Misconstruing External Conjunction As Internal

Martin & Rose (2007: 263-4):

In contrast, the Cost of Courage report is organised around the people that struggled against apartheid, who are identified at the beginning of each paragraph, from the policy of apartheid to the comrades in the struggle, to I (Mandela), to we, to every man:

The last paragraph then begins In that way… to culminate Mandela’s explanation of the price his family paid for his commitment to the struggle:

The global scaffolding resource operating here is identification — initially of people, and finally text reference in a circumstance of manner. Expressions of this kind are closely related to internal conjunction in their global text orchestrating function, as we could see by substituting the manner conjunction thus for in that way.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Clearly, the policy of apartheid does not denote the people who struggled against apartheid.

[2] To be clear, this is identification in the sense of ideational denotation, which, as previously demonstrated, Martin confuses with textual reference and interpersonal deixis in his model of textual discourse semantics.

[3] To be clear, in that way serves as a cohesive conjunction of manner: means, like thus, not as a circumstance of manner.

[4] To be clear, the conjunctive relation here — whether expressed by in that way or thus — is external, not internal. This is because the relation obtains within text in its ideational guise (external), between 'chunks of experience', rather than within text in its interpersonal guise (internal), between 'chunks of interaction' (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 611).

That is, Martin & Rose, like Martin (1992), confuse expansion relations that are internal to the text as speech event — whether structurally between clauses or cohesively between messages — with expansion relations that function cohesively ("their global text orchestrating function").

Confusing Textual Highlighting With Logic-Semantic Relations

Martin & Rose (2007: 201-3):

Here’s the whole text, analysed for its generic staging. This is a story genre known as a recount, with the typical recount stages:

orientation ^ record of events ^ reorientation

We can also show how recount is organised with layers of hyperThemes and hyperNews (in bold):

There are five hyperThemes here that organise Mandela’s recount of his growing desire for freedom (its ‘method of development’). We’ll use an '=' sign to indicate the way in which the higher level Themes and News paraphrase the information they predict or distil. Halliday 1994 refers to these kinds of relation as elaboration:

1 I was not born with a hunger to be free

= …

2 It was only when I began to learn that my boyhood freedom was an illusion... that I began to hunger for it.

= …

3 But then I slowly saw that not only was I not free, but my brothers and sisters were not free.

= …

4 It was during those long and lonely years that my hunger for the freedom of my own people became a hunger for the freedom of all people, white and black.

= …

5 When I walked out of prison, that was my mission, to liberate the oppressed and the oppressor both 

= …

And three hyperNews that distil his conclusions about the struggle for freedom (its ‘point’):

3 ... = Freedom is indivisible; the chains on any one of my people were the chains on all of them, the chains on all of my people were the chains on me.

4 ... = The oppressed and the oppressor alike are robbed of their humanity.

5 ... = The true test of our devotion to freedom is just beginning.

Beyond the hyperThemes and hyperNews in each phase, the Orientation functions as its macroTheme and its Reorientation as its macroNew. And with respect to Mandela’s book as a whole, this recount functions as a higher level macroNew, both summarising his journey and distilling the meaning of his life. The key point here is that texts expand, and that this expansion may or may not be explicitly scaffolded by layers of Themes and News. In most texts we find a mix of scaffolding through periodicity, and serial expansion that is not so clearly scaffolded, since these are simply two complementary strategies through which texts grow.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Trivially, it is the stage names that are in bold, not the hyperThemes and hyperNews.

[2] Non-trivially, here Martin & Rose acknowledge that what they have identified as the function of higher level Themes and News, prediction and distillation, are actually logico-semantic relations (elaboration) between portions of text. That is, their model confuses textual highlighting (Theme, New) with textual transitions (implicit conjunctive relations).

[3] To be clear, applying SFL Theory, it follows from this that the 'record of events' and 'reorientation' function as the macroRheme of the recount as macromessage, and that the 'orientation' and 'record of events' function as the macroGiven of the recount as macro-information unit.

