Asserting The Opposite Of What Is True

Martin (1992: 573):

The general point here is that single plane models of context tend to introduce additional complexity to handle the contextual variables distributed among field, tenor, mode and genre by English Text.  So the cost of recognising two connotative semiotics instead of one is not as high as it might initially appear.

Blogger Comments:

This is the conclusion of Martin's "argument" for the theoretical superiority of his stratification hierarchy over Halliday's original model, and it is clearly the opposite of what is true.

[1] As the previous six posts have demonstrated, Martin's model is more complex, not less complex than Halliday's model, but more importantly, its complexity arises from misunderstandings of the theoretical architecture of SFL, principally stratification and instantiation.  This has resulted in a model that is inconsistent both with the theoretical architecture and also with itself.

Furthermore, in the course of his argument, Martin has been prepared to misrepresent the work of both Halliday and Hasan in order to invent non-existent problems, which he purports to solve with his model.  As the previous posts demonstrate, each of Martin's "solutions" involves the creation of additional theoretical consistencies.

[2] The principal defect in Martin's bi-stratal model of context is, of course, that it is not a model of context.  Register and genre refer to language, not to context, and in SFL theory, they are complementary perspectives on diatypic variation.

With respect to register, Martin's misunderstanding arises from mistaking the contextual systems that identify registers — field, tenor and mode — for systems of registers themselves.  This in turn arises from Martin not understanding the principle of stratification: as levels of symbolic abstraction related by realisation (as demonstrated many times in previous critiques).

With respect to genre, Martin's misunderstanding arises from mistaking Hasan's generic structure potentials for potentials 'at the level of genre'.  For Hasan, they are structural potentials at the level of semantics which vary according to genre (text type/register).

In conclusion, because Martin confuses semogenesis (all strata make meaning) with stratification, his strata of register and genre are — ignoring internal inconsistencies — both focused on linguistic meaning; that is, both strata are theoretical relocations and rebrandings of semantics.

Misrepresenting Grammatical Metaphor

Martin (1992: 490):

Because of this, grammatical metaphor is linguistics' most important tool for understanding discourse semantics as research is developed beyond the systems and patterns of interaction proposed here — and for understanding the relation between texture and context.  It is thus the key to understanding text in context — to contextualising the ineffable.

Blogger Comments:

[1] The discourse semantics model does not provide a means of modelling grammatical metaphor, and the notion of grammatical metaphor in the model is largely misunderstood, as repeatedly demonstrated  in the critiques here.

A major shortcoming of discourse semantics, with regard to grammatical metaphor, is that it doesn't provide the semantics (meanings) that are to be realised either congruently or metaphorically in lexicogrammar (wordings).  For example, with regard to ideational metaphor, it doesn't provide the equivalent of a figure (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999), that is realised either congruently as a clause, or metaphorically as something else, such as a nominal group serving as a participant element of clause structure.  Martin (1992: 325):

The level of discourse semantics is the least developed as far as ideational meaning is concerned.  This is mainly due to the fact that the description developed here has focussed on relationships between experiential meanings, rather than the experiential meanings themselves.

A second major shortcoming is the fact that much of logical discourse semantics is merely a mislabelling of expansion relations — projection is omitted from the model — with no regard for whether they are deployed logically (structurally) or textually (cohesively).  This sets up incongruent realisations where there is no metaphor.  For example, in discourse semantics, the logical relation in

• Ben can train hard without improving his time

is said to be concessive purpose (p199), whereas, in lexicogrammar, the relation is adversative addition.  That is, concessive purpose is incongruently realised as adversative addition. This is incongruence, but not metaphor.

[2] There are texts that don't involve the deployment of grammatical metaphor.  For these, the relation between texture and context can, nevertheless, be understood.  Thus grammatical metaphor is not key to understanding text in context.

[3] In the words of Conan Doyle's Dr. John H. Watson: "What ineffable twaddle!"

