Misleading The Reader On Discourse Analysis And 'Meaning Beyond The Clause'

 Martin & Rose (2007: 312):

That being said, of course we want to know things about text types, registers and systems as well. … The main thing we’d like to argue for here is not to mistake a lot of clause analysis for discourse analysis. It doesn’t matter how many clauses we analyse, it’s only once we analyse meaning beyond the clause that we’ll be analysing discourse. And we need to analyse discourse right along the instantiation cline if we want to make sense of the semiotic weather we experience in the ecosocial climate of our times.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, text type and register are the same point of variation on the cline of instantiation, but viewed from different poles of the cline. Martin incongruously models these as both 

• different points of variation on the cline of instantiation of language, and
• systems of context, not language, with text type (genre) realised by register.

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, it is not possible to analyse texts without a model of the system of which the texts are an instance. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 731):

A text is meaningful because it is an actualisation of the potential that constitutes the linguistic system; it is for this reason that the study of discourse (‘text linguistics’) cannot properly be separated from the study of the grammar that lies behind it.

[3] This is misleading, because clause analysis is discourse (text) analysis — at one rank, on the stratum of lexicogrammar. To be clear, the central importance of the clause — and of lexicogrammar, in general — for text analysis is explained by Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 10, 22):

The clause is the central processing unit in the lexicogrammar – in the specific sense that it is in the clause that meanings of different kinds are mapped into an integrated grammatical structure. … Grammar is the central processing unit of language, the powerhouse where meanings are created …

Moreover, as Halliday (1985: xvi-xvii) explained:

The current preoccupation is with discourse analysis, or 'text linguistics'; and it has sometimes been assumed that this can be carried on without grammar — or even that it is somehow an alternative to grammar.  But this is an illusion.  A discourse analysis that is not based on grammar is not an analysis at all, but simply a running commentary on a text … the exercise remains a private one in which one explanation is as good or as bad as another.

A text is a semantic unit, not a grammatical one.  But meanings are realised through wordings; and without a theory of wordings — that is, a grammar — there is no way of making explicit one's interpretation of the meaning of a text. Thus the present interest in discourse analysis is in fact providing a context within which grammar has a central place.

[4] On the one hand, this is a bare assertion, unsupported by reasoned argument. On the other hand, it is misleading, because it is untrue. In SFL Theory, "meaning beyond the clause" is realised by the lexicogrammatical systems of textual cohesion. Text analysis that merely examines the instances of cohesion fails to account for all the meanings that are realised structurally: interpersonal, experiential, logical and textual.

For Martin & Rose, however, "meaning beyond the clause" specifically refers to Martin's discourse semantic systems, so this bare assertion is actually an attempt to bully the reader into using Martin's systems. But, as demonstrated in great detail here, here, and on this blog, Martin's discourse semantics is largely a confusion of Halliday's semantic system of SPEECH FUNCTION (rebranded as Martin's NEGOTIATION), and Halliday & Hasan's lexicogrammatical systems of COHESION (rebranded as Martin's IDENTIFICATION, IDEATION, and CONNEXION/CONJUNCTION), as well as a rebranding of writing pedagogy (the authors' PERIODICITY) misrepresented as linguistic theory.

[5] To be clear, this seriously misunderstands the cline of instantiation. Discourse can only be analysed at the instance pole of the cline, because discourse analysis is the analysis of instances (texts). Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 660):

A text is thus a unit of meaning – more accurately, a unit in the flow of meaning that is always taking place at the instance pole of the cline of instantiation.

Moving up the cline is a move away from analysing data to theorising language. 

[6] To be clear, this seriously misunderstands the cline of instantiation. The cline of instantiation of which text ("semiotic weather") is an instance is a scale of perspectives on language. The "ecosocial climate of our times", on the other hand, is not language, but culture (context as system), at the current state of its phylogenesis.

Serial Expansion

Martin & Rose (2007: 199):

The strategy of predicting phases of discourse with macroThemes and hyperThemes constructs a ‘hierarchy’ of periodicity of smaller units of discourse ‘scaffolded’ within larger units. But there are alternative ways of constructing unfolding discourse so it is sensible to the reader. One way to highlight this is to compare hierarchy with an alternative strategy for expanding text, which is the strategy Tutu uses to build up his argument. We can call this ‘serial expansion’. 

