Conjunction, "Continuity" And Thematicity

Martin (1992: 230):

Unlike CONJUNCTION, which is typically realised as textual Theme in clause initial position, CONTINUITY is realised rhematically.  Since all CONTINUITY items except already can also function as conjunctions, this difference in realisation proves useful in focussing on the differences between the two systems.

Blogger Comments:

[1] When cohesive conjunction is marked by a conjunction, a structural element in the clause, it is obligatorily textual Theme.  On the other hand, while conjunctive Adjuncts, realised by adverbial groups or prepositional phrases, are characteristically thematic, they also occur elsewhere in the clause.  See Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 83).

[2] The neutral clause position of mood Adjuncts (Martin's 'continuity items') is just before or after the Finite, but they also occur before a thematic Subject, as interpersonal Theme, and at the end of the clause as Afterthought (Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 126).  Genuine markers of continuity, continuatives, occur as textual Themes.

[3] To be clear, 'conjunction' is a word class, not a function. Words of other classes do not function as conjunctions.

Misrepresenting Continuity

Martin (1992: 230):

Before turning to the question of conjunctive structures in text, an additional set of meanings, closely related to CONJUNCTION in certain respects, will be brought into the picture.  This system will be referred to as CONTINUITY and is realised through already, still, yet, anymore, any longer, finally, at last, only, just, even, also, as well, too, either and neither.

Blogger Comment:

In SFL theory, continuity is the cohesive system, within conjunction, that is realised by continuatives like yes, no, well, oh, now which 'signal a move in the discourse: a response, in dialogue' as related to a previous move, or 'a new move to the next point if the same speaker is continuing' (Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 81, 534).

It will be seen in coming posts that the adverbs listed above do not function logically (in Martin's terms), but interpersonally — as modal Adjuncts.  That is, what in SFL theory, is an interpersonal system, is construed here as the logical system of continuity — a system which in SFL theory, is a textual system (cohesion).

Misconstruing The Meaning Of Internal Conjunctive Relations

Martin (1992: 229-30):

With comparatives and concessives, internal relations are clearest when lines of argumentation are being compared, contrasted or conceded.  These relations often range retrospectively over a number of clauses in a text… .  Note that there is no single message in [4:161] which can be compared externally with Similarly, a plural object affects the status of the statement; it is the same point that is being made and this is what the internal relation is about:

INTERNAL COMPARATIVE
[4:161]  Now there are innumerable hand–to–hand fights going on with this fearsome loaf.  Plurals have a kind of imprecision that singulars do not.  Take

Bugner fights Ellis tonight.

Bugner and Ellis fight tonight.

In the first there must be a single action (the singular imposing unity on what could otherwise be regarded as many related action [sic]).  In the second they may be fighting different opponents, in different bouts, at different times, perhaps even in different continents. 

Similarly a plural object affects the status of the statement: Shirley fights seventeen three-bob loaves.

Blogger Comments:

This misrepresents the meaning of internal conjunctive relations as those between "lines of argumentation".

Internal relations are those that conjoin the interpersonal meanings of messages, and external relations are those that conjoin the experiential meaning of messages.  Here the conjunctive relation is clearly between the experiential meanings, as "it is the same point being made" acknowledges.

Misconstruing Structural Vs Cohesive As External Vs Internal

Martin (1992: 228-9):

With additives, one useful rule of thumb is to check whether the second of the messages involved in the relation is potentially "branched".  If so, the relation can be taken as external.  Thus [4:159] can be read as external, because of the missing Subject and Finite elements; there is no possibility of paratactic ellipsis of this kind in [4:160], which can accordingly be taken as internal (this reading is reinforced by the clause complex initial position of and).

EXTERNAL ADDITIVE (paratactic ellipsis)

[4:159]  Such assumptions are embedded in language, learnt through language, and  reinforced in language use. 

INTERNAL ADDITIVE (no branching possible)

[4:160]  Language fixes a world that is so much more stable and coherent than that we actually see that it takes its place in our consciousness and becomes what we think we have seen. 

And since normal perception works by constant feed-back, the gap between the real world and the actually constructed world is constantly being reduced, so that what we do 'see' tends to become what we can say.

Blogger Comments:

[1] The contrast being construed here as external vs internal additive relations is, in SFL theory, the contrast between a structural additive relation (logical metafunction) and a cohesive additive relation (textual metafunction).  The cohesive additive relation is not internal because it relates the experiential meanings realised by the clauses, not the interpersonal meanings.

