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.