[4] Again, applying SFL Theory, it follows from this that the rest of Mandela's book functions as a higher level macroGiven in the text as higher level macro-information unit.

[5] To be clear, as previously demonstrated, in terms of SFL Theory, these "two complementary strategies", periodicity and serial expansion, are, in this aspect, complementary expansion relations — elaboration (periodicity) and extension or enhancement (serial expansion) — that obtain between portions of text. In terms of SFL Theory, they could be interpreted as resources of cohesive conjunction (textual lexicogrammar). In terms of Martin's model, to be theoretically consistent, they should have been interpreted as resources of conjunction (logical discourse semantics).

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).

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.

Unpacking Grammatical Metaphor: "Conjunction" As Process

Martin & Rose (2007: 149):

A common motif in abstract or technical writing is to present a consequential conjunction as a process:

This strategy compresses a sequence of two activities into a single figure, by means of experiential and logical metaphors. Experientially, the Agent and Medium stand for activities (‘hearing an application’ and ‘miscarrying justice’) that are reconstrued as things (a hearing, a miscarriage). Logically, there is a relation of consequence between these activities (‘if…then’), which is reconstrued as a process (is likely to lead to). We can unpack such a sequence as a sequence of two figures related by conjunctions:

if such a hearing happens
then justice will be miscarried.

However the logical metaphor of ‘relation as process’ incorporates more than simply consequence. For one thing, the probability of the result is graded as likely to lead to (in contrast to high probability will certainly lead to or low probability will possibly lead to). And the necessity of the consequence is also graded lexically as lead to (in contrast to the stronger result in or weaker associated with).

So one of the reasons that writers use logical metaphors for conjunctions is that they can grade their evaluation of relations between events or arguments. This is a crucial resource for reasoning in fields such as science or politics, in which it is important not to overstate causal relations until sufficient evidence has been accumulated. This function of logical metaphors is oriented to engagement of the reader.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in terms of SFL Theory, in this instance, a sequence of two figures is metaphorically reconstrued as a single figure. See the earlier post: Activity Sequences: A Cornucopia Of Theoretical Inconsistencies.

[2] To be clear, here Martin & Rose misrepresent the transitivity of the identifying clause through accidentally misconstruing it as encoding instead of decoding. The clause is clearly decoding because the Value, a miscarriage of justice, is New information, and therefore Identifier:

Such a hearing	is	likely	to lead to	a miscarriage of justice
Medium Identified Token	Process:		relational: circumstantial: cause	Range Identifier Value
Subject	Finite	Adjunct	Predicator	Complement
Mood			Residue

As a result, the authors misconstrue the Medium as Agent and the Range as Medium — in addition to misconstruing the mood Adjunct as a component of the Process.

[3] To be clear, the expansion relation in the metaphorical clause is causal, not conditional, because a miscarriage of justice is construed as the likely result of such a hearing. It is therefore invalid to unpack the metaphor as a conditional relation.

[4] To be clear, the potential for modal assessment is afforded by both the congruent and metaphorical realisations, and as such, it is not a reason why writers use ideational metaphor. This misunderstanding appears to arise from Martin & Rose misconstruing the mood Adjunct likely as a component of the metaphorical Process.

[5] To be clear, lead to and result in both (equally) construe a causal relation, whereas associated with does not. See, for example, correlation does not imply causation.

[6] To be clear, it is the interpersonal system of modal assessment (e.g. likely) that serves such functions, not ideational metaphor, since it is the interpersonal metafunction that is concerned with enacting intersubjective relations, such as those between writer and reader.

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.)

Misrepresenting The Conjunctive Relations In Tutu's Exposition

Martin & Rose (2007: 147):

Let’s now see how Tutu uses conjunction to organise his exposition, in Figure 4.11.

In contrast to Helena’s story, all the connections between stages and phases of the exposition are internal. We have rendered the relation between the Thesis and the first Argument as internal succession (firstly), and the following Arguments are explicitly added to each other (also, Further). Within each Argument, the grounds expect its conclusion (Thus).

