Misanalysing Logical Relations In Misinterpreting A Text

Martin & Rose (2007: 146-7):

Let’s now turn to the discourse patterns within Helena’s first Incident, shown in Figure 4.10.

Within this stage, connections are all external, as Helena recounts the events and describes her love. To begin with, succession is expressed lexically (It was the beginning...), and we have rendered it with (then), since the relationship implicitly follows the first meeting. 

Then unexpected contrasts are realised explicitly by even and Even if, but note that the direction of the latter connection is forward (to he was popular.. .) rather than back, like most connections. …

We have then rendered the connection between his leaving and Helena’s reaction (I was torn to pieces) as consequence (so), and of course his reaction is the same (So was he). The next event in the succession is her short marriage, rendered with (then), and this is followed by its cause.

Blogger Comments:

[1] The general confusion is between 'time' as a category of expansion, which has many manifestations in the grammar, and just one of its manifestations: conjunctive relations.  However, in this instance, there is no temporal conjunctive relation implicit in the text. Moreover, the insertion of then by Martin & Rose misinterprets the text, since it explicitly identifies the relationship as beginning with the first meeting, rather than as something that developed later.

[2] Here again Martin & Rose demonstrate that they do not understand the distinction between the terms 'lexical' and 'grammatical'. The wording it was the beginning (of a beautiful relationship) is grammar — a clause — not lexis.

[3] Here again Martin & Rose mistake a modal Adjunct of intensity, even, for a continuative marking a logical relation. As previously explained, the interpersonal meaning here is counter-expectancy: exceeding.

[4] To be clear, the conjunction even if marks a hypotactic relation of concessive condition between clauses in a clause complex. Its meaning is 'if P then contrary to expectation Q'. The reason why the "direction of connection" is forward is because the relation is structural (logical) rather than cohesive (textual). It is only cohesive relations that necessarily relate to preceding text.

[5] On the one hand, here Martin & Rose misunderstand the text, since Helena's reaction was to ‘We won’t see each other again... maybe never ever again’, not to the imaginary wording his leaving. On the other hand, they insert a logical relation of consequence (cause: result) where any implicit logical relation is indeterminate. For example, a punctiliar temporal relation, as in at that moment I was torn to pieces, is at least as plausible.

[6] As previously observed, in SFL theory, so is a substitute for the Residue of the clause, not the marker of a conjunctive relation.

[7] Again, there is no logical relation in the text, and other implicit relations are at least as plausible:

• (as a matter of fact) An extremely short marriage to someone else failed all because I married to forget. (verifactive clarifying elaboration);
• (and) An extremely short marriage to someone else failed all because I married to forget. (positive additive extension);
• (as a result) An extremely short marriage to someone else failed all because I married to forget. (causal-conditional enhancement).