Misconstruing Adversative Extension As 'Concessive Purpose'

Martin (1992: 199):

The hypotactic proportionalities can be exemplified as follows:

NON-CONCESSIVE : CONCESSIVE :: 

(MANNER)

Ben improved his time by training hard :

Ben didn't improve his time even by training hard :: 

(CONSEQUENCE)

Ben improved his time because he trained hard :

Ben didn't improve his time even though he trained hard :: 

(CONDITION)

Ben will improve his time if he trains hard :

Ben won't improve his time even if he trains hard :: 

(PURPOSE)

Ben can train hard in order to improve his time :

Ben can train hard without improving his time

Blogger Comments:

In SFL theory, the logical meaning of condition: concessive is if P then contrary to expectation Q.  It may be ordered concession^consequence or consequence^concession.

[1] The logical relation here does not involve manner: means — N is by means of M.  A manner agnate would be Ben didn't improve his time by means of training hard.  The logical relation here is simply condition: concessive as in Ben didn't improve his time even though he trained hard.

[2] The logical relation here does not involve cause: reason (Martin's 'consequence') — because P so result Q.  A reason agnate would be because he trained hard Ben didn't improve his time.  The logical relation here is simply condition: concessive.

[3] The logical relation here does not involve cause: purpose — because intention P so action Q.  The logical relation here is not even a type of enhancement, but the type of extension termed addition: adversative — X and conversely Y — as in the paratactic agnate Ben can train hard and not improve his time.