Blogger Comments:

[1] This rendering is invalid, not least because there is not even an implicit temporal relation between the two clauses. But it is also invalid because the word inserted by Martin & Rose to mark the temporal relation back to the preceding text, firstly, never marks a conjunctive relation to the preceding text. In correlatives such as first…next, it is the second term that marks the relation back to the preceding text; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 613-4).

[2] The insertion of that is by Martin & Rose to mark a relation of comparison is invalid on at least two grounds. Firstly, any implicit relation is indeterminate. For example, the implicit relation here could be more reasonably rendered by on the contrary, given the contrasting predications in the two propositions (the only form of justice vs another kind of justice).

Secondly, if the implicit relation were validly rendered by that is, in SFL Theory, it would mark elaboration (apposition: expository), not comparison; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 612-3).

[3] Here Martin & Rose misunderstand the nature of Tutu's argument. The first and second instances of thus in this text mean 'in this way' and therefore mark a relation of manner, not consequence. Interestingly, the metaphorical notion of 'grounds expecting a conclusion' assigns a mental process to each of the premisses of an argument.

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).

Misconstruing Experiential Elements As Logical Relations

Martin & Rose (2007: 145-6):

Note that in Figure 4.9 we have allowed at least one line between each connected figure, so that we can draw the connection. Most of the connections are external succession, as the story unfolds in time (drawn on the right). Some are realised explicitly by conjunction (Then, again, Then, finally), but others are realised by circumstances (After my unsuccessful marriage, After about three years, Today), so it is a simple matter to show this succession by inserting (then) in brackets.

Most of these successive connections are simply between phases as the story unfolds, but when we get to the Interpretation, their scope includes the whole story. They connect the Interpretation right back to the Orientation (My story begins...), spanning all the events between, as we have drawn. The same is also true of the internal connection between the Coda (I end with a few lines...) and the Orientation. This internal succession is realised lexically with I end, which we have rendered as the conjunction (lastly), and connected back to the start.

We have already discussed the implicit similarity between the Orientation and first Incident, rendered as (that is). There is also an implicit contrast between the two Interpretation phases of ‘black struggle’ and ‘white guilt’, which we have shown with (by contrast).

By these simple techniques we can show how a text unfolds logically, by conjunction between figures, phases and text stages. The relation may be implicit but is apparent lexically as a circumstance (e.g. After about three years), a process (I end), or participants (the people of the struggle vs our leaders), and so can be rendered as a conjunction.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the unacknowledged source of the semantic notion of a 'figure' is Halliday & Matthiessen (1999), where it refers to the order of complexity in ideational meaning that is congruently realised as a clause.

[2] To be clear, circumstances function experientially within clauses, not logically between them, and so their analysis does not demonstrate "how a text unfolds logically". Moreover, inserting the conjunctions then, now and lastly into the text misrepresents the actual logical relations in the text. The commonality here is the realisation of time, not of logical relations.

[3] Here Martin & Rose demonstrate that they do not understand the distinction between the terms 'lexical' and 'grammatical'. Circumstances, processes and participants are grammatical categories, not lexical categories.

[4] See the earlier post Misconstruing Imaginary Elaboration As Similarity.

[5] The relevant portions of text are:

'black struggle'
I finally understand what the struggle was really about. I would have done the same had I been denied everything. If my life, that of my children and my parents was strangled with legislation, if I had to watch how white people became dissatisfied with the best and still wanted better and got it. I envy and respect the people of the struggle — at least their leaders have the guts to stand by their vultures, to recognise their sacrifices. 

'white guilt'
What do we have? Our leaders are too holy and innocent. And faceless. I can understand if Mr F. W. de Klerk says he didn't know, but dammit, there must be a clique, there must have been someone out there who is still alive and who can give a face to 'the orders from above' for all the operations. Dammit! What else can this abnormal life be than a cruel human rights violation? Spiritual murder is more inhumane than a messy, physical murder. At least a murder victim rests. I wish I had the power to make those poor wasted people whole again, I wish I could wipe the old South Africa out of everyone's past.

