Confusing Different Strata, Different Metafunctions, And Different Grammatical Elements

Martin & Rose (2007: 119-20):

Like Tutu, Helena uses explicit conjunctions to signal the beginning of new phases in her story. But whereas Tutu uses them to organise his argument, Helena uses them to sequence the phases in time.

 

Helena uses the time conjunctions Then and After to connect each phase to the immediately preceding events, but the scope of finally is the story as a whole. During all the preceding events Helena didn’t understand the struggle, but now she finally does. 

The other resources Helena uses here to sequence the story in time are Circumstances - As an eighteen-year-old, one day, More than a year ago, After my unsuccessful marriage, After about three years with the special forces, Today. These Circumstances set the events in an exact time period, while time conjunctions simply indicate the sequence.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this confuses different levels of description.  Although this is presented as discourse semantics, conjunctions are grammatical, the stratum below discourse semantics, and phases of story are, on the authors' model, genre, the stratum two levels above discourse semantics.

[2] To be clear, the two instances of after in the extract are not conjunctions and do not function conjunctively, either logically within a clause complex, or textually as a cohesive relation.  Both are prepositions and function, experientially, as the minor Process — and interpersonally as the minor Predicator — of a prepositional phrase serving as a circumstance of temporal Location.

[3] To be clear, this is (high school) reading comprehension, not (academic) linguistic analysis.

[4] To be clear, circumstances do not function logically or sequence a story in time.  Circumstances function experientially within a clause.  However, each of circumstances cited is also highlighted in the text as a marked Theme, and it is this textual logogenetic pattern of Theme selection (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 659ff) that works with the textual grammatical system of conjunctive cohesion — misunderstood by Martin & Rose as logical discourse semantics — in creating text.

The Four Types Of Conjunction And Expectancy

Martin & Rose (2007: 119):

In sum the explicit conjunctions here realise our four types of conjunction: addition, comparison, time and consequence, and Helena uses them deftly to manage expectancy in the context of the events. They are set out in Table 4.1.

* Note that then is not typically counterexpectant, but functions counterexpectantly in this context.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously demonstrated, the authors' argument that a speaker's (textual or logical) deployment of expansion features manages the experiential expectations of readers does not survive close scrutiny.

[2] To be clear, in SFL theory, the first three examples in Table 4.1 are instances of cohesive conjunction, and function textually and non-structurally, whereas the final two examples are instances of clause complexing, and function logically and structurally.

[a] Of the three instances of cohesive conjunction:

• and all my girlfriends envied me is an instance of extension: positive addition, and
• then one day he said… is an instance of enhancement: temporal: following.

Whereas the first and third of these are merely rebrandings, the second is a misunderstanding of the type of cohesion deployed. In So was he, so is an instance of substitution, not conjunction. See Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 636).

[b] Of the two instances of clause complexing:

• all because I married… is an instance of enhancement: causal-conditional: cause: reason ('because P, so result Q'), and
• even if he was an Englishman is an instance of enhancement: causal-conditional: condition: concessive ('if P then contrary to expectation Q').

That is, Martin & Rose rebrand cause-condition as consequence, and the distinction between (a type of) cause and (a type of) condition as a distinction between expectant and counterexpectant.

∞

The theoretical disadvantage of rebranding grammatical expansion relations as different discourse semantic relations is that it creates a mismatch between strata in the absence of grammatical metaphor, thereby undermining the distinction between congruent and metaphorical grammatical realisations of semantic systems.

The Interplay Of Explicit And Implicit Conjunction To Manage Expectancy [3]

Martin & Rose (2007: 118-9):

This interplay of explicit and implicit conjunction to manage expectancy is well illustrated in the first Incident of Helena’s story:

… Then one day he said he was going on a 'trip'.
'We won't see each other again…maybe never ever again.'
I was torn to pieces.
So was he.
An extremely short marriage to someone else failed
all because I married to forget.

… Then the next step from romance to tragedy is explicitly marked by Then, signalling that a new phase is beginning which is likely to be counterexpectant, and so probably bad news. After her reaction, So was he makes explicit that her lover’s feelings about leaving were the same as hers, and that this was to be expected. And the failure of her subsequent marriage was also completely predictable, made explicit by the causal conjunction all because.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the conjunction then merely signals the conjunctive relation of 'temporal: following'. Whether what follows constitutes a new "phase" depends on the experiential meanings of the preceding and following portions of text.