[2] The clause complex initial position of the linker 'and' does not "reinforce" an internal reading of the additive relation. This is where structural conjunctions operate, even when functioning cohesively to mark a textual transition between two groups of messages.

Misrepresenting Internal Vs External Relations

Martin (1992: 228):

In spite of the usefulness of the paraphrase test to tease out incongruent realisations for internal connections, distinguishing internal from external additive, comparative and concessive relations can be difficult, since with these relations the difference between constructing text and constructing field is not always clear.

Blogger Comment:

The difference between internal and external relations is not the difference between constructing text and constructing field.

On the one hand, the contrast between internal and external conjunctive relations is a metafunctional contrast, interpersonal vs experiential, in the meanings being conjoined.

• Internal conjunction sets up an expansion relation between the interpersonal meanings, propositions and proposals, realised by the clauses, whereas 
• external conjunction sets up an expansion relation the experiential meanings, figures, realised by the clauses.

On the other hand, the contrast between constructing text and constructing field is the contrast between semogenesis and stratification.  'Constructing text' is logogenesis — language unfolding at the instance pole of the cline of instantiation — whereas 'field' is the ideational dimension of context — the culture as semiotic system — as realised by language.

Mistaking A Thematised Mood Adjunct Of Temporality For Internal Temporal Conjunction

Martin (1992: 224-5):

In addition the conjunction still is used to signal that non-contiguous information remains relevant (still resembles again in its ability to connect non-adjacent messages):

[4:151]  Don't you think that the transformation is really an inappropriate concept here.  I mean it implies directionality and change where in fact we're looking at texts generated once from a set of option [sic] in their context of culture. 

— Well, we don't mean to imply process or change.  It's just a way of showing the marked and unmarked forms of certain relations.  When we say the police killed the rioters is transformed into rioters shot, we're simply pointing out the ideological transformation that has taken place. 

— But still, you're implying that something has changed in the text.  In fact nothing has changed; though the text is agnate to others in the culture where the Agent is specified.  And surely no text is ideologically neutral.  All texts encode some ideology as you yourselves argue.  So is there really any need for a concept of markedness, however represented?

Blogger Comments:

[1] Trivially, still is an adverb, not a conjunction.

[2] Non-trivially, the adverb still is functioning here as a mood Adjunct of temporality (i.e. interpersonally), not as a conjunctive Adjunct (i.e. textually — Martin's logically), and so it does not mark a conjunctive relation of internal temporality.  It is the conjunction but that marks a conjunctive relation (adversative addition, not internal temporality).

The mood Adjunct functions textually in the clause as interpersonal Theme:

but	still	you	‘re	implying
conjunctive Adjunct	mood Adjunct: temporality	Subject	Finite	Predicator
textual	interpersonal	topical	Rheme
Theme

Cf  But you're still implying that something has changed in the text.

but	you	‘re	still	implying
conjunctive Adjunct	Subject	Finite	mood Adjunct: temporality	Predicator
textual	topical	Rheme
Theme

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 127):

Mood Adjuncts of temporality relate to interpersonal (deictic) time… .  They relate either (i) to the time itself, which may be near or remote, past or future, relative to the speaker-now; or (ii) to an expectation, positive or negative, with regard to the time at issue.

Not Recognising A Genuine Concessive Relation

Martin (1992: 224):

There are even fewer distinctive internal temporal conjunctions than consequentials, and so the discussion here will be very brief.  Simultaneous text time is realised through at the same time which connects messages that are rhetorically overlapping:

[4:150]  One of the main questions we must again ask concerns the balance between the social and the individual.  For language, in the sense of knowledge of the linguistic items and their meanings, the balance is in favour of the social, since people learn their language by listening to others. 

At the same time, each individual's language is unique, since no two people have the same experience of language.

Blogger Comment:

This use of at the same time is neither internal nor temporal.  Despite the inclusion of the word time, no temporal relation is being construed here — internal to the unfolding of discourse or otherwise.

Instead, at the same time marks a concessive conditional relation, like the similar conjunctive Adjunct all the same.  (See Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 543.)

It is perhaps a little ironic that, with the category concessive having been misapplied so many times up to this point, a genuine instance is not recognised as such.

Misconstruing Clarification (Elaborating) As Concession (Enhancing)

Martin (1992: 223):

There is another set of internal concessives which dismiss the objections rather than anticipate them.  One of these is illustrated in [4:149]; the hypotactic paraphrase is something like 'I objected I wasn't hungry; but even if I was hungry it doesn't matter because I'm going out to eat.'