To be clear, the authors' 'contrast' is a rebranding of Halliday's textual grammar, the conjunctive relation of 'adversative addition', as logical discourse semantics. However, Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 622) provide the following reasons against assuming conjunctive relations where none are expressed:

It is perhaps as well, therefore, to be cautious in assigning implicit conjunction in the interpretation of a text. It is likely that there will always be other forms of cohesion present, and that these are the main source of our intuition that there is a pattern of conjunctive relationships as well. … Moreover the absence of explicit conjunction is one of the principal variables in English discourse, both as between registers and as between texts in the same register; this variation is obscured if we assume conjunction where it is not expressed. It is important therefore to note those instances where conjunction is being recognised that is implicit; and to characterise the text also without it, to see how much we still feel is being left unaccounted for.

Misconstruing Imaginary Elaboration As Similarity

Martin & Rose (2007: 144):

This type of diagram drawing connections between elements is known as a reticulum. In this example, Then explicitly signals succession between the second and third clauses. This is external succession of events in the story, so we have drawn the connection on the right. But there is also an implicit connection between the first and second clauses. The Orientation My story begins in my late teenage years.. . is elaborated by the first event As an eighteen-year-old I met.. so the logical relation between these clauses is one of similarity: reworking. To show this we have inserted an implicit conjunction in brackets (that is), and the connection is drawn on the left.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this misrepresents the text under analysis:

My story begins in my late teenage years as a farm girl in the Bethlehem district of Eastern Free State. 

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 I married to forget.

[2] To be clear, there is no implicit elaborating relation between these two messages, as demonstrated by the fact that the second message is not a restatement or clarification of the first; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 615-6).

[3] To be clear, if the second message had been an elaboration of the first, the relation between them would have been elaboration, not similarity, which for Martin & Rose is a subtype of comparison. In SFL Theory, comparison is a subtype of enhancement, not elaboration.

The Classification Of Continuatives

Martin & Rose (2007: 143):

So we can classify continuatives both by the type of logical relations, and the type of expectancy they realise, as in Table 4.7.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, firstly, in the foregoing discussion, Martin & Rose have classified a class of word, the continuative, a subtype of conjunction, and presented the classification as discourse semantic rather than grammatical.  This is inconsistent in terms of stratification.

Secondly, in doing so, Martin & Rose have taken a bottom-up perspective: beginning with forms and then classifying them in terms of function. This is the opposite perspective of SFL Theory, which takes a top-down perspective: first determining the distinctions in meaning and then identifying how such distinctions are realised.

Thirdly, in terms of SFL Theory, none of words claimed to be continuatives are actually continuatives. As previously demonstrated, they are a mixture of adverbs and conjunctions functioning as either mood Adjuncts (interpersonal metafunction) or conjunctive Adjuncts (textual metafunction). Interpreting the function of these items as logical is also theoretically inconsistent in terms of metafunction.

[2] To be clear, firstly, as previously demonstrated, in terms of SFL Theory, the items too, also and as well do mark a relation of addition, but they serve as conjunctive Adjuncts and mark a textually cohesive relation at the level of grammar, rather than continuatives marking a logically structural relation at the level of discourse semantics. The theoretical confusions here are both metafunctional and stratal.

Secondly, as previously demonstrated, in terms of SFL Theory, none of the items marks a relation of comparison. The item so (did he) serves as a conjunctive Adjunct and marks a textually cohesive relation of addition, whereas the items only, just and even function interpersonally as mood Adjuncts of intensity. The theoretical confusions here are in terms of expansion relation, metafunction and stratification.

Thirdly, as previously demonstrated, in terms of SFL Theory, the items already, finally, at last, still and again do mark temporal features, but not those ascribed to them by Martin & Rose. The items already and still function interpersonally as mood Adjuncts of temporality, whereas the items finally and at last function textually as conjunctive Adjuncts marking a cohesive relation of time. The instance provided of the item again, on the other hand, functioned experientially as a circumstance of temporal Extent. The theoretical confusions here, once more, are both metafunctional and stratal.

