The Four General Types Of External Consequence

Martin & Rose (2007: 127):

There are four general types of external consequence: cause, means, condition, purpose. Some basic options are shown in Table 4.3.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, this characterisation of the authors' discourse semantic system of external consequence is a rebranding of Halliday's grammatical system of clause complexing that confuses a subtype of manner (means) with 3 subtypes of causal-conditional relations (cause, purpose and condition).  Cf Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 477):

The System Of External Time

Martin & Rose (2007: 127):

So options for external time include successive: sometime or immediate and simultaneous, set out in Figure 4.3. 

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the authors' logical discourse semantic system of external time is a simplified confusion of the temporal systems of Halliday's grammatical systems of clause complexing (logical metafunction) and cohesive conjunction (textual metafunction).

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 477) provide the following temporal distinctions for clause complexing:

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 613) provide the following temporal distinctions for cohesive conjunction:

External Time: Misconstruing 'Simultaneous' As 'Successive'

Martin & Rose (2007: 126-7):

This kind of time relation is successive - events happen one after another. Successive conjunctions used in hypotactic relations include when, after, since, now that:

when I answered the questions
I was told that I was lying

…Other successive conjunctions indicate that an event happens immediately before or after, including once, as soon as… :

as soon as I answered
I was slapped again

… Cohesive successive conjunctions include subsequently, previously, at once:

I answered the questions.
Subsequently I was told that I was lying. 

He said he was going on a 'trip'.
Previously it had been a beautiful relationship. 

I started fighting back.
At once four, maybe five policemen viciously knocked me down.

… Cohesive simultaneous conjunctions include meanwhile, simultaneously:

cohesive
The old White South Africa slept peacefully.
Meanwhile 'those at the top' were again targeting the next 'permanent removal from society'.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, when, once, as soon as signal 'same' time, not 'different' time.  This can be demonstrated by substituting them with at the time:

at the time I answered the questions
I was told I was lying

at the time I answered
I was slapped again 

 Different time is commonly signalled by before or after:

before/after I answered the questions
I was told I was lying

before/after I answered
I was slapped again

[2] To be clear, cohesion is a textual system on the stratum of lexicicogrammar.  Its details were painstakingly elaborated by Halliday & Hasan (1976). Here Martin & Rose rebrand it as Martin's logical system on Martin's stratum of discourse semantics (following Martin 1992).

By the same token, the earlier "non-cohesive" examples are instances of clause complexing, a logical system on the stratum of lexicogrammar.  Its details were painstakingly elaborated by Halliday (1985). Here Martin & Rose rebrand it as Martin's logical system on Martin's stratum of discourse semantics (following Martin 1992).

Problems With The System Of External Comparison

Martin & Rose (2007: 125):

In sum, options for external comparison include similarity or difference: opposite, replacing or excepting, set out in Figure 4.2.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the authors' system of comparison misconstrues 3 subtypes of extension as 3 subtypes of comparison (enhancement) and rebrands these grammatical features as discourse semantic. Specifically:

1. adversative addition is misconstrued as comparison and rebranded as different: opposite;
2. replacive variation is misconstrued as comparison and rebranded as different: replacing;
3. subtractive variation is misconstrued as comparison and rebranded as different: excepting.

Cf. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 471):

Again, the serious theoretical disadvantage of misunderstanding these expansion relations and rebranding them as discourse semantics is that it creates an incongruent relation between grammar and discourse semantics even in the absence of grammatical metaphor.

Misconstruing A Substitute As A Continuative

Martin & Rose (2007: 125):

Of course the flipside of contrast is similarity, using like, as if:

The criminal and civil liability of the perpetrator are expunged as if the offence had never happened.

Here Tutu uses as if to suggest that liability expunged is in some way similar to the offence never happened. A cohesive conjunction that can express external similarity is similarly:

Helena's first love worked in a top security structure. Similarly her second love worked for the special forces.

Similarity can also be expressed by the continuative so, with Subject-Finite inversion:

I was torn to pieces. So was he.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, similarity is the "flipside" of difference.  In SFL Theory, the logical meaning of comparison is 'N is like M', and the relation is marked by and + similarly; (and) so, thus, as, as if, like, the way, like (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 477).

[2] To be clear, the logical meaning of this clause complex is: The criminal and civil liability of the perpetrator are expunged is like the offence had never happened.

[3] To be clear, in SFL theory, cohesive conjunction is a grammatical system of the textual metafunction. Here Martin & Rose blend it with the logical grammatical system of clause complexing, and rebrand the confusion as logical discourse semantics.

[4] To be clear, in this instance, the word so is a substitution for the Residue of the clause — not a continuative.  In SFL Theory, genuine continuatives are items such as well, oh, oh no etc.