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously demonstrated, it is not possible to predict what follows introductory paragraphs (macroThemes) and topic sentences (hyperThemes), except with the benefit of hindsight. Instead, in writing that conforms with these pedagogical principles, these "Themes" are elaborated by what follows. That is, Martin & Rose have confused textual transitions (conjunctive relations) with textual statuses (thematic prominence).

[2] The unacknowledged source of the notion of a ‘hierarchy of periodicity' is Halliday (1981).

[3] To be clear, Martin & Rose have not identified the units of which these higher level Themes are elements, nor discussed their complementary elements: higher level Rhemes.

[4] To be clear, these 'alternative ways' are the non-structural resources of the textual metafunction: conjunction, reference, ellipsis-&-substitution, and lexical cohesion.

[5] As will be seen, this alternative strategy of 'serial expansion' is cohesive conjunction, the textual resource that Martin & Rose have already unwittingly drawn on in describing their higher level Themes and News (see [1] above).

"The Discourse Analysis Doesn’t Really Tell Much That Hasn’t Already Been Accounted For In Grammatical Analysis"

Martin & Rose (2007: 185):

In ‘little texts’ such as headlines, telegrams, SMS messages on mobile phones, titles, labels, diagrams, billboards and so on, determiners are more often than not left out, so the distinction between presenting and presuming is neutralised. For example, ‘the’ is left out of the headings in the Act but included in the paragraphs,

CHAPTER 2
Ø Truth and Reconciliation Commission
Ø Establishment and Ø seat of Ø Truth and Reconciliation Commission
2. (1) There is for the purposes of sections 10(1), (2) and (3) and II and Chapters 6 and 7 hereby established a juristic person to be known as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
(2) The seat of the Commission shall be determined by the President.

We should also observe that various pronouns are commonly used in a generalised way that doesn’t presume the identity of anyone in particular:

You don't know who your friends are 'til you're down and out.
We just don't behave like that round here!
They're double parking both sides of the street again!
It's too damn hot!

Finally, there are various kinds of structural it, which presume information in the same grammatical configuration; these can be treated as text reference if desired. As with esphora, the discourse analysis doesn’t really tell much that hasn’t already been accounted for in grammatical analysis. Examples include:

It's Tutu who forgave them
It pleased me he forgave them
I like it he forgave them
it's good he forgave them
It's reported he forgave them
It appears he forgave them

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously explained, 'presenting' reference is reference in the sense of ideational denotation — a nominal group realising a participant — not reference in the textual sense of a referential relation between a reference item and its referent.

[2] To be clear, the unacknowledged source here is once again Halliday & Hasan (1976) who refer to this as generalised exophoric reference; see the discussion in Halliday & Hasan (1976:53).

[3] To be clear, genuine cases of this sort are termed 'structural cataphora' (Halliday & Hasan 1976: 56-7) and do not function cohesively.

[4] To be clear, the authors' 'text reference' is their rebranding of 'extended reference' (Halliday & Hasan 1976: 66-7) and is distinct from structural cataphoric reference and, unlike the latter, does function cohesively.

[5] This is misleading. To be clear, the authors' discourse analysis is merely a rebranding of the grammatical analysis of Halliday & Hasan (1976).

[6] To be clear, the reference of it is to who forgave them, not to Tutu… .

[7] To be clear, it does not refer to he forgave them, as demonstrated by what would be an agnate clause if this were the case:

* he forgave them appears.

Tracking Systems

Martin & Rose (2007: 183-4):

As for tracking, presumed information can be recovered either on the basis of communal understandings (the Truth Commission, Mandela) or situational presence, as shown in Figure 5.4. Within a situation, information can be presumed from either verbal (endophora) or non-verbal modalities (exophoric). Reference to the co-text can point forward or back: if back, then direct reference can be distinguished from inference; if forward, then reference from a nominal group to something following that group can be distinguished from reference that’s resolved within the same nominal group. Terminologically, we can refer to bridging as a type of anaphora; but forward reference within (esphora) is so much more common than forward reference beyond the nominal group that it’s probably best to reserve the term cataphora for reference beyond.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously observed, the misunderstanding of reference as tracking leads to absurdities such as speakers using I, me, my, mine to keep track of themselves.

[2] As previously noted, homophoric reference — as in the Truth Commission —is 'self-specifying; there is only one – or at least only one that makes sense in the context' (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 631). Homophoric reference is not textually cohesive.

