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.

Misconstruing Resumptive Clarification As Interrupted Comparison

Martin (1992: 214-5):

Where similar lines of argumentation and interpretation are for some reason separated from each other, then the conjunction again is used to pick up the thread as it were.  Again is one of two conjunctions in English that regularly connects non-adjacent material in text (the other is still …).  Text [4:116] is repeated below and then elaborated in such a way as to separate the two arguments compared in [4:128] in order to illustrate the function of this "resumptive" again.

COMPARISON:CONTINGUOUS [sic]

[4:116]  The riot began shows that riot is a process term, even though it is in nominal form.

Similarly, the violence ended suddenly marks violence as a process term even though it has no corresponding verb. 

COMPARISON:INTERRUPTED

[4:128]  The riot began shows that riot is a process term, even though it is in nominal form.  It is a general fact… .  Actions can be… .  Such incongruence… .

Again the violence ended suddenly marks violence as a process term even though it has no corresponding verb form.

Blogger Comments:

[1] The words again and still are not conjunctions; they are adverbs that frequently function interpersonally, as modal Adjuncts.  Of the two, still can also serve as a conjunctive Adjunct, typically marking a conjunctive relation of concessive condition (Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 127, 543).

[2] In SFL theory, resumptive conjunctive relations are a type of clarification, which is a type of elaboration.  It is typically marked by as I was saying, to resume, to get back to the point and so on.  Here it is misconstrued as a type of comparison, which is misconstrued as a type of similarity, within comparative relations (misconstrued as internal), which in SFL theory, is a type of enhancement.

Misconstruing Internal Conjunction

Martin (1992: 214):

Turning from reformulation to comparison, the concern of internal comparative relations is not with fine tuning a meaning that has just been made but with noting similarities in lines of argument or interpretation.

Blogger Comment:

This confuses conjunctive cohesion, the general non-structural resource for making textual transitions, with the more specific subtype: internal conjunctive relations — textual relations that are internal to the communication situation itself.

The distinction between internal and external relations is made in temporal cohesive conjunction, where it is the distinction between the temporal unfolding of the discourse (interpersonal time) and the temporal sequence of the processes referred to (experiential time), respectively (Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 545).

In the case of logical relations between clauses, the distinction between internal and external relations is the distinction between the beta clause relating to the enactment of the proposition (interpersonal meaning) of the alpha clause and the beta clause relating to the figure (experiential meaning) that the alpha clause represents (Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 419).

Misconstruing Textual Clarification As Text Emendation

Martin (1992: 213):

Where an understatement or overstatement has been made, but a speaker wishes to adjust the meaning without specifying whether too much much or too little was meant, then conjunctions such as in fact or actually can be used.  These can be substituted for either at least or indeed (for example in [4:123] and [4:124] above), and so neutralise the [augment/diminish] system just introduced.  In [4:125] in fact is used in a context where indeed could have been used to make the understatement in the first formulation explicit.

REFORMULATION:ADJUST:CORRECT

[4:125] The way in which Liz addresses Mary is also significant: she feels perfectly free to use her first name, whereas Mary does not once use Liz's name. 

In fact, Mary does not address Liz by any name.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This continues the misconstrual of the conjunctive relation of clarification as a repair strategy by providing practical advice as to which wordings a writer can use.

[2] In SFL theory, the conjunctive relation served by in fact is verifactive clarification, a type of elaboration (see Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 542).  Here it is relocated to within similarity — i.e. comparison, a type of enhancement.

The lack of interpersonal "amplification" here is due to in fact being less likely than indeed to be realised with the KEY feature of 'insistent statement' (see yesterday's posting).

Confusing Textual Clarification With The Enactment Of Meaning

Martin (1992: 212-3):

Reformulation introduced by in fact, actually, at least, indeed and so on carry the implication that the original formulation was not quite right; it needs more than rephrasing in other words — it has to be adjusted to tune in accurately to the meaning being made.  The difference between at least and indeed has to do whether the reformulation is toned up or down.  In [4:123] the first formulation is something of an overstatement and needs to be played down; in [4:124] on the other hand the first formulation understates and needs to be amplified:

REFORMULATION:ADJUST…DIMINISH

[4:123]  The way in which Liz addresses Mary is also significant: she feels perfectly free to use her first name, whereas Mary does not once use Liz's name.

