation are presented as systems of the experiential metafunction on the stratum of discourse semantics. Close inspection reveals otherwise.

The system of taxonomic relations is a rebranding of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) lexical cohesion, a system of the textual metafunction at the level of lexicogrammar. The theoretical inconsistencies created are thus metafunctional and stratal.

The system of nuclear relations is a rebranding of Halliday's (1985) nuclear interpretation of the ergative model of the clause. The theoretical inconsistency created is thus stratal. Note that the meanings realised are all within the clause, not "beyond the clause" (the subtitle of this work).

The system of activity sequences is concerned with logical relations between clauses. The theoretical inconsistencies created are thus metafunctional and stratal. 

Moreover, this is also inconsistent with Martin (1992), in which activity sequences are located in context — misconstrued as register — and inconsistent with both that work and this, where logical (and textual) relations between clauses are modelled by the logical discourse semantic system of conjunction — itself a rebranding of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) textual grammatical system of cohesive conjunction.