[3] As previously explained, the use of names, such as Mandela, is reference in the sense of ideational denotation, not textual reference in which a reference item presumes an identity to be resolved elsewhere.

[4] As previously explained, in SFL Theory, a 'situation' is an instance of context, the culture as semiotic system, which is realised in language. Inconsistent with theory, Martin & Rose here use it to refer to both the perceptual field of the interlocutors (phenomena) and their projected text (metaphenomena) that realises a situation.

[5] To be clear, this is the first use of 'modalities' in the chapter. Endophoric reference is reference to within the text, exophoric reference is reference to outside text. Both verbal and non-verbal modalities (eg. pictures) can be referred to either endophorically or exophorically. For example, endophoric reference to a 'non-verbal modality' is to a diagram within the same text; exophoric  reference to a 'verbal modality' is reference to a different text.

[6] As previously demonstrated here, bridging (inference/indirect reference) is a confusion of reference with lexical cohesion.

[7] To be clear, in SFL Theory, this is the distinction between non-structural cataphora, which is cohesive, and structural cataphora ("esphora") which is not.

Identifying And Story Phases

Martin & Rose (2007: 173, 174):

Table 5.6 gives an overview of the resources used to introduce and track the main characters in Helena’s story.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Table 5.6 confuses personal and demonstrative reference items (my, I, our, the etc) with ideational denotations (a young man, Mr F.W. de Klerk etc.). Moreover, four of the six columns (Helena, 1st love, 2nd love, those at the top) contradict both of the authors' previous claims (p173) that:

reference helps construct the Act’s staging, using pronouns and determiners to track information within sections but not between, relying on names to refer between sections.

[2] To be clear, as previously explained, 'introducing a participant' is not textual reference, but the first instance of a specific ideational denotation.

[3] To be clear, reference is a textually cohesive relation between a reference item and its referent, and does not involve the tracking of participants. The authors' absurd claim is that Helena keeps track of herself through her text.

Bridging Reference: Confusing Reference With Lexical Cohesion

Martin & Rose (2007: 171-2):

To this point, the resources we’ve looked at refer directly to the participant they identify. Less commonly, participants can be presumed indirectly. To illustrate we can use some examples from other stories in Tutu’s book:

Tshikalanga stabbed first.., and he couldn't get the knife out of the chest of Mxenge [96]

In this story the identity of the knife is presumed even though it hasn’t been directly introduced before; but it has been indirectly introduced, since the most likely thing for someone to stab with is a knife.

Similarly with the plastic in the following example; it hasn’t been directly mentioned, but plastic bags are obviously made of plastic, and so its ‘presence’ is obvious:

they started to take a plastic bag ... then one person held both my hands down and the other person put it on my head. Then they seated it so that I wouldn't be able to breathe and kept it on for at least two minutes, by which time the plastic was clinging to my eyelids [105]

This kind of inferred anaphoric reference is called bridging. Helena uses this kind of reference to presume the bed from her second love’s sleeping habits in the following extract:

Instead of resting at night, he would wander from window to window. He tried to hide his wild consuming fear, but I saw it.
In the early hours of the morning between two and half-past-two, I jolt awake from his rushed breathing.
Rolls this way, that side of the bed.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, here Martin & Rose confuse lexical cohesion with reference. On the one hand, a relation of collocation obtains between stab(bed) and knife, and this is textually cohesive. On the other hand, the demonstrative reference of the in the knife is homophoric —'self-specifying; there is only one – or at least only one that makes sense in the context' (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 631) — which is exophoric, and therefore not textually cohesive.

[2] To be clear, referents are not restricted to participants, as the author's own exposition has demonstrated. The demonstrative reference item the in the plastic refers directly to the Classifier plastic in the nominal group a plastic bag (which plastic? the plastic of a plastic bag). Again, this is accompanied by lexical cohesion: the repetition of the lexical item plastic.

[3] To be clear, here again Martin & Rose confuse lexical cohesion with reference. On the one hand, a relation of collocation obtains between rest and bed, and this is textually cohesive. On the other hand, the demonstrative reference of the in the bed is homophoric — there is only one that makes sense in the context — which is exophoric, and therefore not textually cohesive.

Spatial And Temporal Reference

Martin & Rose (2007: 166):

Another example of specialised reference is the tracking device therewith, which refers to a specific ‘location' in the text. This is used to keep things open, to refer generally to the processes that have to be undertaken to establish the Commission and Committees and empower them:

and for the said purposes to provide for the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission
and to confer certain powers on, assign certain functions to and impose certain duties upon that Commission and those Committees
and to provide for matters connected therewith.

