Misunderstanding Internal Conjunction

Martin & Rose (2007: 133):

The roles of internal conjunction in logically organising discourse have become particularly elaborated in the written mode, building on older spoken ways of meaning. For this reason, internal conjunction includes the same four logical types as we have seen for external conjunctions. Furthermore many of the items that express internal relations are the same as external conjunctions, such as also, thus, but other internal conjunctions are quite different. The basic options are outlined in Table 4.5.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, internal conjunction is not concerned with logically organising discourse. Instead, conjunction, whether internal or external, is a textual system of the lexicogrammar, through which cohesive relations are established between portions of text. This is distinct from the logical system of clause complexing, through which structural relations are established between clause in clause complexes.

The distinction between external and internal conjunction is the distinction between linking representations of experience and linking interpersonal exchanges.  Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 611):

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, Table 4.5 foreshadows some of the misunderstandings to appear in this discussion. For example:

• the conjunctive Adjunct for instance marks exemplifying apposition (a subclass of elaboration), not comparison (a subclass of enhancement);
• the conjunctive Adjunct on the other hand marks adversative addition (a subclass of extension), not comparison (a subclass of enhancement); and
• the speech-functional comment Adjunct admittedly functions interpersonally, not logically (or textually); see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 191).