Rhapsodising On Point

Martin (1992: 489):

Point is the discourse complement of method of development.  Where Theme ties the text down, point elaborates it, developing it as news.  A much greater range of meanings with be realised in New than Theme, though not a random set.  A text's principle [sic] strings and chains will still be there, constrained by cohesive harmony; but there will be lesser [sic] strings and chains and odds and ends as well.  A text is never hermetically sealed; a text, like the system behind it, is a dynamic open process — and point is a source of openness: a resistance to the closure predicated on cohesive harmony and method of development.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Again, it is instructive to compare these metaphors with Martin's model.  Martin's point is, again, a mixture of writing pedagogy and linguistic theory.  Martin supplies the writing pedagogy, rebranding paragraph summary as hyper-New, and text summary as macro-New, whereas Halliday supplies the linguistic theory: New as information deemed unrecoverable to the listener (textual metafunction).

Martin's point is the accumulation of experiential meaning that is highlighted as New information and included in a paragraph summary and text summary.  Importantly, interpersonal and textual meanings are also highlighted as New information — e.g. modal adjuncts such as allegedly and conjunctive adjuncts such as nevertheless, respectively — but these are ignored in this focus on experiential meaning.

Martin's deployment of the linguistic theory is internally inconsistent, given that New information is located on the phonological stratum, and yet construed as an element of the clause (lexicogrammar), rather than the information unit.

[2] Theme, as the point of departure of a message, does not "tie a text down" — anymore than airports, as points of departure during a holiday, "tie a holiday down".

[3] Point does not "develop the text as news".  New is information that is presented as unrecoverable to the listener; hyper-New is a paragraph summary of what has already been written; and macro-New is a text summary of what has already been written.

[4] Cohesive harmony does not constrain a text.  Hasan's cohesive harmony describes the synergy of the non-structural resources of the textual metafunction, cohesion, and the meanings of the experiential metafunction (and potentially the interpersonal metafunction).

[5] To be clear, system and text are related by the vector of instantiation.  In SFL theory, 'system' is short for 'system–&–process' (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 507), and text is an instance of the 'system–&–process'.  The unfolding of the text at the instance pole of the cline of instantiation is the process of logogenesis.

[7] By definition, New information may be "a source of openness", but summaries of what has already been written (hyper-New and macro-New) are not.  They are repetitions of meanings internal to the text.

[8] This is manifestly untrue.  See [2] and [4] above.

Rhapsodising On Method Of Development

Martin (1992: 489):

Method of development takes these harmonising meanings, and finds a peg to hang them on — it establishes an angle on the field.  This angle will be sensitive to a text's generic structure where this is realised in stages.  Method of development is the lens through which a field is constructed; of all the experiential meanings available in a given field, it will pick on just a few, and weave them through Theme time and again to ground the text — to give interlocutors something to hang onto, something to come back to — an orientation, a perspective, a point of view, a perch, a purchase.

Blogger Comments:

[1] It is instructive to compare these metaphors with Martin's model.  Martin's method of development is a mixture of writing pedagogy and linguistic theory.  Martin supplies the writing pedagogy, rebranding introductory paragraph as macro-Theme, and topic sentence as hyper-Theme, whereas Halliday supplies the linguistic theory: Theme as point of departure for the clause as message (textual metafunction).  Martin's method of development is the progression of experiential meaning that is highlighted by inclusion in an introductory paragraph, topic sentences, and clause Themes.

[2] It is because Martin focuses on the experiential meaning that is textually highlighted, rather than on the textual system that does the highlighting, that he believes that method of development 'establishes an angle on the field' — the ideational dimension of context — keeping in mind that what Martin regards as "field" includes ideational semantics and involves a misconstrual of context as register.

Importantly, interpersonal and textual meanings are also given thematic prominence — e.g. modal adjuncts such as allegedly and conjunctive adjuncts such as nevertheless, respectively — but these are ignored in this focus on experiential meaning.

[3] Consider the "development" of a text that keeps returning to the same Theme, the same point of departure 'time and again'.

