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'.

Misconstruing Mood Adjuncts Of Temporality As Continuity Items Of Counterexpectation

Martin (1992: 232):

With counterexpectation, there is a set of aspectual continuity items (e.g. already, finally and still) which are opposed to a set which are not concerned with unexpected starts and finishes (e.g. just and even).

Blogger Comments:

[1] In SFL theory, these adverbs are not continuity items that mark logical relations.  Instead, they function interpersonally, serving as mood Adjuncts of temporality, which contrast with mood Adjuncts of intensity, one type of which is counterexpectancy.

[2] In SFL theory, these adverbs are not continuity items that mark logical relations.  Instead, they function interpersonally, serving as mood Adjuncts of intensity, subtype: counterexpectancy.

Misconstruing Types Of Adjunct As Types Of Continuity Item

Martin (1992: 231-2):

CONTINUITY items can be divided into three groups, those involving counterexpectation (e.g. already, finally, still, only and even), those involving parallel MOOD structure (e.g. too, also, as well) and again which codes experiential repetition.  The three types combine freely as in [4:170]:

[4:170]  Ben beat Lindley.
             And he's already beaten Carl again too.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Martin construes continuity as a logical system — though it's textual in SFL theory — whereas counterexpectation is interpersonal in function, like almost all of the adverbs misconstrued as continuity items.

[2] In SFL theory, only the adverbs only and even function as mood Adjuncts of counterexpectancy (limiting and exceeding); the adverbs already, finally and still function as mood Adjuncts of temporality, not counterexpectancy.

[3]  In SFL theory, Martin's three types of continuity items — his logical metafunction — are actually two types of mood Adjunct (interpersonal) and a circumstantial Adjunct (experiential):

and	he	’s	already	beaten	Carl	again	too
	Subject	Finite	mood Adjunct: temporality	Predicator	Complement	circumstantial Adjunct	mood Adjunct: intensity
	Mood			Residue			(Afterthought)

Misconstruing The Difference Between Conjunction And Continuity

Martin (1992: 231):

Alongside this structural difference in realisation, CONTINUITY differs from CONJUNCTION in that five of the fundamental oppositions associated with CONJUNCTION are not relevant.  First, the messages related through CONTINUITY are not reversible (*Ben beat Lindley too.  He beat Carl.).  Second, messages so related can only enter into covariate semantic dependency; hypotactic and paratactic dependencies are not available.  Third, the internal/external opposition is not relevant.  Fourth, CONTINUITY cannot be implicit: Ben beat Lindley and he beat Carl does not mean 'Ben beat Lindley and he even beat Carl'.  And finally, CONTINUITY can not be realised metaphorically as a process. 

Blogger Comment:

[1] In terms of SFL theory, of the seven examples of continuity presented, none involved continuatives and none involved continuity relations.  All seven examples demonstrated interpersonal functions, not logical (or textual) functions.  The first three were mood Adjuncts of temporality, and the final four were mood Adjuncts of intensity: counterexpectancy.

[2] Irreversibility varies, and depends on the conjunctive and mood Adjuncts selected.  Of the seven instances provided, one is manifestly reversible even with the substitution & ellipsis unchanged:

• No, I'm not busy.  I'm only reading. => I'm only reading.  No, I'm not busy.

[3]  This claim is falsified by the data that Martin himself provides.  Three of the seven examples of continuity involve the "unavailable" paratactic relations:

• Ben trained for hours and by eleven he'd finally finished.
• Ben beat Lindley and he also beat Carl.
• Ben couldn't pass the test and Lindley couldn't either.

[4] The internal/external opposition is potentially only relevant for expansion relations, whether structurally in logical complexes or nonstructurally in textual cohesion.

