Friday, 28 February 2020

Misconstruing Interpersonal Counter-Expectancy As Logical Expectancy (And The Meaning Of The Texts Used As Examples)

Martin & Rose (2014: 142):
However, another perspective on continuatives is their role in managing expectancy. On this criterion we can group together already, finally, stillyet, only, just, even, since they all signal that an activity is in some way unexpected. This has already been touched on in Chapter 2 (section 2.4) in the discussion of concession as one kind of source for evaluations. For example, comparative continuatives indicate that there is more or less to a situation than might be expected. So it was more than we could expect of the relationship, to even speak about marriage:
It was the beginning of a beautiful relationship.
We even spoke about marriage.
But it was less than we might expect of amnesty, that it was only a means to the truth:
Amnesty didn't matter,
it was only a means to the truth.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, none of the listed items are continuatives, comparative or otherwise, and any expectancy involved is interpersonal, not logical (or textual); see further below.

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, these items typically function interpersonally as mood Adjuncts of intensity, of which there are two subtypes: temporality (already, still, just) and counter-expectancy (only, just even). The items only and just mark 'counterexpectancy: limiting', whereas even marks 'counterexpectancy: exceeding'; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 189).

[3] To be clear, in SFL Theory, these items typically function textually as conjunctive Adjuncts, with finally typically marking a conclusive temporal relation or a summative clarifying relation, and yet typically marking an adversative additive relation or a concessive conditional relation; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 612-3).

[4] Here Martin and Rose misunderstand the counter-expectancy of mood Adjuncts of intensity (misunderstood as continuatives), and, as a consequence, misunderstand the meaning of texts they present as examples; see [5] and [6] below. As Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 188) explain:
Those of counterexpectancy are either ‘limiting’ or ‘exceeding’ what is to be expected: the meaning is either ‘nothing else than, went no further than’ or ‘including also, went as far as’.
[5] Here Martin and Rose misunderstand meaning of the text. The meaning is not:
To even speak about marriage was more than we could expect of the relationship
but almost the opposite:
Our relationship even went as far as speaking about marriage. 
[6] Here Martin and Rose misunderstand meaning of the text. The meaning is not:
it was less than we might expect of amnesty
but the significantly different:
amnesty was nothing other than a means to the truth.

Tuesday, 25 February 2020

Misconstruing Conjunctive Adjuncts And Mood Adjuncts As Continuatives

Martin & Rose (2014: 142):
Instead of coming at the beginning of the clause, continuatives typically occur next to the finite verb within the clause. Finite verbs are the ones that express tense or modality (see Chapter 7, section 7.3, below). They are underlined as follows: is alsoso was, even spoke, was only, still wanted, finally understand, were again

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, (genuine) continuatives are inherently thematic and thus occur at the beginning of a clause. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 109):
Those that are inherently thematic are the (textual) continuatives and conjunctions. As the language evolved, they have, as it were, migrated to the front of the clause and stayed there. Essentially they constitute a setting for the clause (continuative), or else they locate it in a specific logical-semantic relationship to another clause in the neighbourhood (conjunction). In either case, their thematic status comes as part of a package, along with their particular discursive force.
To be clear, the elements that typically occur next to the Finite verbal operator are mood Adjuncts, some of which Martin and Rose mistake for continuatives; see [4]. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 187):
These are so called because they are closely associated with the meanings enacted by the mood system: modality and temporality, and also intensity. This means that their neutral position in the clause is next to the Finite verbal operator, either just before it or just after it.
[2] To be clear, here Martin and Rose confuse the element of clause structure that realises tense or modality, the Finite verbal operator, with a finite form of a verb.

[3] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the items also, so, finally, again are not continuatives, but can serve as conjunctive Adjuncts that mark a textually cohesive relation the preceding discourse. The distribution of conjunctive Adjuncts in the clause is similar to that of interpersonal comment modal Adjuncts (Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 157).

[4] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the items even, only, still are not continuatives, but can serve as  interpersonal mood Adjuncts of intensity (even, only) or temporality (still).