CONCESSIVE DISMISS

[4:149]  Dinner's ready.

              — But I'm not hungry.

              In any case, I'm going out.

              Sorry I forgot to tell you.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is a false dichotomy.  The notion of dismissing a probable objection includes the notion of anticipating it.

[2] The "hypotactic paraphrase", unlike the exemplifying text, does include a logical relation of condition: concessive (and cause: reason) in the clause complex.

[3] In SFL theory, the textual relation — cohesive conjunction — in this text is elaborating: clarifying: dismissive.  That is, it is dismissive, but it is not concessive; so it is elaborating, not enhancing.

Misconstruing Types Of Comment Adjuncts As Marking Modality Values Of A Logical Relation

Martin (1992: 223):

Depending on the probability of the objection that is pre-empted, a choice opens up among admittedly (objection possible), of course (objection probable) and needless to say (objection certain).  The median and low values are illustrated in [4:147] and the high value in [4:148]:

CONCESSIVE:OBJECTION:CONCEDE:MODALITY POSSIBLE & PROBABLE

[4:147]  Moreover most linguists would probably say the same about linguistic differences between individual speakers: if there are differences between the grammar of two people, there is no way of knowing which has the higher prestige in society simply by studying the grammars.

Admittedly there are individuals who clearly have inherently imperfect grammars, such as children, foreigners and the mentally retarded, but these deviations are easy to explain and predict, and leave intact the claim that all normal people are equal with regard to their grammars.

Of course, there is no shortage of differences between grammars, whether of individuals or whole communities, but there are no purely linguistic grounds for ranking any of the grammars higher than the others. 

CONCESSIVE:OBJECTION:CONCEDE:MODALITY CERTAIN

[4:148]  We might get around this problem by saying that child language is the domain of a branch of psychology rather than sociology, and that psychology can only provide general principles of language acquisition which will allow us to predict every respect in which the language of children in this society deviated from the language of adults.  If psychology were able to provide the necessary principles, then there would be a good deal to say about language in relation to individual development, but nothing about language in relation to society.

Needless to say, no psychologist would dream of claiming that this was possible, even in principle.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As the words probability and objection indicate, this continues the error of classifying conjunctive relations in terms according to features of the interpersonal metafunction.

[2] The wordings admittedly, of course and needless to say do not function as conjunctive Adjuncts, and as such, do not express conjunctive relations.  They all function as comment Adjuncts, and as such, realise interpersonal meanings.  In SFL theory, admittedly serves as a speech-functional comment Adjunct, whereas of course and needless to say serve as propositional comment Adjuncts:

• admittedly typically realises persuasive: concession — not "objection possible";
• of course typically realises asseverative: natural or obvious — not "objection probable"; and
• needless to say typically realises asseverative: obvious — not "objection certain".

Needless to say, even in interpersonal terms, these comment Adjuncts do not represent values on a scale of probability (the domain of mood Adjuncts of modality).  See Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 126-131).

Confusing Metafunctions — And Expansion Types

Martin (1992: 222):

By way of introducing the concessive internals, compare [4:145] and [4:146], the second of which anticipates the challenge in the first.

[4:145]  Dinner's ready.

              — But I'm not hungry. 

[4:146]  Dinner's ready.

              But you may not be hungry.

              — I'm not.

As will be taken up in 4.4.5 below, changing the taxis as far as the realisation of internal relations is concerned helps to focus on their meaning.  Paraphrasing the but in [4:145] along these lines produces: 'although you've called me to dinner, I'm not hungry.'; the paraphrase for [4:146] is more elaborate: 'although I've called you to dinner I suspect you might not be hungry and am conceding a possible objection.'  Some internal concessives in other words are designed to anticipate challenges.

Blogger Comments:

[1] In SFL theory, the contrast being exemplified here is between conjunctive relations of extension and enhancement.

• The relation in the first, across speakers, is adversative addition.  The meaning is X and conversely Y.
• The relation in the second is concessive condition.  The meaning is if P then contrary to expectation Q.

[2] As the words challenge(s) and objection suggest, Martin's metafunctional perspective has shifted here from the logical (textual in SFL theory) to the interpersonal. Challenging and objecting signal enactments of interpersonal meaning.  Conjunctive relations are being interpreted on the basis of the interpersonal meanings of the messages being conjoined.

[3] There is no change in taxis in these examples because there is no taxis.  In each case, the but marks a cohesive — non-structural textual — conjunctive relation.  For there to be a tactic relation, the clauses thus related would have to form (a nexus within) a clause complex.

