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, still, yet, 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.