Misrepresenting The Conjunctive Relations In Tutu's Argument

Martin & Rose (2007: 147-8):

Now let’s look at connections within one stage, in Figure 4.12.

 

In contrast to Helena’s Incident, this Argument is organised primarily by internal conjunction. As we discussed earlier, the grounds for this Argument unfold as a series of conditions that we expect to negate Tutu’s thesis, but are then countered with In fact. 

The scope of the conclusion (Thus) is the grounds as a whole. This is followed by the example, which we have rendered with (e.g.). This example unfolds as a sequence of consequences for the security force members, which we have rendered with (so). 

The last consequence is not another event, but rather Tutu’s conclusion about this penalty (quite a price to pay). Again the scope of this is the example as a whole, supporting the statement that Thus there is a penalty…

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously discussed here, this completely misunderstands the argument of Tutu's text. As can be seen in Tutu's text above, there is no series of conditions with the potential to counter Tutu's thesis. On the contrary, the conjunctive Adjunct in fact — marking verifactive clarification in SFL Theory — initiates a clause that verifies that virtually all important applications have been dealt with publicly, just as the Act requires.

[2] As pointed out in the preceding post, the meaning of thus in this instance is 'thereby, by such means' not 'therefore', and so the conjunctive relation that obtains is one of means (manner), not consequence (cause-condition).

[3] To be clear, if the relation that obtains here could validly be rendered by the inserted (e.g.), then in SFL Theory, the relation would be one of exemplifying apposition, not similarity. However, the interpretation is, in any case, invalid because the clause:

Thus there is the penalty of public exposure and humiliation for the perpetrator.

is not exemplified by the clause:

Many of those in the security forces who have come forward had previously been regarded as respectable members of their communities.

since the latter does not develop the former by becoming more specific about it or providing an example; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 463).

[4] To be clear, this again demonstrates why Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 622) caution against assigning implicit conjunction in the interpretation of a text. Here other interpretations are at least as plausible, such as those marked by as a matter of fact (verifactive clarification) or and (positive addition):

Many of those in the security forces who have come forward had previously been regarded as respectable members of their communities.

(And / As a matter of fact) It was often the very first time that their communities and even sometimes their families heard that these people were, for instance, actually members of death squads or regular torturers of detainees in their custody.

(And / As a matter of fact) For some it has been so traumatic that marriages have broken up.

[5] This analysis misunderstands the text. To be clear, the final clause actually relates solely to the immediately preceding clause, through its demonstrative reference item that referring back to the preceding marriages have broken up. That is, it is the break up of marriages that is quite a price to play.

(It might also be observed that, contrary to the authors' claim, that is quite a price to play is not a logical consequence of thus there is the penalty of public exposure and humiliation for the perpetrator.)