[3] To be clear, as previously demonstrated, in terms of SFL Theory, the only types of expectancy here are interpersonal, and apply to the mood Adjuncts of intensity and temporality (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 187-9):

• only and just: counter-expectancy: limiting;
• even: counter-expectancy: exceeding;

• already: 'by' the time at issue;
• still: 'since' the time at issue.

The theoretical confusions here, once again, are both metafunctional and stratal.

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.

Misconstruing Conjunctive Adjuncts And Mood Adjuncts As Continuatives

Martin & Rose (2014: 142):

Instead of coming at the beginning of the clause, continuatives typically occur next to the finite verb within the clause. Finite verbs are the ones that express tense or modality (see Chapter 7, section 7.3, below). They are underlined as follows: is also, so was, even spoke, was only, still wanted, finally understand, were again…

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, (genuine) continuatives are inherently thematic and thus occur at the beginning of a clause. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 109):

Those that are inherently thematic are the (textual) continuatives and conjunctions. As the language evolved, they have, as it were, migrated to the front of the clause and stayed there. Essentially they constitute a setting for the clause (continuative), or else they locate it in a specific logical-semantic relationship to another clause in the neighbourhood (conjunction). In either case, their thematic status comes as part of a package, along with their particular discursive force.

To be clear, the elements that typically occur next to the Finite verbal operator are mood Adjuncts, some of which Martin and Rose mistake for continuatives; see [4]. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 187):

These are so called because they are closely associated with the meanings enacted by the mood system: modality and temporality, and also intensity. This means that their neutral position in the clause is next to the Finite verbal operator, either just before it or just after it.

[2] To be clear, here Martin and Rose confuse the element of clause structure that realises tense or modality, the Finite verbal operator, with a finite form of a verb.

[3] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the items also, so, finally, again are not continuatives, but can serve as conjunctive Adjuncts that mark a textually cohesive relation the preceding discourse. The distribution of conjunctive Adjuncts in the clause is similar to that of interpersonal comment modal Adjuncts (Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 157).

[4] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the items even, only, still are not continuatives, but can serve as  interpersonal mood Adjuncts of intensity (even, only) or temporality (still).

Misconstruing A Conjunctive Adjunct (Concessive Condition) And A Circumstance (Extent) As Continuatives Of Time

Martin & Rose (2007: 142):

And other continuatives realise time:

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

I finally understand what the struggle was really about. 

'those at the top' were again targeting the next 'permanent removal from society'.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, when still has the temporal sense of 'even now/then', as it does in this instance, it functions interpersonally as a mood Adjunct of temporality (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 188). As a conjunctive Adjunct, still — like nevertheless — marks the cohesive conjunctive relation of concessive condition (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 614)

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, this instance of finally marks the textually cohesive temporal relation of 'conclusive'; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 614).

[3] To be clear, in SFL Theory, this instance of the adverb again functions experientially as a circumstance of Extent: frequency.  As Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 158) point out:

And the same item may function sometimes circumstantially and sometimes conjunctively; for example then, at that moment, later on, again…

Misconstruing Additive Conjunction And Modal Assessment As Continuative: Comparison

Martin & Rose (2007: 142):

Other continuatives realise types of comparison so (did he), even, only, just:

It was the beginning of a beautiful relationship.
We even spoke about marriage. 

Amnesty didn't matter.
It was only a means to the truth.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the conjunctive Adjunct, so (did he) — like also (± did he) — marks the textually cohesive relation of positive addition; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 613).

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, these items function interpersonally as mood Adjuncts of intensity. The item even marks 'counterexpectancy: exceeding', whereas only and just mark 'counterexpectancy: limiting'; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 189).

Rebranding Additive Conjunction As Continuative: Addition

Martin & Rose (2007: 142):

We have actually discussed several of these already, without explicitly distinguishing them from conjunctions. We met the continuative also in Tutu’s exposition:

The Act required that the application should be dealt with in a public hearing … It is also not true that the granting of amnesty encourages impunity … because amnesty is only given to those who plead guilty ...

The kind of logical relation expressed by this continuative is addition.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, in SFL Theory, in this instance, also serves as a conjunctive Adjunct, not a continuative, and marks the textually cohesive relation of positive addition; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 613).