Reference to location in space (here, there) and time (now, then) is also found in non-specialised discourse. It is used by Tutu to refer to restorative justice (here):

I contend that there is another kind of justice, restorative justice, which is characteristic of traditional African jurisprudence.
Here the central concern is not retribution or punishment but, in the spirit of ubuntu

As with therewith in the Act, identifying by location in space or time is a little more general than using a demonstrative. It treats discourse as a region of meaning that we can be oriented to, as opposed to a collection of people and things we pick out and name.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in this instance therewith serves the same function as 'with that', and as such, makes anaphoric specific demonstrative reference to a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The authors' mistaken notion that therewith refers to a location derives from giving priority to form (there-) over function in their analysis — the opposite of the SFL approach.

[2] To be clear, the temporal demonstratives now and then function 'conjunctively rather than referentially' (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 632).

[3] To be clear, in this instance, here also serves as a conjunctive Adjunct of matter. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 620):

Here cohesion is established by reference to the ‘matter’ that has gone before. As noted earlier, many expressions of matter are spatial metaphors, involving words like point, ground, field; and these become conjunctive when coupled with reference items. …

||| Without chlorine in the antarctic stratosphere, || there would be no ozone hole. ||| (Here “hole” refers to a substantial reduction below the naturally occurring concentration of ozone over Antarctica.) |||

[4] To be clear, here and there are demonstratives — locative demonstratives — and the reference they make is demonstrative reference.

[5] This attempted hedge is invalidated by the exemplifying texts, wherein:

• there(with) specifically refers to a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and
• here specifically refers to (another kind of justice,) restorative justice.

It also flatly contradicts the authors' opening claim — [1] above — that therewith refers to a specific ‘location' in the text.

Misrepresenting Text Comprehension As Text Production

Martin & Rose (2007: 158-9):

The minor players aren’t mentioned again in the story; but Helena’s first and second loves are. Her first love is tracked as follows:

As an eighteen-year-old, I met a young man in his twenties.
He was working in a top security structure.
It was the beginning of a beautiful relationship.
We even spoke about marriage,
A bubbly, vivacious man who beamed out wild energy.
Sharply intelligent.
Even if he was an Englishman
he was popular with all the 'Boer' Afrikaners.
And all my girlfriends envied me.
Then one day he said he was going on a 'trip'.
'We won't see each other again... maybe never ever again.'
I was torn to pieces.
So was he.
An extremely short marriage to someone else failed all because 1 married to forget.
More than a year ago, I met my first love again through a good friend.
I was to learn for the first time that he had been operating overseas
and that he was going to ask for amnesty.
I can't explain the pain and bitterness in me
when I saw what was left of that beautiful, big, strong person.
He had only one desire - that the truth must come out.

Once he is introduced as a young man, the main strategy for tracking his identity is with pronouns, which refer to him ten times on his own (he and his), and twice together with Helena (we). He’s also identified twice as a kind of person: my first love, and that beautiful big, strong person.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, it is the listener/reader — or discourse analyst — that has to keep track of an identity through a text, not the speaker/writer, since the speaker/writer already knows who they are talking about. That is, the notion of tracking participants misrepresents a listener/reader strategy for the meaning potential of the speaker/writer.

[2] To be clear, in terms of SFL Theory, this confuses two distinct types of cohesion: reference (that) and lexical cohesion (love, person).

Misconstruing Mood And Conjunctive Adjuncts As 'Expectant Temporal Continuatives'

Martin & Rose (2007: 143):

Temporal continuatives indicate that something happens sooner or later, or persists longer, than one might expect. Helena is appalled at how white peoples’ greed persists longer than might be reasonably expected:

If I had to watch how white people became dissatisfied with the best and still wanted better and got it.

Helena also uses finally to signal that it took longer than expected to understand the struggle:

I finally understand what the struggle was really about.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, neither of these items is a continuative, and neither instance expresses expectation with respect to time.

When the item still expresses a temporal feature, with the sense of 'even now', it functions interpersonally as a mood Adjunct of temporality (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 188); see [3] below. However, in this instance, (and) still marks the clause complex paratactic expansion relation of concessive condition, with the sense of 'and yet' (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 614). The meaning of concessive condition is 'if P then contrary to expectation Q'. That is, this relation features 'expectation', but not 'time'.