[4] Bringing meanings into focus is a function of the textual metafunction.  Here Martin is describing what he takes to be the logical metafunction.

Mistaking Comment Adjuncts For Conjunctions

Martin (1992: 222):

Concessive consequential relations on the other hand are realised through a number of distinctively internal conjunctions.  Nevertheless, nonetheless and still function as the concessive counterparts of consequently, hence and in conclusion.  In addition there is a set of internal concessives oriented to objections which may be conceded (admittedly, of course and needless to say) or dismissed (in any case, at any rate, anyhow and anyway).

Blogger Comments:

[1] These are not "distinctively internal conjunctions".  They are conjunctive Adjuncts that function textually by marking textual transitions by construing cohesive expansion relations between messages — relating the realisation of figures, not propositions or proposals.

[2] In SFL theory:

• nevertheless, nonetheless and still typically construe a concessive causal-conditional relation;
• consequently and hence typically construe a general causal-conditional relation; and
• in conclusion may construe a summative clarifying relation (elaboration, not enhancement) or an internal conclusive temporal relation (enhancement, but not causal-conditional).

[3] As the word 'objections' suggests, the metafunctional perspective being taken here is interpersonal, rather than textual (Martin's logical).

[4] In SFL theory:

• admittedly typically functions interpersonally as a comment Adjunct (persuasive: concession) rather than textually as a conjunctive Adjunct;
• of course typically functions interpersonally as a comment Adjunct (asseverative: natural or obvious) rather than textually as a conjunctive Adjunct; and
• needless to say typically functions interpersonally as a comment Adjunct (asseverative: obvious) rather than textually as a conjunctive Adjunct.

[5] In SFL theory, in any case, at any rate, anyhow and anyway typically construe a dismissive clarifying relation (elaboration, not enhancement).

Conclusion: The proposed (logical) opposition between conceded and dismissed objections — a subtype of  Martin's internal concessive consequentials — is actually an opposition between comment Adjuncts (interpersonal) and conjunctive Adjuncts of elaboration (textual).

Misconstruing An Interpersonal Concession As A Non-Concessive Logical Relation

Martin (1992: 222):

As far as non-concessive consequential relations are concerned, distinctively internal resources are very limited; for the most part the same conjunctions are used to code internal and external relations.  A few unmodalised causals are regularly internal: consequently, hence and in conclusion.  And there is one conjunction, after all, which is only used internally; it introduces reasons which are so obvious as to require a mild apology for being mentioned.

[4:144]  It might be objected that people could not possibly remember information about all the social contexts for individual linguistic items, given that the term includes lexical items as well as constructions and more general patterns. 

After all, even a monoglot must know tens of thousands of linguistic items, so the burden on his memory would be very great.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This continues the misunderstanding of the distinction between internal and external relations.

[2] In SFL theory, consequently and hence are markers of causal-conditional enhancement, whereas in conclusion may mark summative clarifying elaboration or, in the sense of lastly, conclusive temporal enhancement.

[3] The phrase after all is neither a conjunction nor a conjunctive Adjunct and, therefore, does not express any conjunctive relation between the messages in the text.

Rather, it functions interpersonally as a comment Adjunct: speech-functional: unqualified: persuasive: concession, like to be sure (Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 130). 

The likely realisation of after all is as a tone4 tonic, giving it the KEY of 'reserved statement' (see Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 142).

Reconstruing A False Dichotomy As Hyponymy

Martin (1992: 220-1):

Simple additive relations realised through in addition, as well, additionally, besides which are used to extend a text can be opposed to cumulative ones like further, furthermore and moreover which build it up to something.  Cumulative conjunctions are typically found in the context of an argument, conjoining messages causally supporting a thesis.  Furthermore seems more common when more than two such arguments are being conjoined, moreover being the unmarked form when only two arguments are used.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is a false dichotomy: cumulating is 'adding to'.  In SFL theory, this conjunctive relation between messages is construed as (positive) additive extension (Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 542).

[2] All linguistic choices extend a text, not just conjunctive relations, and not just simple additive ones.  This is 'extend' in the sense of 'increase the extent of', not in the sense of a logical relation.

[3] Despite contrasting 'extend' with 'cumulative', the cumulative conjunctions further and furthermore are listed in the system network (Figure 4.15) as realising extending, which is construed as a feature of cumulative.  That is, a false dichotomy is reconstrued as a relation of hyponymy.