Misconstruing Replacive And Subtractive Variation As Comparison

Martin & Rose (2007: 124-5):

As with lexical contrasts, there is more than one kind of logical difference. First, one meaning can be replaced by another using instead of, in place of, rather than. These are all used in hypotactic relations:

Instead of resting at night, he would wander from window to window.

A third kind of difference is to make an exception, using except that, other than, apart from, which are again hypotactic:

He wanted to rest at night except that he kept having nightmares. 

He used to rest at night other than when he had nightmares.

Conjunctions like instead and rather can also be used as cohesive:

He should have slept at night. Instead he would wander from window to window.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, here Martin & Rose misunderstand a subtype of extension, replacive variation, as 'replaced', a subtype of comparison (enhancement), and rebrand their misunderstanding of the grammatical system as discourse semantics. In SFL theory, replacive variation is the term for the logical meaning 'not X but Y', and is marked by such items as but not; not ... but, instead of, rather than (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 471).

[2] To be clear, here Martin & Rose misunderstand a subtype of extension, subtractive variation, as  'exception', a subtype of comparison (enhancement), and rebrand their misunderstanding of the grammatical system as discourse semantics. In SFL theory, subtractive variation is the term for the logical meaning 'X but not all X', and is marked by such items as only, but, except, except that, but (for the fact) that except for, other than (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 471).

[3] To be clear, in SFL theory, cohesive conjunction is a grammatical system of the textual metafunction.  Here Martin & Rose blend it with the logical grammatical system of clause complexing, and rebrand the confusion as logical discourse semantics.

Misconstruing Replacive Variation And Adversative Addition As Comparison

Martin & Rose (2007: 124):

The basic options for comparison are similarity versus difference. Perhaps the most common kind of comparison is to contrast two clauses as different, using but:

This is not a frivolous question, but a very serious issue.

Here Tutu contrasts two abstract things, a question and an issue. There is a lexical contrast between their qualities - frivolous versus very serious - and this contrast is made explicit with but. The particular type of difference here is opposition: frivolous and serious realise opposite experiential meanings. But is used in paratactic relations, and opposition can also be realised in hypotactic relations with whereas, while:

Whereas this is a simple question, it is a very serious issue.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the logical meaning of comparison is 'N is like M', and it is marked by items such as and + similarly; (and) so, thus as, as if, like, the way like (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 477).  Comparison is a subtype of enhancement.

[2] To be clear, in SFL theory, the logical meaning 'not X but Y' is termed replacive variation, and it is marked by such items as but not; not ... but, instead of, rather than (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 471). Replacive variation is a subtype of extension.

Given that Martin & Rose distinguish 'opposite' (i.e. 'adversative' in SFL) from 'replacing' ('instead of'), their analysis of this relation as 'opposite' rather than 'replacing' is even inconsistent with the distinctions of their own model.

[3] To be clear, the relation here obtains between nominal groups, not clauses, which is consistent with the authors' discussion of the elements that are contrasted.

this	is		not a frivolous question but a very serious issue
Carrier	Process: attributive		Attribute
Subject	Finite	Predicator	Complement
Mood		Residue

not	a frivolous question	but	a very serious issue
	1		+ 2

[4] To be clear, in SFL theory, the logical meaning 'X and conversely Y' is termed adversative addition, and it is marked by such items as but, (and) yet while, whereas (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 471). Adversative addition is a subtype of extension.

That is, Martin & Rose here misunderstand adversative addition (extension), on the grammatical stratum, as a subtype of comparison (enhancement) and rebrand their misunderstanding as 'opposite', on the discourse semantic stratum.

Problems With The System Of External Addition

Martin & Rose (2007: 124):

In sum, options for external addition include adding, subtracting and alternation, set out in Figure 4.1.

 

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the problems with the authors' rebranding of Halliday's grammatical system of extension as a discourse semantic system of addition can be made explicit by comparing it with the systemic categories it misunderstands; Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 471):

It can be seen that Figure 4.1 only models 3 of the 6 categories of extension:

1. additive: positive (rebranded as 'add'),
2. additive: negative (misunderstood as 'subtract'), and
3. alternation.

The authors' misunderstanding of negative addition as 'subtract' creates the further logical inconsistency of 'subtract' being construed as a subtype of 'additive'.

It will be seen in a later post that Martin & Rose misconstrue the 3 omitted categories of extension:

1. addition: adversative,
2. variation: replacive, and
3. variation: subtractive

as subtypes of comparison, which in SFL theory, is a subtype of enhancement, not extension.

A further theoretical disadvantage of misunderstanding these expansion relations and rebranding them as discourse semantics is that it creates an incongruent relation between grammar and discourse semantics even in the absence of grammatical metaphor.