Theoretical Problems With The System Of Internal Conjunction

Martin & Rose (2007: 140-1):

The full system for internal conjunction is displayed as Table 4.6.

 

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, this a taxonomy, presented as a table, rather than a system. It lacks, for example, both an entry condition and realisation statements that specify how the features are realised structurally.

For theoretical problems with the system of internal addition, see

1. Misconstruing Continuity As Additive Conjunction
2. Misconstruing Distractive And Dismissive Clarification (Elaboration) As Addition (Extension)
3. Theoretical Inconsistencies In The System Of Internal Addition

For theoretical problems with the system of internal comparison, see

1. Misconstruing Elaboration And Modal Assessment As Comparison
2. Misconstruing Subclasses Of Elaboration (And Modal Assessment) As Subclasses Of Comparison (Enhancement)
3. Misconstruing Elaboration (And Modal Assessment) As Comparison And Misunderstanding The Ideational Content Of The Illustrative Text
4. Mistaking Comment Adjuncts For Conjunctive Adjuncts Of Comparison
5. Misconstruing Subtypes Of Variation And Addition (Extension) As Subtypes Of Comparison (Enhancement)
6. Theoretical Inconsistencies In The System Of Internal Comparison

For theoretical problems with the system of internal time, see

1. Misconstruing Conditional 'Then' As Temporal 'Then'
2. Misrepresenting The Conjunctive Relation Of Internal Simultaneity
3. Problems With The System Of Internal Time

For theoretical problems with the system of internal consequence, see

1. Misconstruing Means (And Clarification) As Internal Consequence
2. Misconstruing Continuity As Internal Consequence
3. Misconstruing Modal Assessment As Internal Consequence [1]
4. Misconstruing Dismissive Clarification As Internal Consequence
5. Misconstruing Modal Assessment As Internal Consequence [2]
6. Rebranding Concessive Condition As Internal Unexpected Consequence
7. Rebranding Concessive Condition As Internal Concessive Consequence
8. Theoretical Problems With The System Of Internal Consequence

Theoretical Problems With The System Of Internal Consequence

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'.

Misconstruing Modal Assessment As Internal Consequence [2]

Martin & Rose (2007: 140):

Arguments can also be conceded, with admittedly, needless to say, of course:

Stated in these terms, the victory over apartheid seems like a simple one of right over wrong, good over evil.
But of course social conflicts are rarely so simple

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, admittedly does not mark any conjunctive relation, let alone one of consequence. In SFL Theory, admittedly functions interpersonally, not logically (or textually), as a persuasive speech-functional comment Adjunct of concession; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 190-1).

[2] To be clear, needless to say does not mark any conjunctive relation, let alone one of consequence. In SFL Theory, needless to say functions interpersonally, not logically (or textually), as a asseverative propositional comment Adjunct enacting the modal assessment 'obvious'; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 190-1).

[3] To be clear, this instance of of course does not mark any conjunctive relation, let alone one of consequence. In SFL Theory, this instance of of course functions interpersonally, not logically (or textually), as a asseverative propositional comment Adjunct enacting the modal assessment 'obvious'; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 190-1). The meaning here is generally that also realised by But obviously social conflicts are rarely so simple.

The conjunctive relation in this instance is adversative addition, realised by the conjunction but; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 612-3).

Misconstruing Dismissive Clarification As Internal Consequence

Martin & Rose (2007: 140):

In contrast, arguments may be dismissed with anyway, anyhow, in any case, at any rate:

There have already been reports of taxis putting up 'out of service' signs and people changing seats on buses when confronted by dark-skinned people —
as if changing your seat would save you if a bomb went off anyway

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, in SFL Theory, the conjunctive relation here is dismissive clarification, a subtype of elaboration, not consequence, a subtype of enhancement; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 612-3). That fact that the relation here is not a subtype of consequence can be demonstrated by replacing the conjunctive Adjunct with the most general form consequently:

as if changing your seat would save you if a bomb went off consequently