At least Mary does not use Liz's name when actually addressing her.  She does use it once when quoting something an [sic] former client had told her about Mary. 

REFORMULATION:ADJUST…AUGMENT

[4:124]  The way in which Liz addresses Mary is also significant: she feels perfectly free to use her first name, whereas Mary does not once use Liz's name.

Indeed Mary does not address Liz at all, by name or otherwise.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This again construes clarifying elaboration (Martin's 'reformulation') as a repair strategy.

[2] As the wordings 'toned up or down', 'needs to be played down' and 'needs to be amplified' suggest, the metafunctional perspective being taken here is interpersonal, rather than textual (Martin's logical).  Attention has shifted from the type of relation between the messages to the enactment of meaning.

[3] In SFL theory, the conjunctive relation here is corrective clarification, a type of elaboration within the textual metafunction (see Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 542).  Here it is relocated to within similarity — i.e. comparison, a type of enhancement within the logical metafunction.

[4] In SFL theory, the conjunctive relation here is verifactive clarification, a type of elaboration (see Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 542).  Here it is relocated to within similarity — i.e. comparison, a type of enhancement.

The "amplification" here — which is interpersonal — arises from the likely realisation of indeed as a tone5 tonic, giving it the KEY of 'insistent statement' (see Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 142).


Conclusion: In terms of SFL theory, the discourse semantic logical opposition of diminish vs augment reformulation is the textual opposition of corrective vs verifactive clarification.

Misconstruing Summative Clarification (Elaboration) As Comparison (Enhancement)

Martin (1992: 211-2):

The final reformulation option to be noted has to do with the summative generalisation realised through in short, in brief, in summary, to sum up and so on.  This relation ranges retrospectively across an accumulation of more specific meanings which are brought together by way of summary.

REFORMULATION:REWORK:GENERALITY:GLOBAL

[4:122] The riot began shows that riot is a process term, even though it is in nominal form. Similarly, the violence ended suddenly marks violence as a process term even though it has no corresponding verb form. [cf 'violate'] 

In short, several colligations in the text show that many nominals are encoding actions, not things.

Blogger Comment:

In SFL theory, this conjunctive relation is classified as summative clarification, a type of elaboration (see Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 542).   Here it has been relocated to similarity — i.e. comparison, a type of enhancement.

Misconstruing A Modal Adjunct As A Conjunctive Adjunct

Martin (1992: 210, 211):

Unlike intensive attributive clause relations, internal reformulation can work either from particular to general as in [4:119] above or from general to particular as in [4:121] (intensive attributive clauses can only assign subclasses to classes; it is for this reason that possessive relationals are so commonly used in science to subclassify — Mammals include monotremes, marsupials and placentals) and has distinct conjunctions for moving in one direction or the other.

REFORMULATION:REWORK:GENERALITY…GENERALISE

[4:119] The riot began shows that riot is a process term, even though it is in nominal form. 

In general, nominals which function as Mediums for processes which characterise them as having beginnings and ends are in fact realising actions.

REFORMULATION:REWORK:GENERALITY…PARTICULARISE

[4:121] The text has a number of actions encoded as nouns which colligation clearly shows to be actions. 

In particular, certain of these occur as Mediums with verbs indicating they have a beginning and end, which concepts apply only to actions.

Blogger Comments:

[1] In SFL theory, in general functions interpersonally as a modal Adjunct, not textually as a conjunctive Adjunct (see Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 82, 125).  It is therefore not conjunctive in function.  (The asymmetry of the analogy, attributive relational clauses, might have served as a warning.)

[2] In SFL theory, the conjunctive relation of particularising is a type of clarification within elaboration (see Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 542).  Here it is relocated within similarity — i.e. comparison a type of enhancement.

[3]  Intensive attributive clauses construe class membership: both delicacy (hyponymy) and instantiation (token/instance/specimen to type).  See Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 144-5).

