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.