[2] To be clear, there are no grounds for counterexpectancy on the part of a reader merely on the basis of the conjunction then.  Consider instances of the type: I sat down; then I stood up.

[3] To be clear, there are no grounds for assuming that "counterexpectant" information is bad news.  Consider instances of the type: Then, on the day I was retrenched, I won the lottery.

[4] To be clear, here the conjunction so merely signals the conjunctive relation of 'positive addition'.  The clause so was he gives the reader no evidence as to whether this was to be expected. In fact, its inclusion by the speaker might be taken to resolve any doubt on the matter.

[5] To be clear, the conjunction group all because provides no grounds for a reader to judge the preceding clause as predictable; it merely signals the clause complexing relation of 'cause: reason'.  Consider instances of the type: So I ended up in hospital all because I walked to work instead of driving.

∞

In all of the above, Martin & Rose are misattributing their own hindsight judgements of reader expectancy to the unfolding text of the speaker.  Moreover, in doing so, they

• confuse the experiential meaning of clauses with the logico-semantic relation of expansion, 
• confuse the latter's textual manifestation (cohesive conjunction) with its logical manifestation (clause complexing), and
• rebrand these grammatical systems as discourse semantic systems.

The Interplay Of Explicit And Implicit Conjunction To Manage Expectancy [2]

Martin & Rose (2007: 118-9):

This interplay of explicit and implicit conjunction to manage expectancy is well illustrated in the first Incident of Helena’s story:

… A bubbly, vivacious man who beamed out wild energy.
Sharply intelligent.
Even if he was an Englishman,
he was popular with all the 'Boer' Afrikaners.
And all my girlfriends envied me.

… And in the description phase that follows, she uses even if in a similar way [to even], to tell us that an Englishman being liked by the ‘Boer’ Afrikaners is counterexpectant (if they were expected to like him she might have said because he was an Englishman). In contrast, her girlfriends’ reaction is explicitly added by starting a sentence with And, letting us know that their envy is entirely to be expected.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the claim here is that the conjunction even if functions similarly to the adverb even (see previous post).  In SFL theory, the functional difference is significant.  The function of conjunction even if is to relate two clauses in a clause nexus by the enhancement relation of concessive condition, whose meaning is 'if P then contrary to expectation Q' (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 478).  So, in the above extract, the meaning is 'if he was an Englishman, then contrary to expectation, he was popular with all the 'Boer' Afrikaners'.  In terms of metafunction, the meaning being realised is logical, and the grammatical domain is the clause complex.

In contrast, the function of the adverb even is that of a mood Adjunct of intensity: counterexpectancy: exceeding, whose meaning is 'went so far as' (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 188).  So the meaning of we even spoke about marriage is 'we went so far as to speak about marriage'.  In terms of metafunction, the meaning being realised is interpersonal, not logical, and the grammatical domain is the clause, not the clause complex.

These important distinctions are lost on Martin & Rose, in their rebranding of Halliday's lexicogrammar as Martin's discourse semantics.

[2] To be clear, the explicit use of the conjunction and does not "let us know that their envy is entirely to be expected".  This can be demonstrated by omitting the conjunction, leaving the textually cohesive relation implicit:

Even if he was an Englishman,
he was popular with all the 'Boer' Afrikaners.
All my girlfriends envied me.

Here Martin & Rose are merely making bare assertions, unsupported by any linguistic evidence or argumentation. 

The Interplay Of Explicit And Implicit Conjunction To Manage Expectancy [1]

Martin & Rose (2007: 118-9):

This interplay of explicit and implicit conjunction to manage expectancy is well illustrated in the first Incident of Helena’s story:

As an eighteen-year-old, I met a young man in his twenties.
He was working in a top security structure,
it was the beginning of a beautiful relationship.
We even spoke about marriage. …

The first phase is sequenced in time, from meeting to relationship to speaking about marriage, but this sequence is expected by the field, as we discussed in Chapter 3 (section 3.5), so there is no need to make each step explicit with conjunctions. On the other hand, Helena uses even to make it explicit that speaking about marriage was more than we would normally expect at the beginning of a relationship.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, here Martin & Rose confuse conjunctive relations in the text of the speaker with the expectations of various types of others.