Confusing Writing Pedagogy With Linguistic Theory

Martin (1992: 456):

Macro-Theme, hyper-Themes and clause Themes project forward, scaffolding the text with respect to its rhetorical purpose (i.e. its genre); macro-New, hyper-News and clause News on the other hand look back, gathering up the meanings which have accumulated to elaborate a text's field.  The result is a textured sandwich in which texts project both forward and back as they unfold.  Texture of this kind, which is a tendency in writing (by no means a categorical rule) is outlined schematically in Fig. 6.12.

 

Fig. 6.12. Sandwich texture in abstract written discourse

Blogger Comments:

[1] The field here is writing pedagogy, not linguistic theory:

• macro-Theme is Martin's rebranding of introductory paragraph; 
• hyper-Theme is Martin's use of Daneš's (1974) term to rebrand topic sentence;
• macro-New is Martin's term for a text summary (and so 'New' is a misnomer);
• hyper-New is Martin's term for a paragraph summary (and so 'New' is again a misnomer).

[2] This confuses context (which is more abstract than language) with register (which is a functional variety of language).  The rôle of language in context is its rhetorical mode.  A genre, on the other hand, as a text type, is register viewed from the instance pole of the cline of instantiation.

[3] 'New' is a functional element of the information unit, not the clause. The domain of an information unit may be shorter or longer than a single clause.

[4] The meanings that 'elaborate' the field of a context of situation are all the meanings of a text, not just those that are presented as New to the addressee or re-presented in summaries.

[5] The relation between meaning (semantics) and field (context) is realisation, which is both an elaborating and an identifying relation.  It is the identifying component of the relation that marks the two as different levels of symbolic abstraction.  The use of the term 'elaboration' betrays the fact that Martin does not understand strata as different levels of symbolic abstraction, as has been demonstrated in numerous previous posts (here).

Problems With The Complementarity Of Hyper-Theme & Hyper-New

Martin (1992: 454):

This complementarity of hyper-Theme predicting a text's method of development and hyper-New accumulating its point is outlined in Fig. 6.11.

 

Fig. 6.11. Complementarity of hyper-Theme & hyper-New

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is potentially misleading, to the extent that it represents Theme and New as always distinct.

[2] As previously explained, a hyper-Theme — Martin's rebranding of Topic Sentence, using a term coined for other purposes by Daneš (1974) — does not "predict" what experiential content will be highlighted in subsequent Themes.

Any relations between the experiential content of Topic Sentences and the experiential content of subsequent Themes are those of lexical cohesion and grammatical reference, two non-structural resources of the textual metafunction.

Questions "Predicting" Answers

Martin (1992: 438):

The obvious candidate for macro-Theme in a writing exercise of this kind is the question: What would you like to do at the end of your rehabilitation? And like to do does predict the hyper-Themes of the reply:

My first choice is to go back to work at the hospital.
I would also like to go to a sheltered workshop.

Blogger Comments:

[1] A macro-Theme (of a text) is Martin's rebranding of 'introductory paragraph'; see previous post.  Here a question from an interviewer — which the interviewee spends the rest of the text answering — is interpreted as functioning the same an introductory paragraph.

[2] A hyper-Theme (of a paragraph) is Martin's rebranding of 'topic sentence'; see previous post. Here two of the interviewee's responses to the interviewer's question are each interpreted as functioning the same as a topic sentence.

[3] Here an interviewer's demand for information is interpreted as "predicting" the requested information given by an interviewee.  That is, a question is said to "predict" the answer it requests.  However, the question only solicits a reply, it does not predict the actual information given in the reply — the lexical cohesion of like–choice–like notwithstanding.

Problems With The Argument For Hyper-Theme

Martin (1992: 437):

Daneš (1974: 118-9) suggests a number of ways in which strings, chains, Themes and Rhemes may interact in text. In some texts Themes typically relate to immediately preceding Rhemes, in others to immediately preceding Themes. Of special interest is the pattern suggested by Daneš whereby successive Themes are related to a single preceding Theme (or hyper-Theme as he terms it). This is the pattern that [6:34] would have displayed had wisdom and chance been made thematic in clause [6:34d] (e.g. Wisdom and chance gave birth to the English Constitution). As [6:34] stands however, Themes are predicted by clause [6:34d]'s New, not its Theme.