[4] The conjunction moreover is listed in the system network (Figure 4.15) as realising the other feature of cumulative, amplifying, though no argument is presented to justify the term in contrast to that of the other feature extending.

Misconstruing Extension As A 'Continuity' Of Additive And Comparative Relations

Martin (1992: 220):

The following examples bring out the continuity between alternation and retracting or contrastive opposition depending on whether alternatives are viewed as one or the other, one instead of the other or one as opposed to the other.

[ALTERNATION]

[4:139]  We might argue that it's a Range.                    'a or b'

              Or it might be Goal. 

[RETRACTION]

[4:140]  We might argue that it's a Range.                    'a in place of b'

              Instead, it might be Goal. 

[CONTRAST]

[4:141]  We might argue that it's a Range.                    'a different from b'

              In contrast, it might be Goal.

Blogger Comments:

[1] These are misconstrued as internal relations.  In each case, the conjunctive relation is with the figure realised by the projected clause, not with the enactment of the proposition it realises.

[2] The "continuity" that Martin recognises here between his categories — alternation within additive, and retraction and contrast within comparative — is actually the fact they are all, logically, types of extension.  In SFL theory, these three texts exemplify three types of cohesive conjunction:

• extension: variation: alternative, meaning X or Y
• extension: variation: replacive, meaning not X but Y
• extension: addition: adversative, meaning X and conversely Y

[3] Logically, only the first text involves alternatives.

[4] This confuses adversative (extension: addition) with comparison (enhancement: manner).

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.

Misconstruing Continuity And Clarifying Elaboration As Additive Extension

Martin (1992: 219):

Used to demarcate stages in a text, well needs to be grouped with items such as now, allright, okay, incidentally, by the way, anyway, anyhow and so on.  These all have the function of organising discourse at a global level.  These can be subclassified according to whether they are oriented to genre or field.  Well, now, okay and allright frame a text generically, with respect to its schematic structure. …

Conjunctions like incidentally, by the way, anyway and anyhow are more oriented to field than genre.  They signal a change of topic, with incidentally or by the way marking a departure from what has gone before and items like anyway or anyhow marking a return.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is the classification of wordings, the view from below, not the view from above (conjunctive relations).

[2] All systems of the textual metafunction, including all the cohesive resources — conjunction, reference, substitution-&-ellipsis and lexical cohesion — have the function of organising discourse (text).

[3] These are continuatives.  Their function is to indicate that a clause beginning a new turn is cohesively related to a clause in the previous turn.  Here they are misconstrued as marking the expansion relation of addition, a subtype of extension.

[4] In SFL theory, incidentally and by the way mark distractive clarification, a subtype of elaboration.  (See Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 542.)  Here they are being misconstrued as marking addition, a subtype of extension.

[5] In SFL theory, anyway and anyhow can mark dismissive clarification, a subtype of elaboration.  (See Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 542.)  Here they are being misconstrued as marking addition, a subtype of extension.

[6] Signalling a change of topic is a textual function.  These are being construed as resources of the logical metafunction at the level of discourse semantics.

[7] In SFL theory, continuity and conjunction are cohesive resources that mark textual transitions in the organisation of text.  It is not a matter of being "oriented" to either field or genre.  The relation of field, the ideational dimension of context, to semantics is realisation.  It will be seen later that the notion of genre — though misconstrued as a stratum of context — actually confuses:

1. text organisation (the textual metafunction at the semantic stratum), and 
2. one of a subset of text types (registers varying according to mode).

Misconstruing Continuity As Addition

Martin (1992: 218):

Like internal comparatives, internal additives are a richer resource internally than externally.  This is in part as result [sic] of incorporating three of Halliday and Hasan's  (1976) continuatives into the internal additive network (now, well, anyway); … Internal additives can be divided into those whose main function is to punctuate an exchange (oh and well) and those mainly concerned with building turns.

Blogger Comment:

The cohesive system of continuity does not involve an expansion relation.

In SFL theory, addition is a type of extension, within the logical semantic relation of expansion. The subtypes of expansion are transphenomenal fractal types that are manifested across various domains at various scales.  For example, elaboration, extension and enhancement are manifested in relational processes as intensive, possessive and circumstantial relations, respectively.  When deployed textually as cohesive conjunction, the relation is marked grammatically by a conjunctive Adjunct.

Continuity, on the other hand, functions alongside cohesive conjunction, in dialogic texts, relating a clause in a new turn to a previous one (see Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 534).  It does not involve any type of expansion relation and is marked by continuatives, not conjunctive Adjuncts.  It is a serious theoretical inconsistency to construe continuity as any type of expansion.