This instance of finally, on the other hand, expresses a feature of 'time', but not a feature of 'expectation'. Here finally serves as a conjunctive Adjunct marking the textually cohesive temporal relation of 'conclusive'; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 614).

[2] Here Martin & Rose not only misunderstand the meaning of the quoted text, but also judge that it is reasonable to expect white people's greed, provided it doesn't persist too long.

[3] To be clear, the item finally gives no indication as to the expectation with regard to the speaker coming to an understanding; it merely indicates that after some time, she did. The confusion here is with the item eventually in its function as a temporal modal Adjunct that expresses 'remote future' with respect to the here-&-now of deictic time, as in:

• I will eventually understand what the struggle was really about

which is agnate to:

• I once understood what the struggle was really about ('remote non-future')
• I will soon understand what the struggle was really about ('near future')
• I just understood what the struggle was really about ('near non-future')

In contrast, the temporal modal Adjuncts that do express expectation with regard to deictic time are exemplified by:

• I still understand what the struggle was really about ('since positive')
• I no longer understand what the struggle was really about ('since negative')
• I already understand what the struggle was really about ('by positive')
• I do not yet understand what the struggle was really about ('by negative').

Theoretical Inconsistencies In The System Of Internal Addition

Martin & Rose (2007: 134):

Options for internal addition are summed up in Figure 4.5. 

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, only the features whose entry condition is 'developing' constitute genuine subclasses of addition.  Of the features whose entry condition is 'staging', 'framing' is a rebranding of Halliday's continuity, and 'sidetracking' is a rebranding of two distinct subclasses of Halliday's clarification (elaboration).  See the two preceding posts.

Confusing Concessive 'But' With Adversative 'But' And Using Ambiguous 'However' To Disambiguate The Two

Martin & Rose (2007: 129):

But the most common realisation of concessive cause is but:

He tried to hide his wild consuming fear,
but I saw it 

I can't handle the man anymore!
But I can't get out

However but can also realise comparison:difference, which can be confusing. We can test whether the relation is concession by trying to substitute but with hypotactic or concessive conjunctions that we know realise consequential meanings, such as although however:

Although he tried to hide his wild consuming fear,

I saw it. 

I can't handle the man anymore!
However I can't get out.

If we substitute conjunctions that realise contrast, they don’t make as much sense (*I can’t handle the man anymore! In contrast I can’t get out. *Whereas he tried to hide his wild consuming fear, I saw it).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the relation in this instance is concessive condition, not concessive cause.  Its meaning is if P then contrary to expectation Q:

• if he tried to hide his wild consuming fear then contrary to expectation I saw it

That is, Martin & Rose have misunderstood Halliday's concessive condition as concessive cause, and rebranded their misunderstanding of Halliday's grammatical system of clause complexing as Martin's discourse semantic system of conjunction.

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the relation in this instance is adversative addition, not concessive cause. Its meaning is X and conversely Y:

• I can’t handle the man anymore and conversely I can’t get out

Compare a concessive misinterpretation:

• * if I can’t handle the man anymore then contrary to expectation I can’t get out

That is, Martin & Rose have misunderstood Halliday's adversative addition as concessive cause, and rebranded their misunderstanding of Halliday's textual grammatical system of cohesive conjunction as Martin's logical discourse semantic system of conjunction.

[3] As previously demonstrated, Martin & Rose misunderstand Halliday's adversative addition (extension) as a type of comparison (enhancement), variously labelled as different/difference or contrast.

[4] To be clear, the conjunctive Adjunct however, like but, can mark either relation, and so is no guide to disambiguation.  Moreover, in this example, it marks adversative addition ("comparison: difference/contrast"), not concessive condition ("concessive cause") — the opposite of the authors' claim.

[5] To be clear, this is the opposite of what is true.  The relation here is adversative addition (see [2]), which can be rendered cohesively as:

• I can’t handle the man anymore! On the other hand, I can’t get out.

The System Of External Time

Martin & Rose (2007: 127):

So options for external time include successive: sometime or immediate and simultaneous, set out in Figure 4.3. 

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the authors' logical discourse semantic system of external time is a simplified confusion of the temporal systems of Halliday's grammatical systems of clause complexing (logical metafunction) and cohesive conjunction (textual metafunction).

