Misconstruing Experiential Manifestations Of Expansion As Logical Metaphor

Martin (1992: 409):

When combined with experiential metaphors, incongruent conjunctive relations are realised across a variety of TRANSITIVITY structures.  Note the following variations on [6:23f]:

[6:23f]	material process
	The Second World War further encouraged the restructuring of the Australian economy towards a manufacturing basis.
[6:26]	circumstance of cause
	Because of the Second World War the Australian economy was restructured towards a manufacturing basis.
[6:27]	circumstantial attribute
	The restructuring of the Australian economy towards a manufacturing basis was due to the Second World War.
[6:28]	value
	The cause of the restructuring of the Australian economy towards a manufacturing basis was the Second World War.
[6:29]	circumstantial process
	The restructuring of the Australian economy towards a manufacturing basis resulted from the Second World War.

Blogger Comments:

[1] From the perspective of SFL theory, there are no conjunctive relations in any of these purported examples of logical metaphor.  Instead, these clause simplexes exemplify some of the experiential environments that 'construe expansion as a semantic system' (Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 597).

[2] This is a circumstantial identifying relational Process of cause: reason, not a material Process. The identity decodes the Second World War by reference to the restructuring of the Australian economy towards a manufacturing basis.

The Second World War	further	encouraged	the restructuring of the Australian economy towards a manufacturing basis
Token/Identified	Manner: degree	Process: relational: circumstantial	Value/Identifier

[3] The grammatical environment of cause as ideational metaphor is group rank (Thing), not clause rank (Value).

the	cause	of the restructuring of the Australian economy towards a manufacturing basis
Deictic	Thing	Qualifier

The cause [of the restructuring of the Australian economy towards a manufacturing basis]	was	the Second World War
Value/Identified	Process: relational: intensive	Token/Identifier

Misrepresenting Internal Conjunctive Relations

Martin (1992: 409):

Winter's (1977) Vocabulary 3 items include a large number of these metaphorical realisations of internal conjunctive relations.  Comparative and consequential relations are noted in the following list, reprinted from Chapter 5:

action	event	reason (consq)
cause (consq)	expect (consq)	result (consq)
compare (comp)	fact	situation
conclude (consq)	kind	solution (consq)
condition (consq)	manner (consq)	specify (comp)
contrast (comp)	point	thing
differ (comp)	problem	way (consq)

Blogger Comment:

From the perspective of SFL theory, these are not metaphorical realisations of internal conjunctive relations — though some (e.g. cause, condition, manner, reason, result, way) could serve as metaphorical realisations of types of expansion, as Thing and/or relational Process.

In SFL theory, internal conjunctive relations obtain through the deployment of expansion relations by the textual metafunction in creating cohesion.  Only temporal enhancement affords the possibility of internal cohesive relations.  Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 545):

Many temporal conjunctives have an 'internal' as well as an 'external' interpretation; that is, the time they refer to is the temporal unfolding of the discourse itself, not the temporal sequence of processes referred to.  In terms of the functional components of semantics, it is interpersonal not experiential time.

Misconstruing Ideational Metaphor

Martin (1992: 408):

Text [6:22] is further revised to highlight metaphorical internal conjunctions as [6:25] below.  Internal relations are realised four times as nouns (for a number of reasons, another example, as a final point, as a result of these factors) and once as a verb (to begin).

[6:25]	metaphorical internal conjunction
	a.	I think Governments are necessary at different levels for a number of reasons.
	b.	They make laws, without which people would be killing themselves,
	c.	and help keep our economic system in order.
	d.	To begin, the Federal Government fixes up problems that occur in the community.
	e.	Another example is that the State Government looks after schools,
	f.	preventing vandalism and fighting.
	g.	As a final point the Local Government is important to look after rubbish:
	h.	otherwise everyone would have diseases.
	i.	As a result of these factors, Governments at several administrative levels are necessary.

Blogger Comment:

From the perspective of SFL theory, of the five purported instances of internal conjunction, there are only two genuine instances (to begin 'firstly'; as a final point 'finally').

Of the three with no conjunctive relations, the first involves ideational metaphor: relator as Thing (reasons) within a circumstance of Cause: reason (for a number of reasons); the second involves anaphoric comparative reference (another); and the third involves anaphoric demonstrative reference (these) within a circumstance of Cause: reason (as a result of these factors).

The general confusion here — apart from misconstruing these as logical metaphors — is that of mistaking the textual manifestation of expansion in lexicogrammar, cohesive conjunction, for the semantic system of expansion — as explained in previous posts.

for	a number of reasons
minor Process	Range

a number of	reasons
Numerative	Thing

Another example	is	[[that the State Government looks after schools]]
Value/Identified	Process: relational	Token/Identifier

Another	example
Deictic (anaphoric comparative reference)	Thing

As a result of these factors	Governments at several administrative levels	are	necessary
Cause: reason	Carrier	Process: relational	Attribute

as a result of	these factors
minor Process	Range

these	factors
Deictic (anaphoric demonstrative reference)	Thing

Reducing Expansion To Conjunctive Relations

Martin (1992: 408):

Metaphorical realisations of conjunctive relations were discussed in detail in Chapter 4 above (Section 4.2.1) in connection with the diversified realisation of the discourse system.  A simplified outline of the scope of this diversification is outlined in Table 6.16.

Table 6.16. Congruent and metaphorical realisations of conjunction
Conjunctive relation:		consequential	temporal
congruent	cohesive conjunction	therefore	next
	paratactic conjunction	so	then
	hypotactic conjunction	because	before
metaphorical	phrasal Process	due to	on
	Process	cause	follow
	Thing	reason	sequel

Blogger Comments:

[1] As demonstrated in previous posts, Martin's discourse semantic system of conjunction, though construed as a logical system, confuses textual and logical deployments of the system of expansion. It also greatly underplays the pervasiveness and importance of expansion in the construal of experience.

In SFL theory, expansion, like projection, is a transgrammatical semantic domain, in the sense that it is manifested across a range of grammatical environments.  Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 597):

… the environments of manifestation can be differentiated in terms of

(i) metafunction — textual (conjunction), logical (interdependency; modification) and experiential (circumstantiation; process type: relational), and

(ii) rank — clause and group/phrase [and below]. …

Collectively they thus construe expansion as a semantic system.  This means that for any given type of expansion we want to express, we have at our disposal a range of resources.

[2] In SFL theory, the semantic element that construes relations of expansion is the relator. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 267-8) explain the reason why they are liable to appear as minor processes, processes, qualities and things:

Relators construe the highly generalised logico-semantic relations of expansion that join figures into sequences: elaborating, extending, enhancing. […] these relationships of expansion pervade very many regions of the semantic system: they are manifested in the organisation of figures of being, in the types of circumstantial element that occur within a figure, in the taxonomy of ‘things’, and elsewhere, as well as of course in their ‘home’ region of the construal of sequences, as links between one figure and another.  This led us to characterise the categories of expansion as "transphenomenal" and "fractal": transphenomenal in the sense that they re-appear across the spectrum of different types of phenomena construed by the ideational system; and fractal in the sense that they serve as general principles of the construal of experience, generating identical patterns of organisation of variable magnitude and in variable semantic environments.

It is these characteristics of relators that make them particularly liable to migrate: to be displaced metaphorically from their congruent status (as paratactic and hypotactic conjunctions) and to appear in other guises in other locations — as minor processes (in circumstantial elements), as processes, as qualities and as things.

[3] To be clear, this is a minor Process, an element of the experiential function structure of a prepositional phrase.