Problems With Examples Of External Addition

Martin & Rose (2007: 122-4):

We have seen that and can function to add clauses together in a paratactic sequence, one after another:

... white people became dissatisfied with the best
and still wanted better
and got it 

Four, maybe five policemen viciously knocked me down,
and they put me back on the chair
and handcuffed my hands through the chair

… Other conjunctions that realise alternation include if not-then, alternatively:

dependent
If they don't want restorative justice,
then they could choose retribution. 

cohesive
A witness may be terminally ill.
Alternatively she might be disabled.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, these are all grammatical relations, rebranded as discourse semantic relations, with no argument supporting the claim that these relations obtain at a higher level of symbolic abstraction.

[1] To be clear, the relation here is not addition (extension), but time (enhancement), since it relates two clauses in a nexus in terms of temporal sequence.  This error demonstrates the folly of taking form as the point of departure for ascribing function.  As Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 487) point out, the conjunction and can mark not only additive extension ('and also'), but also temporal enhancement ('and then') and causal enhancement ('and so').

[2] To be clear, the relation here is not alternative addition (extension), but condition (enhancement).  If the relation were one of alternation, the clause complex would be agnate to Either they don't want restorative justice or they could choose retribution.  A genuine example of alternation would be If it's not circular then it's elliptical (cf. Either it's circular or it's elliptical).  This again shows the folly of taking form as the point of departure for ascribing function.

[3] To be clear, in SFL theory, the function of the expansion relation here is textual, not logical (as well as being grammatical, not discourse semantic).  The relation here is non-structural, whereas logical relations obtain structurally between rank units in complexes.

The Discourse Semantic System Of External Conjunction

Martin & Rose (2007: 122):

External conjunction is concerned with logically organising a field as sequences of activities. For each general type of external conjunction - addition, comparison, time, consequence - there are two or more sub-types, summarised in Table 4.2.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, external conjunction is concerned with relating text segments in their experiential guise.  Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 611):

As we have seen, elaborating, extending and enhancing conjunctions mark relations between semantic domains, i.e. between text segments. These text segments are simultaneously ideational and interpersonal; they construe experience as meaning, e.g. an episode in a narrative or a recount, and they enact roles and relations, e.g. an exchange in a conversation or consultation, or an argument in an exposition. Relations link text segments either in their ideational guise or in their interpersonal guise: they relate either chunks of experience or chunks of interaction. … Relations between representations of segments of experience are called external relations, and conjunctions marking such relations are called external conjunctions. … Relations linking text segments in their interpersonal guise are called internal relations – internal to the text as a speech event, and conjunctions marking such relations are called internal conjunctions.

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, external conjunction is a non-structural grammatical system of the textual metafunction that deploys the resource of expansion to create cohesive relations between portions of text.  Martin & Rose combine the textual system of conjunction and the logical system of clause complexing and rebrand it as discourse semantics instead of grammar, without providing evidence as to why it constitutes a higher level of symbolic abstraction.

[3] To be clear, in SFL Theory, field is the ideational dimension of context, the culture construed as a semiotic system.  Since sequences of activities are here construed as discourse semantic rather than context (contrā Martin 1992), field and activity sequences lie on different levels of symbolic abstraction and, as such, different levels of semiotic organisation.

[4] To be clear, the omissions and misunderstandings in the authors' model of external conjunction can be made evident by comparing it with the SFL model below (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 612):

For example, Martin & Rose:

• do not organise their system in terms of the three most general subtypes of expansion: elaboration, extension and enhancement, which are fractal types manifested across multiple domains (e.g. circumstances, relational processes, etc.);
• omit all 9 subtypes of elaborating relations;
• omit 4 of the 6 subtypes of extension;
• omit the enhancing relation of matter;
• misconstrue the adversative extending relation ('but') as a subtype of comparison (enhancing);
• misconstrue the manner subtype means as a relation of consequence (cause-condition).

Moreover, the logico-semantic relation of projection is entirely absent from the discourse semantic model of logical relations.

Misconstruing Interpersonal And Textual Adjuncts As "Logical" Continuatives

Martin & Rose (2007: 121-2):

Finally there is one other type of linker aside from conjunctions. These are known as continuity items or continuatives. Continuatives differ from conjunctions in two ways. More often than not, conjunctions occur at the beginning of a clause in English (although cohesive conjunctions can be positioned more flexibly). But continuatives primarily occur within a clause, rather than at the start. And their options for logical relations are far more restricted. Two that we have come across so far are even and also:

We even spoke about marriage.
It is also not true that the granting of amnesty encourages impunity.

To put even at the start of this clause completely changes its meaning — rather than spoke about marriage being unexpected, it is we that becomes unexpected. Also, placing also at the start of a clause is a marked option, as it more typically occurs within the clause.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL theory, the grammatical items linker and continuative are subclasses of conjunction, which is a subclass of adverbial. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 75):

[2] To be clear, in SFL theory, it is conjunctive Adjuncts that have this positional flexibility, and these are realised by adverbials, including adverbs and conjunctions.  Their function is textual on the lexicogrammatical stratum, not logical  on the discourse semantic stratum.