The important point here however is that [6:34d] stands in a predictive relationship to the interaction between lexical strings and Theme selection.  It thus functions as the Topic Sentence in school rhetoric — as the Theme of the paragraph in other words, rather than as the Theme of a clause.  Daneš's term hyper-Theme will be extended here to refer to paragraph Themes of this kind.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Daneš (1974) identifies three main types of thematic progression:

1. a preceding Rheme becomes the next Theme;
2. a repetition of the same Theme, the first appearance termed a 'hypertheme';
3. a progression of derived Themes

[2] The relation here is one of identity. In SFL theory, this is lexical cohesion (elaborating: identity) working with Theme. That is, it is the non-structural and structural resources of the textual metafunction creating texture.

[3] The Greek prefix 'hyper-' means over; beyond; above.  The 'hypertheme' of Daneš (1974) is 'over' or 'above' its later repetitions.

[4] If the type 2 ('hypertheme') thematic progression had been used, it would have had a significant deleterious effect on the texture:

The English Constitution — that indescribable entity — is a living thing, growing with the growth of men, and assuming ever-varying forms in accordance with the subtle and complex laws of human character. Wisdom and chance gave birth to the English Constitution.

[5] On the model of Daneš (1974), the thematic progression from [6:34d] to [6:34e] is type 1 (above), at least to the extent that the preceding Rheme is the child of wisdom and chance can be said to be taken up in the following Theme the wise men of 1688.  But, strictly speaking, the Rheme does not become the following Theme; the relation between the two is the lexical cohesion between wisdom and wise.

[6] Any "prediction" in what will be taken up as subsequent Theme can only be made with hindsight — by taking a synoptic perspective on the text.  This is inconsistent with — contrary to — Martin's claim (1992: 401) that interaction patterns — here: mode of development — will be interpreted as a process rather than as a synoptic system:

Grammatical metaphor, like interaction patterns, will be interpreted as a process here, rather than as a synoptic system…

[7] To be clear:

In prescriptive grammar, the topic sentence is the sentence in an expository paragraph which summarises the main idea of that paragraph. It is usually the first sentence in a paragraph. 

Also known as a focus sentence, it encapsulates or organises an entire paragraph. Although topic sentences may appear anywhere in a paragraph, in academic essays they often appear at the beginning. The topic sentence acts as a kind of summary, and offers the reader an insightful view of the writer’s main ideas for the following paragraph. More than just being a mere summary, however, a topic sentence often provides a claim or an insight directly or indirectly related to the thesis. It adds cohesion to a paper and helps organise ideas both within the paragraph and the whole body of work at large. As the topic sentence encapsulates the idea of the paragraph, serving as a sub-thesis, it remains general enough to cover the support given in the body paragraph while being more direct than the thesis of the paper.

[8] The paragraph is a unit of graphology.  It is a unit of the expression plane form, but restricted to written mode.  The paragraph is not a unit of spoken language; no-one speaks in paragraphs.  Here it is misapplied to semantics, the stratum of meaning on the content plane.

[9] This extension of the term 'hypertheme' is not justified by Martin's exposition.  Here is a summary of the 'argument':

First, two of the three types of thematic progression in Daneš (1974) are introduced.

Second, an example in text [6:34] that actually demonstrates type 1 (Rheme > Theme) is used to make the case for type 2 (Theme repetition): hyper-Theme > Theme.

Third, the clause featuring the New/Rheme ([6:34d]) is claimed to have the same function as a Topic Sentence.

Fourth, the (clause featuring the New/Rheme that is misconstrued as functioning as a) Topic Sentence is deemed to be the Theme of a graphological unit, the sentence, and termed a hyper-Theme.


In short, this convoluted argument merely disguises the fact that Martin has just rebranded Topic Sentence as hyper-Theme.