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 477) provide the following temporal distinctions for clause complexing:

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 613) provide the following temporal distinctions for cohesive conjunction:

External Time: Misconstruing 'Simultaneous' As 'Successive'

Martin & Rose (2007: 126-7):

This kind of time relation is successive - events happen one after another. Successive conjunctions used in hypotactic relations include when, after, since, now that:

when I answered the questions
I was told that I was lying

…Other successive conjunctions indicate that an event happens immediately before or after, including once, as soon as… :

as soon as I answered
I was slapped again

… Cohesive successive conjunctions include subsequently, previously, at once:

I answered the questions.
Subsequently I was told that I was lying. 

He said he was going on a 'trip'.
Previously it had been a beautiful relationship. 

I started fighting back.
At once four, maybe five policemen viciously knocked me down.

… Cohesive simultaneous conjunctions include meanwhile, simultaneously:

cohesive
The old White South Africa slept peacefully.
Meanwhile 'those at the top' were again targeting the next 'permanent removal from society'.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, when, once, as soon as signal 'same' time, not 'different' time.  This can be demonstrated by substituting them with at the time:

at the time I answered the questions
I was told I was lying

at the time I answered
I was slapped again 

 Different time is commonly signalled by before or after:

before/after I answered the questions
I was told I was lying

before/after I answered
I was slapped again

[2] To be clear, cohesion is a textual system on the stratum of lexicicogrammar.  Its details were painstakingly elaborated by Halliday & Hasan (1976). Here Martin & Rose rebrand it as Martin's logical system on Martin's stratum of discourse semantics (following Martin 1992).

By the same token, the earlier "non-cohesive" examples are instances of clause complexing, a logical system on the stratum of lexicogrammar.  Its details were painstakingly elaborated by Halliday (1985). Here Martin & Rose rebrand it as Martin's logical system on Martin's stratum of discourse semantics (following Martin 1992).

The Discourse Semantic System Of External Conjunction

Martin & Rose (2007: 122):

External conjunction is concerned with logically organising a field as sequences of activities. For each general type of external conjunction - addition, comparison, time, consequence - there are two or more sub-types, summarised in Table 4.2.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, external conjunction is concerned with relating text segments in their experiential guise.  Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 611):

As we have seen, elaborating, extending and enhancing conjunctions mark relations between semantic domains, i.e. between text segments. These text segments are simultaneously ideational and interpersonal; they construe experience as meaning, e.g. an episode in a narrative or a recount, and they enact roles and relations, e.g. an exchange in a conversation or consultation, or an argument in an exposition. Relations link text segments either in their ideational guise or in their interpersonal guise: they relate either chunks of experience or chunks of interaction. … Relations between representations of segments of experience are called external relations, and conjunctions marking such relations are called external conjunctions. … Relations linking text segments in their interpersonal guise are called internal relations – internal to the text as a speech event, and conjunctions marking such relations are called internal conjunctions.

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, external conjunction is a non-structural grammatical system of the textual metafunction that deploys the resource of expansion to create cohesive relations between portions of text.  Martin & Rose combine the textual system of conjunction and the logical system of clause complexing and rebrand it as discourse semantics instead of grammar, without providing evidence as to why it constitutes a higher level of symbolic abstraction.

[3] To be clear, in SFL Theory, field is the ideational dimension of context, the culture construed as a semiotic system.  Since sequences of activities are here construed as discourse semantic rather than context (contrā Martin 1992), field and activity sequences lie on different levels of symbolic abstraction and, as such, different levels of semiotic organisation.

[4] To be clear, the omissions and misunderstandings in the authors' model of external conjunction can be made evident by comparing it with the SFL model below (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 612):

For example, Martin & Rose:

• do not organise their system in terms of the three most general subtypes of expansion: elaboration, extension and enhancement, which are fractal types manifested across multiple domains (e.g. circumstances, relational processes, etc.);
• omit all 9 subtypes of elaborating relations;
• omit 4 of the 6 subtypes of extension;
• omit the enhancing relation of matter;
• misconstrue the adversative extending relation ('but') as a subtype of comparison (enhancing);
• misconstrue the manner subtype means as a relation of consequence (cause-condition).

Moreover, the logico-semantic relation of projection is entirely absent from the discourse semantic model of logical relations.

Misconstruing Textual Cohesion As A Type Of Logical Dependency

Martin & Rose (2007: 121):

Third, two sentences can be logically related by a conjunction such as Further or Thus:

It is also not true that the granting of amnesty encourages impunity...
Further, retributive justice…is not the only form of justice. 