Misconstruing Apposition (Elaboration) As Comparison (Enhancement)

Martin (1992: 211):

Within the "identifying" mode, both relational clauses and internal conjunction make a distinction between "exhaustive" and "exemplificatory" (i.e. non-exhaustive) manifestation.  In this respect [4:115] contrasts with [4:120].

REFORMULATION [:REWORK:ABSTRACTION:EXHAUSTIVE]

[4:115] The riot began shows that riot is a process term, even though it is in nominal form. 

That is, the fact that riot is a noun does not mean that it cannot represent an action as its colligation with began shows.

REFORMULATION:REWORK:ABSTRACTION:EXEMPLIFY

[4:120] When a clause shows that an idea encoded as a noun has a temporal beginning and end, this stands as evidence that the "idea" is an action. 

For example, certain of these occur as Mediums with verbs indicating they have a beginning and end, which concepts apply only to actions.

Blogger Comments:

In SFL theory, the opposition in conjunctive relations here is between two main types of apposition within elaboration: expository ('that is') and exemplifying ('for example'). Here Martin has relocated them at several degrees of delicacy within similarity — i.e. comparison, a type of enhancement.

Confusing (Elaborating) Conjunctive Relations With (Elaborating) Relational Processes

Martin (1992: 210, 211):

Reworking to clarify takes a number of different forms. There are two basic strategies. One is to shift the level of abstraction at which the meanings are formulated; the other is to shift generality. … 

This is in effect the distinction between identification (Token Value) and attribution (Carrier Attribute) in intensive relational clauses.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This confuses the experiential meaning of the messages being cohesively conjoined with the conjunctive relation between them.

[2] The connection between clarifying conjunction and intensive relational processes is that both are manifestations of the transphenomenal fractal type: elaboration.

However, in Martin's model, clarifying conjunction is classified under similarity — i.e. comparison, which in terms of the fractal types, is a subtype of enhancement.

Such an inconsistency is a serious violation of the principle of parsimony in theorising.

Misconstruing Types Of Elaboration As Types Of Enhancement

Martin (1992: 209-10):

With [reformulation], the basic distinction is between reworking a meaning in order to clarify it and adjusting it to get it right.  This is the opposition between [4:115] above (repeated below) and [4:118].  In [4:115] that is does not imply that anything was wrong with the first formulation; its experiential meaning is simply restated by way of clarification.  In [4:118] on the other hand in fact does imply that something was not quite right the first time round; in this example the implication is that the first formulation was not strong enough.

REFORMULATION:REWORK:ABSTRACTION:EXHAUST

[4:115] The riot began shows that riot is a process term, even though it is in nominal form.

That is, the fact that riot is a noun does not mean that it cannot represent an action as its colligation with began shows. 

REFORMULATION:ADJUST

[4:118] The riot began shows that riot is a process term, even though it is in nominal form.

In fact, riot would have to be classified lexically as an action word.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This misconstrues the conjunctive relation of expository apposition ('that is'), which is a type of elaboration, as a subtype of similarity — i.e. comparison, a type of enhancement — despite being interpreted as clarification, another type of elaboration.

[2] This misconstrues the conjunctive relation of verificative clarification ('in fact'), which is a type of elaboration, as a subtype of similarity — i.e. comparison, a type of enhancement.  The meaning of (what is) clarification — 'to be precise' — is interpreted as a repair strategy 'adjusting it to get it right'.

Summary:  In SFL theory, the conjunctive contrast exemplified here is between two types of elaboration: expository apposition ('that is') and verificative clarification ('in fact').

Misconstruing Cohesive As Internal

Martin (1992: 209):

Internal and external comparison are not always easy to separate.  Text [4:116] above for example does have an external reading in which phasing processes like began and ended are argued to unveil metaphorical processes in the same way.  The following example is more clearly internal; the comparison is between two lines of argument and interpretation, not between experiential meanings:

[4:117] Thirdly there is the question of the relation of language to culture, on which we have little information in the reports on the north-west Amazon referred to above, but on which we can make some safe guesses.  For instance, it would be surprising if any of the languages concerned lacked a word for 'long house' or 'tribe', and we might reasonably expect a word for 'phratry' (though such higher-level concepts often lack names. 