Reducing All Verbal Group Complex Relations To Extension

Martin (1992: 315-6):

With verbal groups, extension combines events.  Halliday (1985: 255-69) categorises a wide variety of verbal group complexes with respect to both expansion and projection.  He reserves the category of extension for conation… 

For purposes of lexical cohesion analysis however, all verbal group complexes will be treated as involving extension here, in order to bring out proportionalities of the following kind:

 ELABORATION : EXTENSION : ENHANCEMENT ::

(phrasal verb : verbal group complex : event x quality ::)

look into : keep looking : look carefully ::

run into : attempt to run : run quickly ::

see through : happen to see : see clearly ::

go over : promise to go : go reluctantly

etc.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Extension — in common with projection, elaboration and enhancement — relates verbal groups logically in a verbal group complex.

[2] The logical grammatical structure of verbal group complexes is not a factor in analysing cohesive (textual nonstructural) relations between lexical items.

[3] To treat all verbal group complexes as involving extension — for whatever reason — is to miscategorise the instances that do not involve extension, and to misrepresent the category 'extension'.  Three of the four examples do not involve extension, and one does not even involve expansion:

• keep looking is elaboration: phase: time: durative
• happen to see is enhancement: modulation: cause: reason
• promise to go is projection: proposal: locution

[4] Any proportionalities that depend on a falsehood are themselves false.  Moreover, no argument is provided for the value of cross-categorising types of expansion with phrasal verbs, verbal group complexes, and clause fragments.

[5] As related by enhancement, these examples are each Process and Manner circumstance within a clause realising a figure.


General Observations:

• The concern here is purported to be discourse semantics, but the focus is merely on (rebranding) the grammar.

• The concern here is purported to be the experiential metafunction, but the focus is on (rebranding) logical relations.

Misconstruing An Implicit Conjunctive Relation As Internal

Martin (1992: 237):

A text with a simultaneous internal and external structure, including an implicit internal consequential is illustrated below.

[4:187] a.  Ben was unlucky.

            b.  He had to take steroids for his injured hamstring

            c.  and then they introduced more sophisticated tests.

Blogger Comment:

By the SFL definition of the term — see previous posts — there are no internal relations in this example.  

In SFL theory, the logical relation in the clause complex (b. c.) is enhancement: temporal: later (rebranded as 'successive'), and the textual (cohesive conjunction) relation between the message (a.) and the message group (b. c.) is implicit enhancement: cause: reason (rebranded as 'consequential').

With regard to implicit conjunction, in general, Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 549) recommend:

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.

The Omission Of Projection And Hypotactic Elaboration From The Logic Of Discourse Semantics

Martin (1992: 235):

The Hartford school modelled conjunctive relations between actions, more or less equivalent to the TRANSITIVITY function Process in systemic theory.  Since TRANSITIVITY relations are treated as part of lexicogrammar in the model developed here, an appropriate discourse semantics unit needs to be found.  The unit message will be adopted here, where this is realised as a ranking clause that is neither a projection, nor a hypotactically dependent elaborating clause.  This means that locutions and ideas, elaborating beta clauses and all embedded clauses will be treated as part of messages rather than as conjunctively related units in their own right.

Blogger Comments:

[1] In SFL theory, transitivity is a system of the experiential metafunction.  A consistent discourse semantics unit with 'transitivity relations' would therefore be an experiential unit.  Here, however, it is a logical discourse semantics unit that is deemed 'appropriate'.  In the grammar, it is the rank units (forms) that are logically related in complexes.

[2] In SFL theory, the term 'message' is already used for a unit of the textual metafunction on the semantic stratum, and it is (groups of) messages that are conjoined by cohesive conjunction.  Here it is used for units related by conjunction, but, as conjunction is misconstrued as logical and structural, it is misconstrued as a unit of logical structure.  That is, although textual meaning has been misconstrued here as logical, the textual term has been retained, thereby creating a further theoretical inconsistency — cf 'clause as message', the thematic (textual) structure of the clause.

[3] In SFL theory, there are two major types of logical relations: expansion and projection.  The second of these major types, projection, is thus not included as a logical relation at the level of discourse semantics.