[2] To be clear, the extract is not sequenced in time. Only the last clause simplex can be interpreted as related by temporal succession. This can be demonstrated by inserting the conjunctive Adjunct (afterwards) that marks temporal succession:

As an eighteen-year-old, I met a young man in his twenties.
Afterwards he was working in a top security structure,
(and) afterwards it was the beginning of a beautiful relationship.
Afterwards we even spoke about marriage.

 [3] Leaving aside the metaphorical notion of a theoretical category having expectations, and the fact that this extract is not simply a temporal sequence, the field of the text is a South African woman talking of her own past. Given how few South African women, of the total population, form romantic relationships with top security officers, it is clearly unreasonable for any reader to expect this particular sequence, as opposed to any other, just on the basis of recognising the situational field.

[4] Clearly, there is a need to make each step explicit with conjunctions, at least for two readers, Martin & Rose, since they have demonstrably misunderstood the conjunctive relations in this portion of text.

[5] To be clear, here Martin & Rose mistake the interpersonal Adjunct even (counterexpectancy: exceeding) for a conjunctive Adjunct marking (for them) a logical relation.

[6] To be clear, here Martin & Rose misunderstand the meaning of the text. The use of the mood Adjunct of intensity even signals 'went as far as'; that is, the speaker's meaning is 'we went as far as speaking of marriage'.

Misrepresenting Field And Confusing Reader Expectation With Speaker Meaning

Martin & Rose (2007: 118):

Indeed sequence in time is so consistently expected by story genres that there is often no need to use any conjunctions:

On arriving back at Sandton Police Station, at what they call the Security Branch
the whole situation changed
I was screamed at, verbally abused
I was slapped around
I was punched
I was told to shut up
sit in a chair
then I was questioned
when I answered the questions
I was told that I was lying
I was smacked again...

Conjunction between the first five activities in this sequence is left implicit — they just happen one after another — until the field shifts from physical and verbal abuse to interrogation, and this shift in field is signalled with the explicit conjunction then. We can now expect a different set of activities — concerned with questioning rather than beating. However the interrogators’ response to their victim’s answers was unexpected, at least to the victim, and this is again signalled with an explicit conjunction when.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, on the authors' previous analysis, there is no way to determine whether the conjunctive relation here is sequence in time or addition, since the omitted conjunction could be either then or and.

[2] To be clear, here Martin & Rose again confuse what the author of the text says with what various others expect.  In this case, the expecting process is mediated (metaphorically) by story genres, and by readers (including discourse analysts).  In the final instance, Martin & Rose imagine that the author's projection of himself in the text mediates a process of not expecting.

[3] To be clear, here Martin & Rose confuse ideational semantics (language) with ideational context (field). In terms of SFL theory, the field of the text — 'what is going on' — is a witness giving evidence at the Truth And Reconciliation Commission.  It is not the contextual field that shifts, but the ideational meanings being instantiated in the logogenesis of the text.

[4] To be clear, these are hindsight claims by Martin & Rose, not meanings made by the author in the text.  This can be demonstrated by comparing the use of these conjunctions in other texts, or by removing the text that follows each of the conjunctions.  For example, the wording

I was punched
I was told to shut up
sit in a chair
then …

does not lead the reader to expect the instantiation of the Process was questioned any more than a wide range of other potential processes.  Similarly, the wording

I was punched
I was told to shut up
sit in a chair
then I was questioned
when …

does not signal any interrogator responses as unexpected by the victim, not least because the author does not express the view that the interrogator responses were unexpected by him. 

