On The Heteroglossic Function Of "Continuatives"

Martin & Rose (2007: 58):

Alongside conjunctions another important set of resources for adjusting expectations are continuatives. These are like conjunctions but they occur inside the clause, rather than at the beginning. They include words like already, finally, still and only, just, even. Continuatives that express time indicate that something happens sooner or later, or persists longer than one might expect. In the following example Helena comments on white peoples’ greed as persisting longer than one might reasonably expect:

If I had to watch how white people became dissatisfied with the best and still wanted better and got it.

Other continuatives indicate that there is more or less to a situation than has been implied:

It was the beginning of a beautiful relationship. We even spoke about marriage. 

Amnesty didn't matter, It was only a means to the truth.

Tutu uses much less of this resource to adjust expectancy:

They denied that they had committed a crime, claiming that they had assaulted him only in retaliation for his inexplicable conduct in attacking them.

Now that we have brought modality and concession into the picture, alongside projection, it is timely to introduce the technical term used to name this region of meaning, namely engagement.

Blogger Comments:

[1] In SFL theory, continuatives are not a "set of resources for adjusting expectations".  Instead, as Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 107) explain:

A continuative is one of a small set of words that signal a move in the discourse: a response, in dialogue, or a new move to the next point if the same speaker is continuing. The usual continuatives are yes no well oh now.

[2] This is untrue of continuatives.  Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 109):

continuatives and conjunctions, are inherently thematic: if they are present in the clause at all, they come at the beginning.

[3] This continues the confusion of Martin (1992: 230-4) in which mood Adjuncts are misconstrued as continuatives, as documented in the relevant critiques here.  The adverbs only, just and even serve as mood Adjuncts of intensity (counterexpectancy), whereas the adverbs already and still serve as mood Adjuncts of temporality.  The odd one out here is finally, which serves as a conjunctive Adjunct (temporal: conclusive); Martin & Rose may have been aiming for eventually, which serves as a mood Adjunct of temporality.

[4] To be clear, this is a characterisation mood Adjuncts of temporality, not continuatives.  Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 187):

Adjuncts of temporality relate to interpersonal (deictic) time. They relate either (i) to the time itself, which may be near or remote, past or future, relative to the speaker-now; or (ii) to an expectation, positive or negative, with regard to the time at issue (sooner or later than expected …

[5] This vague characterisation falls short of identifying the function of the mood Adjuncts of intensity that Martin & Rose misconstrue as continuatives.  In the cited texts, the adverb even signals 'exceeding what is to be expected', whereas the adverb only signals 'limiting what is to be expected'.  Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 187):

Those of counterexpectancy are either ‘limiting’ or ‘exceeding’ what is to be expected: the meaning is either ‘nothing else than, went no further than’ or ‘including also, went as far as’.

[6] As this and previous posts have demonstrated, Martin & Rose's exposition of the system of ENGAGEMENT has been limited to misunderstandings of only one of its two most general features 'heterogloss'.  There has been no discussion of the other most general feature 'monogloss', nor of the proposed systems of features more delicate than 'heterogloss', such as the distinction between 'intravocalise' and 'extravocalise', and the more delicate distinctions within each; see, for example, the systems on White's Appraisal website here.