Similarly, within expansion, there are three major types: elaboration, extension and enhancement.  The first of these major types, elaboration, is thus not included as a logical relation at the level of discourse semantics — if the interdependency relation is hypotactic.

Excluding both major logical relations has serious ramifications for considerations of the distinction between congruent and incongruent stratal relations in determining grammatical metaphor.

The absence of projection follows from the rebranding of cohesive conjunction, which is the deployment of (only) expansion relations by the textual metafunction at the stratum of lexicogrammar, as the logical dimension of a higher stratum: discourse semantics.

On the other hand, in the discourse semantic model, types of elaboration are variously misconstrued as types of extension or enhancement, as demonstrated in earlier posts.

Misconstruing Interpersonal Counterexpectancy As Logical Continuity

Martin (1992: 232):

The contrast between just and even corresponds to that between at least and indeed among he internal comparatives.  Just signals that too much has been implied, even that too little has.

DIMINISH
[4:171] Is Ben training?
            — No, he's only reading. 

AUGMENT
[4:172] Is Ben training?
            — Yeah, he's even doing wind-sprints.

Blogger Comments:

[1] In SFL theory, the textual contrast marked by the conjunctive Adjuncts at least and indeed is the elaboration contrast between corrective and verifactive clarification (see Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 542).

[2] In SFL theory, the interpersonal contrast marked by the mood Adjuncts just and even is the intensity contrast between limiting and exceeding counterexpectancy.  Here they have been misconstrued as logical in function: marking continuity relations, with 'limiting' rebranded as 'diminish', and 'exceeding' rebranded as 'augment'.

Rebranding Extending Vs Elaborating As Developing Vs Staging

Martin (1992: 220):

These staging conjuctions [sic] contrast with developing additives that accumulate messages locally, on topic or within a stage, usually within the same turn.  As with external relations the basic opposition is between additive and alternation:

TURN BUILDING:DEVELOPING:ADDITION: SIMPLE

[4:137]  We could go to dinner;

               as well we could try and see a movie. 

TURN BUILDING:DEVELOPING:ALTERNATION

[4:138]  We could eat at seven.

               Or won't you be hungry then?

Blogger Comments:

[1] In SFL theory, the conjunctive opposition here is simply between two types of extension: positive addition vs alternative variation (see Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 542).

[2] The contrast between these "developing additives" and the "staging" conjunctions is thus the conjunctive cohesion contrast between extension and elaboration (and continuity — see previous post), respectively.

Rebranding Grammatical Relations As Discourse Semantic Relations

Martin (1992: 217):

Internal relations are generally interpretable as "cohesive", obtaining between clause complexes rather than within.  Even where conjunctions that are externally hypotactic are used, the nature of the internal and external dependency is not the same.  The externally connected clause complex in [4:133] below for example is reversible, whereas the internally related clauses in [4:134] are not.

EXTERNAL EXCEPTION

[4:133]  Dinner's ready

              except that the rice isn't quite done.  

INTERNAL EXCEPTION

[4:134]  You could call people to dinner,

              except that they're not all here.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Internal relations between clauses in a nexus are those where the beta-clause relates to the enactment of the proposition realised by the alpha-clause rather than to the figure it represents, as in if it's not a personal question, are you a virgin? (Monty Python Life Of Brian).  See Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 419).

[2] Viewing expansion relations from the point of view of conjunctions — the practice in most of this chapter — is the view 'from below'.  In SFL theory, priority is given to the view 'from above', since a functional theory, in contradistinction to a formal theory, gives priority to function over form.

[3] Reversibility does not differentiate the two clause complexes.  Thematisation of the beta-clause is equally possible for both complexes:

• Except that the rice isn't quite done, dinner's ready.
• Except that they're not all here, you could call people to dinner.

Any perceived "resistance" in the second arises mainly from the shift of personal reference (they) from the more usual anaphoric to the less usual cataphoric.

The sequencing of clauses in a complex is a matter of textual (metafunctional) meaning; it is not a difference in the nature of the logical dependency.