Misanalysing Conjunctive Relations By Giving Priority To The View 'From Below'

Martin & Rose (2007: 117-8):

Conjunction helps to manage what we expect to happen in a text. In an exposition, we expect a series of supporting Arguments, and Tutu confirms our expectations by explicitly adding each one. We also expect conclusions to be drawn from the arguments presented, and again Tutu meets our expectations by explicitly announcing each conclusion with Thus. In Chapter 3 (section 3.5) we saw that the unmarked relation in an activity sequence is simple addition, so that and is the most common conjunction in personal recounts, adding one event to another:

The circumstances of my being taken, as I recollect, were that I went off to school in the morning and I was sitting in the classroom and there was only one room where all the children were assembled and there was a knock at the door, which the schoolmaster answered. After a conversation he had with somebody at the door, he came to get me. He took me by the hand and took me to the door. I was physically grabbed by a male person at the door, I was taken to a motor bike and held by the officer and driven to the airstrip and flown off the Island.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, SFL theory distinguishes between conjunction (non-structural textual grammar) and clause complexing (structural logical grammar).  Here Martin & Rose exemplify conjunction with instances of clause complexing and rebrand the confusion as logical discourse semantics.

[2] To be clear, here Martin & Rose mistake the mental projections of readers ("what we expect") for the verbal projections of writers (texts).  That is, they confuse the meanings made by readers with the meanings realised in the wordings of writers.

[3] To be clear, here Martin & Rose give priority to the view 'from below' (the realisation of meaning as and) rather than taking the SFL perspective of giving priority to the view 'from' above (the meaning being realised by and.  The main disadvantage of this approach is that a single wording can realise distinct meanings.  For example, the conjunction and can realise additive extension, temporal enhancement or causal enhancement; Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 487):

In the sample text, 3-6 of the 7 instances of and can be interpreted as realising temporal enhancement rather than additive extension — that is, in the authors' rebranded terms: successive time rather than addition.

Misunderstanding Halliday & Hasan's Distinction Between External And Internal Conjunction

Martin & Rose (2007: 117):

Tutu uses addition (also, further) to add Arguments to support his Thesis. And he uses consequence (thus) to draw conclusions from each Argument. These items are not linking events in a field of experience beyond the text; rather they are used to link logical steps that are internal to the text itself. We refer to this system for logically organising discourse as internal conjunction. And the system for linking events in an activity sequence is known as external conjunction (after Halliday and Hasan 1976).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in terms of SFL theory, the wording 'field of experience' confuses the ideational dimension of culture (field) with the non-semiotic domain (experience) that is construed by the processes of consciousness as ideational meaning.  This is an important epistemological distinction for a theory that takes meaning to be immanent (a property of semiotic systems only).

[2] This is misleading, because Martin & Rose are not following Halliday & Hasan (1976), since they demonstrably misunderstand the distinction between external and internal conjunction.

Firstly, both types of conjunctive relation are internal to the text.  The external/internal distinction means external/internal to the communication situation. Halliday & Hasan (1976: 240):

Secondly, both external and internal conjunctive relations are used to create text ("organise discourse").  Halliday & Hasan (1976: 241):

Thirdly, the distinction between external and internal conjunctive relations is made on the basis of the metafunctional distinction between experiential and interpersonal, not experiential and textual. Halliday & Hasan (1976: 240):

[3] To be clear, in SFL theory, conjunction is a system of the textual metafunction on the stratum of lexicogrammar, which Martin (1992) has misunderstood and rebranded as his system of the logical metafunction on his stratum of discourse semantics.

Some Of The Problems With The Four General Types Of Logical Relations

Martin & Rose (2007: 116-7):

Both systems use the same four general types of logical relations: adding units together, comparing them as similar or different, sequencing them in time, or relating them causally — as cause and effect, or evidence and conclusion. These four general types are known as addition, comparison, time and consequence. The units they relate range from simple clauses, to more complex sentences, to text phases, to stages of a genre.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the original source of the authors' theorising is Halliday & Hasan (1976: 226-73), where the four categories of conjunction are

• additive
• adversative
• causal
• temporal.

However, Halliday (1985) reworked the system of conjunction in terms of the three most general types of expansion:

• elaboration
• extension
• enhancement.

Importantly, these three general categories are manifested throughout the grammar.  Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 669):

Let us now present a systematic and comprehensive summary of the different grammatical environments in which elaboration, extension and enhancement are manifested: see Table 10-3. As the table shows, the environments of manifestation can be differentiated in terms of (i) metafunction – textual (CONJUNCTION), logical (INTERDEPENDENCY; MODIFICATION) and experiential (CIRCUMSTANTIATION; PROCESS TYPE: relational), and (ii) rank – clause and group/phrase. (The table could, in fact, be extended downwards along the rank scale to take account of patterns below the rank of group/phrase within the logical metafunction: word and morpheme complexes also embody interdependency relations that combine with expansion.) 