Similarly, we may predict that most concepts relevant to the culture will have words in each language to express them, and that most words in each language will express cultural concepts, definable only in terms of the culture concerned.  (Hudson, 1980: 10)

Blogger Comments:

[1] The comparison relation in [4:116] — see earlier post — is cohesive but not internal.  The fact that it conjoins messages non-structurally, makes it cohesive.  In order to be an internal relation, it would have to be internal to the 'speech' event itself, as in the case of internal temporal conjunction marked by such items as firstly, secondly, thirdly.

[2] The comparison relation in [4:117] is again cohesive but not internal.  See [1] above.

[3] The opposition of 'between two lines of argument' versus 'between experiential meanings' is nonsensical.  In terms of conjunctive relations, the text begins with an internal temporal (enhancing) relation, marked by Thirdly, then makes a textual transition through an exemplifying apposition (elaborating) relation, marked by For instance, and finally makes a textual transition through manner: comparison (enhancing) relation, marked by Similarly.

The positive comparison is thus with the messages that exemplify the third point being made by the author Hudson.

Misconstruing 'Elaboration: Clarification' As 'Similarity: Reformulation'

Martin (1992: 208-9):

Invoking the conduit metaphor (pace Reddy 1979), one might argue that [reformulation] is about different ways of saying the same thing, while [comparison] is about similarities between ways of saying different things.  But since reformulations are not in any useful sense "synonymous", this formulation is somewhat misleading (as ever when content and form are dualised in functional linguistics).  It would be better to say that with [reformulation], the first formulation and the second have almost all their meaning in common; a little fine tuning is all that's required.  With [comparison] on the other hand, the meanings compared are different; but the way in which they are presented is in some respect the same… .

Blogger Comments:

[1] 'The conduit metaphor […] operates whenever people speak or write as if they "insert" their mental contents (feelings, meanings, thoughts, concepts, etc.) into "containers" (words, phrases, sentences, etc.) whose contents are then "extracted" by listeners and readers. Thus, language is viewed as a "conduit" conveying mental content between people.' [source]

[2] In SFL theory, content is "dualised" into the strata of semantics (meaning) and lexicogrammar (wording), and the latter into function and form (higher rank functions realised by lower rank forms).

[3] In SFL theory, conjunctive relations of this type are categorised as elaboration: clarification. The example previously given for reformulation (see yesterday's post), in contrast, involves elaboration: apposition.

[4] In SFL theory, the meaning of manner: comparison is simply N is like M.

Misconstruing 'Elaboration: Apposition' As 'Similarity: Reformulation'

Martin (1992: 208):

Internal similarity will be developed first. […] These can be usefully divided into two main groups […] according to whether they mark the fact that the text is reformulating meaning in order to clarify what is meant, or whether they signal that something is the same about the way in which distinct meanings are being organised.  This is the contrast between that is and similarly in [4:115] and [4:116] below. 

REFORMULATION

[4:115] The riot began shows that riot is a process term, even though it is in nominal form.

That is, the fact that riot is a noun does not mean that it cannot represent an action as its colligation with began shows. 

COMPARISON

[4:116] The riot began shows that riot is a process term, even though it is in nominal form.

Similarly, the violence ended suddenly marks violence as a process term even though it has no corresponding verb form (Trew 1979: 123).

Blogger Comments:

[1] Neither of these examples involves internal conjunctive relations.  (The reasons are provided in previous critiques.)

[2] This confuses the enhancement category of similarity (N is like M) for the elaboration category of apposition: exposition (P i.e. Q).

[3] In SFL theory, the conjunctive relation of clarification contrasts with apposition, within the major expansion type: elaboration.

[4] Note that, hyponymically, comparison is presented here as a subtype of — more delicate than — similarity.  (If similarity, then either comparison or reformulation.)  This is the reverse of the logically coherent relation: if comparison, then either similarity or difference.

Conclusion: the contrast being presented as two subtypes of (internal) similarity — reformulation and comparison — is actually, in SFL theory, the contrast between elaboration: apposition: expository and enhancement: manner: comparison.