[4] In SFL theory, the relation between the clauses in both cases is extension: subtractive variation (Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 405).

Rebranding Grammar As Discourse Semantics

Martin (1992: 185):

External temporal relations are strongly oriented to the activity sequences constituting fields.  Most of these relations (excepting co-extensive simultaneous ones) have the experiential structure Anterior · Posterior, where Anterior names the event which begins before the Posterior.

At primary delicacy the opposition is between [successive] relations, where the Anterior does not continue beyond the beginning of the Posterior, and [simultaneous] relations, where the two events overlap to some extent.  This is the opposition between after and while in [4:24] and [4:25]:

SUCCESSIVE
[4:24] After we walk the ring with our dog,
          we just wait. 

SIMULTANEOUS
[4:25] While the judge is handling the dog,
          we hope that it will stand nice and steady.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Here an experiential structure is proposed for a logical structure — a clause nexus.

[2] The temporal relations exemplified are between clauses in clause complexes.  The grammatical categories are:

• same time                     A meanwhile B
• different time: later        A subsequently B
• different time: earlier     A previously B

¶ In modelling logical relations between clauses, this is simply rebranding Halliday's grammar as Martin's discourse semantics.

Mistaking Manner For Extent And Confusing Circumstances With Comparative Reference Items

Martin (1992: 154):

Comparative adverbs realise relevance phoricity; they function as Circumstances [sic] of Extent and Manner in clause structure and presume events.  Both relevant events and supersets of events are presumed.  The network of oppositions is outlined in Fig. 3.16; typical realisations are shown in the network and illustrated in [3:94] through [3:99].

Extent [quantity:difference]
[3:94]

Ben ran five miles;
Carl ran farther.

Manner [quality:semblance]
[3:95]

Ben ran very fast;
Carl didn't run as fast.

Extent [quantity:difference:superset]
[3:96]

The runners ran long distances;
Carl ran farthest.

Manner [quality:difference:superset]
[3:97]

The sprinters ran fast heats;
Ben didn't run fastest.

Extent [quantity:purposive]
[3:98]

You had to set a record to place;
Ben ran fast enough.

Manner [quality:purposive]
[3:99]

You had to run a record time to win;
Carl ran too slow.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, 'relevance phoricity' is Martin's rebranding of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) comparative reference, misunderstood and relocated from non-structural lexicogrammar (cohesion) to structural discourse semantics.

[2] This mistakes circumstances of Extent and Manner (clause rank experiential functions) for comparative reference items (a non-structural textual functions).  Moreover, it will be seen below that none of the examples provided are instances of Extent.

To be clear, the grammatical domains of comparative adverbs that function as reference items are the nominal group and the adverbial group.  Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 633):

[3] The notion of "presuming events" — Martin is not referring here to the verbal group function 'Event' — demonstrates that Martin has little understanding of the principles underlying comparative reference.  Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: ) explain:

Whereas personals and demonstratives, when used anaphorically, set up a relation of co-reference, whereby the same entity is referred to over again, comparatives set up a relation of contrast. In comparative reference, the reference item still signals ‘you know which’; not because the same entity is being referred to over again but rather because there is a frame of reference – something by reference to which what I am now talking about is the same or different, like or unlike, equal or unequal, more or less.

[4] In addition to being devised on the basis of the above-mentioned theoretical misunderstandings, a number of further problems with the network in Figure 3.16 Phoric circumstances of extent and manner can be identified.

• The system has no entry condition; the entry condition for IDENTIFICATION is 'participant', so including the entry condition would have exposed the theoretical inconsistency of having types of circumstance ('manner/extent') as a more delicate feature.
• None of the features in the network have been argued for in the text, let alone validated on the basis of evidence.  On the contrary, they have merely been attached to the six examples as labels.
• The more delicate features are distinctions in experiential meaning (quantity, quality, purposive), and the undefined term 'superset' derives from misconstruing ordinatives (last) and superlatives (fastest, farthest) as serving a comparative function.

[5] To be clear, these realisations are neither structural realisations (the dimension of axis) nor lexicogrammatical realisations (the dimension of stratification); they are merely examples of items that are said to serve the particular feature.