Moreover, it is this multiple manifestation that makes possible grammatical metaphor and the expansion of the semantic system, as Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 294-5) explain:

The whole metaphorical elaboration [of the semantic system] is made possible by a fractal pattern that runs through the whole system. We have suggested that the metaphorical elaboration is a token–value relation; but in order for it to be a token–value relation within the semantic system, it has to be natural in the sense that the token and the value domains have to be similar enough to allow for the token to stand for the value. The principle behind this similarity is the fractal pattern of projection/expansion … 

That is, while grammatical metaphor constitutes a move from one “phenomenal domain” to another … this move is made possible because fractal types engender continuity across these domains: the metaphorical move from one phenomenal domain to another takes place within the one and the same transphenomenal domain.

It can be seen that these later insights and the explanatory advantages they provide are lost in the authors' rebranding of the original Halliday & Hasan (1976) model.  It can also be seen that the major category of elaboration is entirely absent from the authors' model, since the model only includes one type of extension (addition) and three types of enhancement (comparison, time and consequence).

[2] To be clear, in SFL theory, these correspond to cause: reason and cause: result. The relation between evidence and conclusion is not necessarily causal.

[3] Importantly, in confusing Halliday's cohesive conjunction with Halliday's clause complexing, the authors have omitted the major logico-semantic relation of projection from "their" model.  This is because their source, cohesive conjunction, is the textual deployment of expansion relations only.  This omission means that clause complexes involving mental or verbal projection are not accounted for at the level of discourse semantics.  This is a major weakness in the model, not least because it provides neither congruent nor metaphorical relations between the strata of discourse semantics and lexicogrammar for this major type of logico-semantic relation.

[4] To be clear, Martin & Rose model genre as context instead of language, but nevertheless claim that these relations at the level of language (discourse semantics) obtain between units of context (generic stages).  This demonstrates most clearly that the authors do not understand the SFL hierarchy of stratification or the notion of symbolic abstraction by which it is organised.

It can be noted at this point that Martin's model of genre arises, in part, from his misunderstanding of Hasan's Generic Structure Potential (Halliday & Hasan 1989 [1985]: 64), which models potential semantic structures, varying according to genre, as modelling potential genre structures.

Conflating Clause Complexing With Conjunction And Misunderstanding Internal Relations.

Martin & Rose (2007: 116):

Conjunction in other words has two faces. One side of the system interacts with ideation, construing experience as logically organised sequences of activities. The other side of the system interacts with periodicity, presenting discourse as logically organised waves of information.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in the authors' source material — originally Halliday & Hasan (1976) and Halliday (1985) — two simultaneous distinctions are made:

• clause complexing vs cohesive conjunction, and
• external vs internal expansion relations.

The first distinction is between

• logical (structural) relations between clauses in complexes, and
• textual (non-structural) relations between text spans of varying extent.

The second distinction is between

• relations between experiential construals ('external' to the speech event), and
• relations between interpersonal enactments ('internal' to the speech event).

In their rebranding of this original work, Martin & Rose

• conflate the first distinction between logical and textual deployments of expansion relations, and
• misconstrue the interpersonal dimension of the second distinction as textual,

and present their misunderstandings of these grammatical systems as discourse semantic systems.

[2] To be clear, the notion of metafunctions "interacting" betrays the authors' misunderstanding of these theoretical dimensions as 'modules'.  See critiques of Martin (1992) on the matter here.

[3] To be clear, as will be seen in later posts, the authors' model of periodicity is largely a rebranding of writing pedagogy misconstrued as linguistic theory.

Grammar-Based Approaches To Conjunction

Martin & Rose (2007: 116):

Where grammar-based approaches such as Halliday and Hasan (1976) and Halliday and Matthiessen (2004) treat conjunctions as a grammatical resource for linking one clause to the next, the perspective we take here models conjunction as a set of meanings that organise activity sequences on the one hand, and text on the other.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading.  In SFL theory, all content plane systems are 'grammar-based', since it is the grammar that construes the semantics.  The difference here lies in the fact that the sources of the authors' ideas — Halliday and Hasan (1976), Halliday (1985, 1994), and Halliday and Matthiessen (2004) — present these systems as grammatical, whereas Martin & Rose misunderstand their sources and rebrand their misunderstandings as Martin's discourse semantics.