Sunday, 23 February 2020

Misconstruing A Conjunctive Adjunct (Concessive Condition) And A Circumstance (Extent) As Continuatives Of Time

Martin & Rose (2007: 142):
And other continuatives realise time:
If I had to watch how white people became dissatisfied with the best and still wanted better and got it. 
I finally understand what the struggle was really about. 
'those at the top' were again targeting the next 'permanent removal from society'.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, when still has the temporal sense of 'even now/then', as it does in this instance, it functions interpersonally as a mood Adjunct of temporality (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 188). As a conjunctive Adjunct, still — like nevertheless — marks the cohesive conjunctive relation of concessive condition (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 614)

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, this instance of finally marks the textually cohesive temporal relation of 'conclusive'; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 614).

[3] To be clear, in SFL Theory, this instance of the adverb again functions experientially as a circumstance of Extent: frequency.  As Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 158) point out:
And the same item may function sometimes circumstantially and sometimes conjunctively; for example then, at that moment, later on, again

Friday, 21 February 2020

Misconstruing Additive Conjunction And Modal Assessment As Continuative: Comparison


Martin & Rose (2007: 142):
Other continuatives realise types of comparison so (did he), even, only, just:
It was the beginning of a beautiful relationship.
We even spoke about marriage. 
Amnesty didn't matter.
It was only a means to the truth.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the conjunctive Adjunctso (did he) — like alsodid he) — marks the textually cohesive relation of positive addition; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 613).

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, these items function interpersonally as mood Adjuncts of intensity. The item even marks 'counterexpectancy: exceeding', whereas only and just mark 'counterexpectancy: limiting'; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 189).

Tuesday, 18 February 2020

Rebranding Additive Conjunction As Continuative: Addition

Martin & Rose (2007: 142):
We have actually discussed several of these already, without explicitly distinguishing them from conjunctions. We met the continuative also in Tutu’s exposition:
The Act required that the application should be dealt with in a public hearing … It is also not true that the granting of amnesty encourages impunity … because amnesty is only given to those who plead guilty ...
The kind of logical relation expressed by this continuative is addition.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, in SFL Theory, in this instance, also serves as a conjunctive Adjunct, not a continuative, and marks the textually cohesive relation of positive addition; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 613).

Sunday, 16 February 2020

Misconstruing Conjunction And Modal Assessment As Continuity


Martin & Rose (2007: 141):
As we predicted at the start of this chapter, we now need to mention a small set of linkers that are different from conjunctions. We'll refer to these here as continuatives. Logical relations realised by continuatives include addition, comparison and time:
addition         too, also, as well
comparison   so (did he); only, just; even
time                already; finally, at last; still; again

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this is inconsistent with the notion of 'continuative' in SFL Theory. As Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 107) explain:
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.
Martin & Rose provide no argument in support of the validity of their reinterpretation of the term, nor the explanatory value of doing so. As will be seen, this system is actually a confusion of Halliday's grammatical systems of cohesive conjunction (textual metafunction), marked by conjunctive Adjuncts, and modal assessment (interpersonal metafunction), marked by comment Adjuncts, that the authors rebrand as Martin's logical discourse semantic system.

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, as conjunctive Adjuncts, these items typically mark the textually cohesive relation of positive addition; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 613).

[3] To be clear, in SFL Theory, these items typically function interpersonally as mood Adjuncts of intensity. The items only and just mark 'counterexpectancy: limiting', whereas even marks 'counterexpectancy: exceeding'; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 189).

[4] To be clear, in SFL Theory, these items typically function interpersonally as mood Adjuncts of temporality (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 188), though in the example to be discussed (p142), still marks the clause complex relation of paratactic concessive condition (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 478).

[5] To be clear, in SFL Theory, these conjunctive Adjuncts typically mark the textually cohesive temporal relation of 'conclusive'; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 614).

[6] To be clear, the adverb again potentially serves many functions. For example, as a conjunctive Adjunct, it can mark a textually cohesive relation of clarifying elaboration. In the example to be discussed (p142), it functions experientially as a circumstance of Extent: frequency.

Friday, 14 February 2020

Theoretical Problems With The System Of Internal Conjunction

Martin & Rose (2007: 140-1):
The full system for internal conjunction is displayed as Table 4.6.
 

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, this a taxonomy, presented as a table, rather than a system. It lacks, for example, both an entry condition and realisation statements that specify how the features are realised structurally.

