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].