[5] The difference between Ben beat Lindley and he beat Carl and Ben beat Lindley and he even beat Carl is not a matter of continuity; it is the inclusion of the interpersonal meaning of 'counterexpectancy: exceeding' in the latter.

and	he	beat		Carl
	Subject	Finite	Predicator	Complement
	Mood		Residue

and	he	even	beat		Carl
	Subject	mood Adjunct: intensity: counterexpectancy: exceeding	Finite	Predicator	Complement
	Mood			Residue

[6] The reason why continuity cannot be realised metaphorically as a process is that processes are ideational meanings whereas continuity items are interpersonal meanings — mood Adjuncts — misconstrued as logical.

Misconstruing A Mood Adjunct (Intensity) As A Continuity Item [4]

Martin (1992: 231):

[4:168] CONJUNCTION Either Ben didn't want to compete

                                 or he couldn't. 

            CONTINUITY   Ben couldn't pass the test

                               and Lindley couldn't either.

Blogger Comment:

[1] In SFL theory, this is not conjunction, a non-structural resource of the textual metafunction, but a structural relation (extension: alternation) of the logical metafunction.

[2] The function of either here is interpersonal: a mood Adjunct of intensity (counterexpectancy: exceeding) — cf even Lindley could(n't) — and so it does not mark a continuity relation with the previous message.  (The structural logico-semantic relation between the clauses is extension: addition: additive.)

and	Lindley	couldn't	either
	Subject	Finite	mood Adjunct: intensity: counterexpectancy: exceeding
	Mood

This is agnate with Ben couldn't pass the test and neither could Lindley, where 'negative' is a feature of the Adjunct instead of the Finite:

and	neither	could	Lindley
	mood Adjunct: intensity: counterexpectancy: exceeding	Finite	Subject
	Mood

Misconstruing A Mood Adjunct (Intensity) As A Continuity Item [3]

Martin (1992: 231):

[4:167] CONJUNCTION You have to consider the aspect.

                                 Also the question of polarity comes into it. 

            CONTINUITY   Ben beat Lindley

                                 and he also beat Carl.

Blogger Comment:

The function of also here is interpersonal: a mood Adjunct of intensity (counterexpectancy: exceeding), and so it does not mark a continuity relation with the previous clause in the complex.

and	he	also	beat		Carl
	Subject	mood Adjunct: intensity: counterexpectancy: exceeding	Finite	Predicator	Complement
	Mood			Residue

Misconstruing A Mood Adjunct (Intensity) As A Continuity Item [2]

Martin (1992: 231):

[4:164] CONJUNCTION He felt like relaxing,

                                 only he was upset about the race. 

            CONTINUITY    No, I'm not busy.

                                 I was only reading.

Blogger Comments:

[1] In SFL theory, this is not conjunction, a non-structural resource of the textual metafunction, but a structural relation (extension: variation: subtractive) of the logical metafunction.

[2] The function of only here is interpersonal: a mood Adjunct of intensity (counterexpectancy: limiting), and so it does not mark a continuity relation with the previous message.

I	was	only	reading
Subject	Finite	mood Adjunct: intensity	Predicator
Mood			Residue

[3] Ironically, there is a continuative in this example, no, which marks a genuine relation of continuity with a previous message (not presented).  As previously noted, Martin misconstrues genuine continuatives as marking a logico-semantic relation of addition.

Misconstruing A Mood Adjunct (Intensity) As A Continuity Item [1]

Martin (1992: 231):

[4:165] CONJUNCTION Ben will run

                                 even if I have to drag him there. 

            CONTINUITY    Ben beat Lindley.

                                 He even beat Carl.

Blogger Comments:

[1] In SFL theory, this is not conjunction, a non-structural resource of the textual metafunction, but a structural relation of the logical metafunction.  The logico-semantic relation in the clause complex is concessive condition and marked by even if.

[2] The function of even here is interpersonal: a mood Adjunct of intensity (counterexpectancy: exceeding), and so it does not mark a continuity relation with the previous message.

He	even	beat		Carl
Subject	mood Adjunct: intensity	Finite	Predicator	Complement
Mood			Residue