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).

Misconstruing Mixed Types Of Elaboration & Extension As Degrees Of Enhancement

Martin (1992: 216):

At this point it is possible to consider grading internal comparative relations according to the degree of difference coded between formulations of a message.  If in fact is substituted for rather in [4:131] then seeing asocial linguistics as incomplete is recoded as adjusting its assessment rather than replacing it.  Taking this one step further, had in other words been used in place of in fact then the second formulation would read not as adjusting the first, but simply as reworking it to make its meaning clear.  Again, the same experiential content can be internally connected in different ways, depending on the way in which internal comparison is used to rhetorically construct meanings being made.  This scaling according to degrees of internal difference is outlined below:

STRONG
á â	rather, instead, on the contrary	[retract]
	in fact, actually, as a matter of fact, I mean	[adjust]
	in other words, that is, i.e.	[rework]
SLIGHT

Blogger Comments:

[1] In terms of SFL theory, these relations not internal, as explained in previous posts.

[2] In terms of SFL theory (and of the meaning of the words 'comparative' and 'comparison'), these relations are not comparative (enhancing).

The strong difference [retract] is a mixture of elaboration and extension:

• rather marks corrective clarification (elaboration)
• instead, on the contrary mark replacive variation (extension)

The median difference [adjust] is a mixture or elaboration subtypes:

• in fact, actually, as a matter of fact mark verifactive clarification (elaboration)
• I mean marks expository apposition (elaboration)

The slight difference [rework] is a subtype of elaboration:

• in other words, that is mark expository apposition (elaboration)

Conclusion: This scale is not a grading of degrees of difference in internal comparative relations.

Misconstruing Elaboration Vs Extension As Internal Enhancement

Martin (1990: 216):

Within opposition, the distinction is between retraction and contrast.  With retraction, a "straw message" is set up, often involving a negative realisation of some kind; this message is then retracted and another put in its place as in [4:131].  With contrast the first message is not set up rhetorically in order to be opposed; internal contrastive relations may select the correlative realisation on the one hand…one the other (hand).

DIFFERENCE:OPPOSITION:RETRACTION

[4:131]  It would certainly be wrong to dismiss the results of such asocial linguistics as simply false.

Rather, we can see it as incomplete, in the same way that linguists of the 1970s find earlier grammars incomplete because they had little to say about syntax and even less about semantics or pragmatics. 

DIFFERENCE:OPPOSITION:CONTRAST

[4:132]  On the one hand we could view such grammars as false, or at least as politically irresponsible.

On the other it might be preferable to see them as incomplete; this is the more comforting liberal view.

Blogger Comment:

In SFL theory, the conjunctive relation in the first text is corrective clarification, a type of elaboration, whereas the conjunctive relation in the second text is adversative addition, a type of extension.  See Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 542).

Here this opposition of elaborating vs extending conjunction is misconstrued as opposing subtypes of enhancement (difference as a type of comparative relation, misconstrued as internal).

Misconstruing Different Metafunctional Manifestations Of Extension As Subtypes Of Enhancement

Martin (1992: 215):

The final internal comparative systems to be considered have to do with difference rather than similarity.  Within this group [converse] relations in which two aspects of a message trade rôles can be contrasted with those in which rôle reversal of this kind is either not present, or not explicitly drawn to attention.

DIFFERENCE:CONVERSE

[4:129]  The most general and important point that has come out of this chapter is probably the close connection between data and theory.  Until the data on quantitative variations on linguistic variables became available through the work of Labov, it was unnecessary to take seriously the need for quantitative statements in a linguistic theory,

and conversely the lack of a place for such statements in linguistic theory prevented most linguists from bothering to look for the relevant data. 

DIFFERENCE:OPPOSITION

[4:130]  The lack of a place for quantitative statements in linguistic theory prevented most linguists from bothering to look for the relevant data.

On the other hand it could be argued that the relevant data could not be interpreted in any case since the tools for its collection and statistical analysis were not readily available.

Blogger Comment:

In SFL theory, the expansion relation in both texts is adversative addition, a type of extension; its meaning is X and conversely Y (see Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 405).

In the first text, this is manifested structurally as a paratactic relation between clauses (logical metafunction), whereas in the second text, on the other hand, it is manifested non-structurally as cohesive conjunction (textual metafunction).

That is, the contrast presented here as types of difference — a type of enhancement — is actually, in SFL theory, a contrast between metafunctional manifestations — logical vs textual — of adversative addition, a type of extension.