This is a far more personal approach, which sees the offence as something that has happened to people and whose consequence is a rupture in relationships.
Thus we would claim that justice, restorative justice, is being served when efforts are being made to work for healing, for forgiveness and for reconciliation.

We will refer to these kinds of dependency relations between sentences as cohesive (following Halliday and Hasan 1976).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL theory, cohesive conjunction is a non-structural grammatical system of the textual metafunction.

[2] To be clear, here Martin & Rose confuse interdependency, which is structural and logical, with cohesion, which is non-structural and textual.

[3] This is misleading. To be clear, Martin & Rose are not "following" Halliday & Hasan (1976); they are taking the grammatical model of cohesive conjunction in Halliday & Hasan (1976) and simply rebranding (their misunderstanding of) it as their own model of discourse semantics (following Martin 1992).

Confusing Different Strata, Different Metafunctions, And Different Grammatical Elements

Martin & Rose (2007: 119-20):

Like Tutu, Helena uses explicit conjunctions to signal the beginning of new phases in her story. But whereas Tutu uses them to organise his argument, Helena uses them to sequence the phases in time.

 

Helena uses the time conjunctions Then and After to connect each phase to the immediately preceding events, but the scope of finally is the story as a whole. During all the preceding events Helena didn’t understand the struggle, but now she finally does. 

The other resources Helena uses here to sequence the story in time are Circumstances - As an eighteen-year-old, one day, More than a year ago, After my unsuccessful marriage, After about three years with the special forces, Today. These Circumstances set the events in an exact time period, while time conjunctions simply indicate the sequence.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this confuses different levels of description.  Although this is presented as discourse semantics, conjunctions are grammatical, the stratum below discourse semantics, and phases of story are, on the authors' model, genre, the stratum two levels above discourse semantics.

[2] To be clear, the two instances of after in the extract are not conjunctions and do not function conjunctively, either logically within a clause complex, or textually as a cohesive relation.  Both are prepositions and function, experientially, as the minor Process — and interpersonally as the minor Predicator — of a prepositional phrase serving as a circumstance of temporal Location.

[3] To be clear, this is (high school) reading comprehension, not (academic) linguistic analysis.

[4] To be clear, circumstances do not function logically or sequence a story in time.  Circumstances function experientially within a clause.  However, each of circumstances cited is also highlighted in the text as a marked Theme, and it is this textual logogenetic pattern of Theme selection (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 659ff) that works with the textual grammatical system of conjunctive cohesion — misunderstood by Martin & Rose as logical discourse semantics — in creating text.

The Reason Why We Need Conjunction As A Discourse Semantic System

Martin & Rose (2007: 116):

This illustrates one reason why we need to set up conjunction as a discourse semantic system. The meanings of conjunction are realised through conjunctions such as if and then, but they are also realised by other kinds of wordings, and they are frequently left implicit, for the reader or listener to infer.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, this does not constitute an argument for setting up conjunction as a discourse semantic system, since the various realisations are already accounted for by the two grammatical systems that Martin & Rose confuse and rebrand as Martin's discourse semantic system of conjunction, namely Halliday's system of clause complexing (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 438):

and Halliday's system of cohesive conjunction (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 612):

On the other hand, for a theoretically-consistent account of the semantic systems that are congruently realised in lexicogrammar as clause complexing, see Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 104-27). 

Misconstruing The Distinction Between Logical Complexing And Textual Cohesion As The Distinction Between External And Internal Conjunction

Martin & Rose (2007: 115):

Section 4.1 outlines four general dimensions of conjunction: the difference between conjunctions that relate activities and those that organise texts; the role of conjunctions in what we expect to happen in a text; the four main types of conjunction (adding, comparing, time and consequence); and three types of dependency between clauses (paratactic, hypotactic and cohesive).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL theory, "conjunctions that relate activities" are 'external' conjunctions, whether they do so logically and structurally (in clause complexes) or textually and non-structurally (cohesive relations between messages).  On the other hand, "conjunctions that organise texts" are those that function textually and non-structurally — not logically and structurally — whether externally (relating experiential functions) or internally (relating interpersonal functions).

In other words, in this chapter, Martin & Rose misconstrue the distinction between logical structure and textual cohesion as the distinction between external and internal expansion relations.