For theoretical problems with the system of internal addition, see
  1. Misconstruing Continuity As Additive Conjunction
  2. Misconstruing Distractive And Dismissive Clarification (Elaboration) As Addition (Extension)
  3. Theoretical Inconsistencies In The System Of Internal Addition
For theoretical problems with the system of internal comparison, see
For theoretical problems with the system of internal time, see
  1. Misconstruing Conditional 'Then' As Temporal 'Then'
  2. Misrepresenting The Conjunctive Relation Of Internal Simultaneity
  3. Problems With The System Of Internal Time

Tuesday, 11 February 2020

Theoretical Problems With The System Of Internal Consequence

Martin & Rose (2007: 140):
Options for internal consequence are summed up in Figure 4.8.

Blogger Comments:

As demonstrated in the preceding six posts, the authors' system of internal consequence is collection of misunderstandings and rebrandings of Halliday's lexicogrammar, presented as Martin's discourse semantics. To summarise:

(a) The 'concluding' feature 'conclude' confuses
  • manner: means (thus)
  • summative clarification (in conclusion)
  • cause (hence, consequently)
(b) The 'concluding' feature 'justify' misconstrues modal assessment (asseverative propositional comment Adjunct enacting the modal assessment 'obvious') as a conjunctive relation.

(c) The 'countering' feature 'dismiss' misconstrues dismissive clarification as internal consequence.

(d) The 'countering' feature 'concede' misconstrues modal assessment (persuasive speech-functional comment Adjunct of concession) as a conjunctive relation.

(e) The 'countering' feature 'unexpected' is simply a rebranding of Halliday's concessive condition.

Moreover, the network incongruously construes
  • 'countering' as a subtype of 'consequence',
  • 'justify' as a subtype of 'concluding', and
  • 'concede' and 'unexpected' as subtypes of 'countering'.

Sunday, 9 February 2020

Rebranding Concessive Condition As Internal Concessive Consequence

Martin & Rose (2007: 140):
Internal counterexpectant consequence is known as concessive. In speech it is commonly realised by but:
Coetzee: I told all this to the Commission.
Ernest: — Yes,
            but now you're telling us.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, here the authors simply rebrand the grammatical clause complexing relation of concessive condition, whose meaning is if P then contrary to expectation Q (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 478), as marked by although, as their discourse semantic relation of concessive consequence.

Friday, 7 February 2020

Rebranding Concessive Condition As Internal Unexpected Consequence

Martin & Rose (2007: 140):
Or an argument may be countered as unexpected, with nevertheless, nonetheless, still:
While the authors considered this two-component definition,
they nevertheless favoured one component over the other one, behaving as if the two components could be taken separately

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, in SFL Theory, this is an instance of concessive condition, which has the meaning if P then contrary to expectation Q; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 478, 612-3).

Tuesday, 4 February 2020

Misconstruing Modal Assessment As Internal Consequence [2]

Martin & Rose (2007: 140):
Arguments can also be conceded, with admittedly, needless to say, of course:
Stated in these terms, the victory over apartheid seems like a simple one of right over wrong, good over evil.
But of course social conflicts are rarely so simple

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, admittedly does not mark any conjunctive relation, let alone one of consequence. In SFL Theory, admittedly functions interpersonallynot logically (or textually), as a persuasive speech-functional comment Adjunct of concession; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 190-1).

[2] To be clear, needless to say does not mark any conjunctive relation, let alone one of consequence. In SFL Theory, needless to say functions interpersonallynot logically (or textually), as a asseverative propositional comment Adjunct enacting the modal assessment 'obvious'; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 190-1).

[3] To be clear, this instance of of course does not mark any conjunctive relation, let alone one of consequence. In SFL Theory, this instance of of course functions interpersonallynot logically (or textually), as a asseverative propositional comment Adjunct enacting the modal assessment 'obvious'; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 190-1). The meaning here is generally that also realised by But obviously social conflicts are rarely so simple.

The conjunctive relation in this instance is adversative addition, realised by the conjunction but; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 612-3).

Sunday, 2 February 2020

Misconstruing Dismissive Clarification As Internal Consequence

Martin & Rose (2007: 140):
In contrast, arguments may be dismissed with anyway, anyhow, in any case, at any rate:
There have already been reports of taxis putting up 'out of service' signs and people changing seats on buses when confronted by dark-skinned people —
as if changing your seat would save you if a bomb went off anyway

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, in SFL Theory, the conjunctive relation here is dismissive clarification, a subtype of elaboration, not consequence, a subtype of enhancement; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 612-3). That fact that the relation here is not a subtype of consequence can be demonstrated by replacing the conjunctive Adjunct with the most general form consequently:
as if changing your seat would save you if a bomb went off consequently