[2] To be clear, the terminological slippage from 'conjunctions' (word class) to 'conjunction' (system) is strategic, not accidental, and calculated to deceive.  In the authors' source material, 'conjunction' also refers to a system (a "set"): a grammatical system of the textual metafunction.  Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 612):

The Reason Why We Need Conjunction As A Discourse Semantic System

Martin & Rose (2007: 116):

This illustrates one reason why we need to set up conjunction as a discourse semantic system. The meanings of conjunction are realised through conjunctions such as if and then, but they are also realised by other kinds of wordings, and they are frequently left implicit, for the reader or listener to infer.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, this does not constitute an argument for setting up conjunction as a discourse semantic system, since the various realisations are already accounted for by the two grammatical systems that Martin & Rose confuse and rebrand as Martin's discourse semantic system of conjunction, namely Halliday's system of clause complexing (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 438):

and Halliday's system of cohesive conjunction (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 612):

On the other hand, for a theoretically-consistent account of the semantic systems that are congruently realised in lexicogrammar as clause complexing, see Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 104-27). 

Misunderstanding The Text And Misrepresenting Clause Complexing As Conjunction

Martin & Rose (2007: 116):

We showed an example of the work of conjunction in Chapter 1 (section 1.3), in which Helena gave the conditions under which she would have joined the anti-apartheid struggle:

I finally understand what the struggle was really about.
I would have done the same
had I been denied everything.
If my life, that of my children and my parents was strangled with legislation.
If I had to watch how white people became dissatisfied with the best and still wanted better and got it.

We know these are conditions because of the conjunction if which serves to link Helena’s contemplated action I would have done the same, with the conditions under which she would have done so, If my life was strangled… If I had to watch how white people became dissatisfied… . And the same conditional connection can also be realised by inversion of Subject and Finite, had I been denied everything, This kind of Subject-Finite inversion typically functions to ask a question (see Chapter 7, section 7.3 below), but in this instance its meaning is not ‘question’ but ‘condition’.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, here Martin & Rose begin their confusion of two distinct grammatical systems in the source of "their" ideas: the textual system of cohesive conjunction (e.g. Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 612) and the logical system of clause complexing (e.g. Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 438).  The examples provided here are all instances of clause complexing, not conjunction, since the conditional relation obtains structurally, between clauses in a clause complex, rather than cohesively (non-structurally).  It will be seen later that the clause complexing relation of projection is entirely absent from their rebranding of Halliday's grammar as Martin's discourse semantics.

[2] Here Martin & Rose seriously misunderstand the text they are analysing.  As signalled by (what writing pedagogy terms) the "topic sentence" — what Martin & Rose will later rebrand as hyper-Theme — the author here actually expresses how she came to understand the 'struggle' through empathising with the victims of apartheid. 

[3] Here Martin & Rose, contrary to SFL theory, give priority to the view 'from below', how the relation is expressed (as the conjunction if and structural inversion), instead of the view 'from above'.  Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 49):

Being a ‘functional grammar’ means that priority is given to the view ‘from above’; that is, grammar is seen as a resource for making meaning – it is a semanticky kind of grammar. But the focus of attention is still on the grammar itself. Giving priority to the view ‘from above’ means that the organising principle adopted is that of system: the grammar is seen as a network of interrelated meaningful choices. In other words, the dominant axis is the paradigmatic one: the fundamental components of the grammar are sets of mutually defining contrastive features. Explaining something consists not in stating how it is structured but in showing how it is related to other things: its pattern of systemic relationships, or agnateness …

Moreover, giving priority to the view 'from below' can lead to misunderstanding.  For example, the conjunction if is not limited to realising condition, as demonstrated by If it isn't one thing, it's another where the relation is one of alternation, a subtype of extension; see, for example, Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 475).

[4] To be clear, the inversion of Subject and Finite marks the irrealis feature of the condition.  More importantly, Martin & Rose do not provide a discourse semantic model that accounts for such inversions, as will be seen in future posts.