[2] To be clear, "what we expect to happen in a text" is concerned with the mental projections of readers, whereas text analysis is concerned with the verbal projections of speakers.

[3] To be clear, in the original textual grammatical model (Halliday & Hasan 1976: 242-3) that Martin & Rose here rebrand as logical discourse semantics, the main types of conjunctive relation were identified as:

• additive
• adversative
• causal
• temporal

However, these were later reinterpreted (Halliday 1985) as more delicate types within the three most general types of expansion — elaboration, extension and enhancement — that are manifested throughout the grammar.  In these terms, the authors'

• 'adding' is a subtype of extension, whereas
• 'comparing', 'time' and 'consequence' are all subtypes of enhancement.

Moreover, Martin & Rose, just like the source of "their" ideas, Halliday & Hasan, omit all types of elaboration (and projection) from their model.

[4] To be clear, here Martin & Rose misconstrue non-structural cohesive relations as a type of structural (inter)dependency relation.

Nuclear Relations

Martin & Rose (2007: 90-1):

As we flagged in the introduction to this chapter, the clause construes experience in terms of a process involving people and things, places and qualities. We have explored taxonomic relations between these elements, from one clause to the next as a text unfolds. In this section we will examine lexical relations between these elements within clauses. As they are more or less centrally involved in the process, lexical relations within the clause are known as nuclear relations.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Here Martin & Rose misunderstand the SFL model of the clause. The clause construes experience as a process, participants in the process and circumstances attendant on the process. Importantly, the elements are defined relative to each other.

[2] Here Martin & Rose confuse grammatical elements with lexical items. Their model of taxonomic relations is claimed to be concerned with lexical items, not elements of grammatical structure.

[3] To be clear, this encapsulates a fundamental misunderstanding that invalidates Martin & Rose's model of nuclear relations: the mistaking of elements of grammatical structure for lexical items.

[4] This is very misleading indeed. Here Martin & Rose introduce Halliday's (1985: 147) model of ergativity without acknowledging its source, thereby once again inviting the reader to credit them with the work of others. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 348):

Moreover, the model is grammatical, not discourse semantic, and concerned with elements of grammatical structure, not lexical items and, as will be seen, Martin & Rose thoroughly misunderstand Halliday's model, and confuse it with Halliday's textual system of collocation, a type of lexical cohesion.

Importantly, for the semantics of clause nuclearity, see Halliday & Mathiessen (1999: 165-76) on degree of participation (of participants) and degree of involvement (of circumstances).

Misrepresenting And Misunderstanding Lexical Cohesion

Martin & Rose (2007: 90):

In the past, studies of taxonomic relations have tended to focus on their roles in maintaining the cohesion of a text, through lexical ties between clauses (e.g. Halliday and Hasan 1976). The starting point in such cohesive models is with repetition, since the most explicit possible way of tying one item to the next is by repeating it. Next come synonymy and antonymy, which tie items to each other by similarity and contrast, with hyponymy and meronymy considered last. This is a grammar-based perspective, in which lexical relations are seen as serving textual functions, linking grammatical elements to each other in strings, similar to cohesive relations between reference items such as pronouns and articles: a young man - this man - he (see Chapter 5 below).

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading.  Halliday & Hasan (1976) provides the original theory, lexical cohesion, a textual system of lexicogrammar, which Martin & Rose, following Martin (1992), have merely reinterpreted as an experiential system, thereby creating multiple theoretical inconsistencies, rebranded as IDEATION, and relocated to Martin's stratum of discourse semantics.  For a thorough examination of Martin's "original" theorising, see the clarifying critiques here.

[2] This misunderstands lexical cohesion. Lexical cohesion actually operates independently of grammatical structure, with relations also potentially obtaining between lexical items within the same clause.

[3] To be clear, the sequencing in this description ('starting point', 'next', 'last') is irrelevant. Unknown to the authors, the different types of lexical cohesion align with different types of expansion.  Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 644):

[4] This is another misunderstanding of lexical cohesion.  As the name makes crystal clear, lexical cohesion involves relations between lexical items, not grammatical elements.

[5] Here the authors follow Martin (1992) in mistaking the 'indefinite article' for a reference item.  Martin's misinterpretation of Halliday & Hasan's reference, rebranded as his system of IDENTIFICATION, confuses DEIXIS, a system of nominal group structure, with the non-structural system of REFERENCE, and confuses textual reference with ideational denotation, as demonstrated in great detail here.