[6] To be clear, none of these is an instance of Extent.  The experiential function of farther, farthest and fast enough is Manner.

[7] To be clear, superlatives (farthest, fastest) do not function as comparative reference items.

[8] Here Martin misinterprets clause complexes as single clauses, and claims that the respective circumstances (fast enough, too slow) "presume" the respective purpose clauses (to place, to win).  However, in terms of cohesion, these are both instances of ellipsis, as restoring the elided items makes plain:

||| You had to set a record || to place. |||
|| Ben ran fast enough [[to place]]. || 

||| You had to run a record time || to win. |||
|| Carl ran too slow [[to win]]. ||

In terms of Martin's own model, these are instances of redundancy phoricity, not relevance phoricity — redundancy phoricity being Martin's rebranding of ellipsis-&-substitution, misunderstood as a type of reference, and relocated from non-structural lexicogrammar to structural discourse semantics.

Confusing Circumstances Of Location With Demonstrative Reference Items

Martin (1992: 153-4):

3.6 Location And Manner

Because the point of departure for this chapter has been participant identification, closely related IDENTIFICATION systems realised through demonstrative and comparative adverbs have not yet been considered.  The demonstrative adverbs function as Circumstances [sic] of Location in clause structure (e.g. Come here.) or as Qualifiers in nominal groups (e.g. that guy there); they are realised by here, there, now and then.  Each involves reminding phoricity, presuming location in space or time.  They function both exophorically and endophorically; and where endophoric here and there may presume text (see Halliday and Hasan 1976: 74-75).  The paradigm of oppositions is a simple one, exemplified in [3:90] through [3:93] below.

	PROXIMATE	DISTANT
TIME	here	there
SPACE	now	then

[3:90]

I'm at work;
bring it here.

[3:91]

He's a bit off.
— You're right there.

[3:92]

It's past noon;
do it now.

[3:93]

I got a computer in 88;
writing was harder before then.

Blogger Comments:

[1] On the one hand, Location and Manner are experiential functions, not textual functions.  On the other hand, Martin's network for this discussion, Fig. 3.16, is instead concerned with Extent and Manner, and does not account for Location.

[2] As previously demonstrated, throughout this chapter on 'reference as semantic choice', Martin misinterprets textual reference as ideational denotation — where the ideational denotation, also contrary to SFL theory, is of meanings transcendent of language.

[3] To be clear, Martin's unit of IDENTIFICATION, the entry condition to his system of IDENTIFICATION is 'participant'.  The switch to circumstances here thus creates a fundamental inconsistency in the model that is not addressed.  Martin's network for this discussion, Fig. 3.16, lacks an entry condition to disguise this anomaly.

[4] To be clear, given that the 'point of departure for this chapter has been participant identification', the reason for excluding nominal groups like that guy there from that discussion does not ring true. 

[5] Contrary to Martin's claim, the temporal demonstratives do not refer.  Halliday (1985: 294):

The temporal demonstratives now and then also function as cohesive items, but conjunctively rather than referentially.

[6] To be clear, 'reminding phoricity' is Martin's rebranding of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) co-reference, demonstrative and personal.

[7] This confuses experiential location with textual location.  As reference items, here and there only refer endophorically, anaphorically or cataphorically.  Examples provided by Halliday (1985: 294) include:

So here's a question for you.  How old did you say you were?

… she said: "but it wouldn't be all the better his being punished".  "You're wrong there, at any rate," said the Queen.

[8] Martin's paradigm is actually just part of the larger set of systematic distinctions devised by Halliday (1985: 295), reproduced in Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 629) as:

 

[9] Trivially, these terms are in reverse order.

[10] To be clear, this is not a referential use of here.  See [7] above.

[11] As mentioned above in [5], temporal demonstratives do not refer, but can function in another cohesive system, conjunction.  In Martin's second example, [3:93], this is the function of the conjunctive Adjunct before then.  In Martin's first example, [3:92], however, now simply serves as a circumstantial Adjunct.