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.