Confusing Internal With Cohesive, Similar With Elaboration, Different With Adversative

Martin (1992: 207-8):

Internal comparative relations are a resource for organising meanings with respect to similarity and difference.  The comparison involved is a textual one; it is not oriented to how meanings are alike or unlike with respect to field.  One way to see this is to take the same experiential meaning and recast it internally as in [4:113] and [4:114] below.  In [4:113] a text is developed in which Dr. Metherell's conservative politics are presented in opposition to his interest in 'reforming' education — the text is organised to challenge the idea that conservatives don't in fact turn back the clock.  In [4:114] on the other hand a text is presented in which Dr. Metherell's reforms are presented as an elaboration of his conservative nature — the text takes it for granted that reactionary Ministers of Education will undo liberal reforms.

INTERNAL SIMILARITY (sic)
[4:113] Dr. Metherell's a conservative;
             he wants to preserve the status quo.

             On the other hand he does want education to change,
             and his approach has alienated many parents and teachers.

INTERNAL DIFFERENCE (sic)
[4:114] Dr. Metherell's a conservative;
             he wants to preserve the status quo.  

             That is, he does want education to change,
             and his approach has alienated many parents and teachers.

The internal conjunction in these two texts codes different ideologies — different attitudes to what conservative governments do; but as far as external relations are concerned, what Dr. Metherell is up to experientially in the two texts remains the same.

Blogger Comments:

(Presumably the terms SIMILARITY and DIFFERENCE were intended to be in reverse order.)

In terms of SFL theory, the conjunctive relations demonstrated here are neither internal nor comparative.  In terms of conjunctive cohesion:

[4:113] is extension: addition: adversative
[4:114] is elaboration: apposition: expository.

[1] This is a definition of cohesive conjunction in general, not internal conjunction in particular.  External conjunctive relations involve textual relations between 'external phenomena', whereas internal conjunctive relations involve textual relations that are internal to the communication situation itself.  See previous critiques here and here.

[2] This confuses difference (means: comparison) with adversative (extension: addition), as the term 'opposition' suggests.

[3] This confuses similar (means: comparison) with expository (elaboration: apposition), as the term 'elaboration' suggests.

In terms of cohesion, the lexical antonymy of status quo and change is inconsistent with the conjunctive elaboration.

[4] Cohesive conjunction does not 'code ideology' — it deploys the categories of expansion as a non-structural text-forming resource.

Confusing Negative Addition With Negative Polarity

Martin (1992: 205-6):

External additive relations, like external comparative ones, form a small resource compared with temporals or consequentials.  The basic distinction is between addition and alternation.  With addition, there is a positive/negative system opposing and to nor, in spite of morphological appearances which make it look like a negative realisation of or (Our Corgi didn't win nor did the Dachshund means that 'the Corgi didn't win and that the Dachshund didn't either').  All additive relations have correlative paratactic realisations [both…and, neither…nor, either…or].

[4:105] [addition:positive]
             a.  Our Dachshund performed well.  And she looked splendid on the day.
             b.  Besides performing well our Dachshund looked splendid on the day.
             c.  – 

[4:106] [addition:negative]
             a.  She didn't move at all well in the ring.  Nor did she stand still when tabled.
             b.  Alongside not moving well in the ring, she didn't stand still when tabled.
             c.  – 

[4:107] [alternation]
             a.  You could go down to Melbourne.  Or you could go in the Easter Show.
             b.  If you don't go down to Melbourne, you could go in the Easter Show.
             c.  –

Blogger Comments:

[1] In SFL theory, addition, alternation and variation are the three main categories of extension relations between clauses.  In contrast, in Martin's model:

1. both addition and alternation are subsumed under the category additive, 
2. variation subtypes are construed as subcategories of adversative, and 
3. adversative — a subcategory of addition in SFL — is construed as a subcategory of comparison — a subcategory of the enhancement category manner in SFL.

Halliday & Matthiessen			Martin
extension	alternation		alternation	additive
	addition	additive: positive	addition: positive
		additive: negative	addition: negative
		adversative*
	variation	replacive	replacement	adversative	comparison
		subtractive	exception

[2] The logical relation here is positive, not negative addition — hypotactic negative addition does not occur in English.  The negation here is realised as polarity in verbal groups, not as a logical relation between clauses.