[3] To be clear, in SFL theory, continuatives are inherently thematic and so occur at the start of the clause.  Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 107):

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.

[4] To be clear, in SFL theory, as demonstrated by the usual examples yes no well oh now, continuatives do not express logical relations.  Their function is textual on the lexicogrammatical stratum, not logical  on the discourse semantic stratum.

[5] To be clear, neither even nor also are continuatives.  In the first cited clause, even is an adverb serving as a mood Adjunct of intensity. Its function, therefore, is interpersonal on the lexicogrammatical stratum, not logical  on the discourse semantic stratum.

In the second cited example, also is a conjunction serving as a conjunctive Adjunct of addition. Its function, therefore, is textual on the lexicogrammatical stratum, not logical on the discourse semantic stratum.

[6] To be clear, the locational choice of a conjunctive Adjunct in a clause serves a textual function on the lexicogrammatical stratum, not  a logical function on the discourse semantic stratum.

Misconstruing Textual Cohesion As A Type Of Logical Dependency

Martin & Rose (2007: 121):

Third, two sentences can be logically related by a conjunction such as Further or Thus:

It is also not true that the granting of amnesty encourages impunity...
Further, retributive justice…is not the only form of justice. 

This is a far more personal approach, which sees the offence as something that has happened to people and whose consequence is a rupture in relationships.
Thus we would claim that justice, restorative justice, is being served when efforts are being made to work for healing, for forgiveness and for reconciliation.

We will refer to these kinds of dependency relations between sentences as cohesive (following Halliday and Hasan 1976).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL theory, cohesive conjunction is a non-structural grammatical system of the textual metafunction.

[2] To be clear, here Martin & Rose confuse interdependency, which is structural and logical, with cohesion, which is non-structural and textual.

[3] This is misleading. To be clear, Martin & Rose are not "following" Halliday & Hasan (1976); they are taking the grammatical model of cohesive conjunction in Halliday & Hasan (1976) and simply rebranding (their misunderstanding of) it as their own model of discourse semantics (following Martin 1992).

Rebranding Grammar As Discourse Semantics And Confusing The Logical And Textual Metafunctions

Martin & Rose (2007: 121-2):

Before discussing each type of conjunction in more detail, we need to look briefly at three grammatical contexts in which they are realised, as different conjunctions are used in each context. The first type links a sequence of independent clauses:

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

… another conjunction used in paratactic relations is then:

I was told to shut up, sit in a chair
then I was questioned

These two clauses cannot be reversed without reversing the logical relation between them. We cannot say, for example, *then I was questioned, I was told to shut up. But the conjunction when does allow such a reversal:

when I answered the questions
I was told that I was lying 

I was told that I was lying
when I answered the questions

The reason is that these two clauses are not equal in status. One is independent, and the other beginning with when is dependent on it. The when clause functions as the context in which the other takes place. In this respect its function is similar to a Circumstance of time such as after the questions I was told that I was lying, which can come at the start or end the clause.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the system being demonstrated here is Halliday's grammatical system of clause complexing, and the grammatical context is which it is realised is the syntagmatic axis.  The realisation relation does not obtain stratally between discourse semantics and lexicogrammar. Martin & Rose, following Martin (1992), are merely rebranding Halliday's (1985) grammatical system as Martin's discourse semantic system.

[2] To be clear, conjunctions are lexicogrammatical phenomena.

[3] To be clear, it is not the logical relation that is reversed, but the sequence of clauses.  Clauses are lexicogrammatical phenomena.

[4] To be clear, this relates to the textual function of β-clauses in clause complexes, which varies according sequence: progressive or regressive. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 551):

The contrast between progressive and regressive sequence … is quite typical of procedural texts: temporal clauses delimiting the performance of actions tend to be rhematic …. In general, thematic β-clauses serve to set up a local context in the discourse for the α-clause: they re-orient the development (as in the staging of a narrative), often distilling some aspect of what has gone before to provide the point of departure for the dominant clause, thus creating a link to the previous discourse (cf. Longacre, 1985; Thompson, 1984; Ford & Thompson, 1986).

[5] To be clear, the 'similarity' relates to their being agnate manifestations of the expansion category temporal enhancement. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 666-7):

We have met expansion in a number of different grammatical domains. The most detailed account was … where we found that the three subtypes of expansion (elaboration, extension and enhancement) combine with tactic relations to link one clause to another in the formation of clause complexes. … On the one hand, expansion is manifested in the augmentation of the clause by circumstances: these circumstantial augmentations cover all three types of expansion, with enhancement being the most highly developed one.

[6] To be clear, this relates to the textual function of circumstances in clauses as thematic or rhematic; see [4].