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'.