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'.
No comments:
Post a Comment