Why The Argument For A Discourse Semantics Of Logical Relations Is Invalid

Martin (1992: 162-3):

The following clauses in particular do not make use of clause complex resources to encode causal or temporal relations:

That's because it's a low dog.

That is so the judge can get the hind movement of your dog.

After that he usually tells you…

He proceeds to do that with every dog.

Each of these uses a combination of IDENTIFICATION and TRANSITIVITY to make the necessary logical connections between parts of the text.  The first two are causal and involve text reference; anaphoric that functions as Carrier in an attributive relational clause with cause and purpose clauses embedded in the Attribute. …

The temporal examples also make use of that, but in the context of extended rather than text reference.  In After that, that functions as part of a Circumstance of Location in time, with the temporal connection coded as a preposition.  In the last example, that functions as a Range for the general process do and temporal succession is coded through the process proceed.

Blogger Comments:

[1] The reason why the clauses 'do not make use of clause complex resources to encode causal or temporal relations' is that they are not clause complexes.  Of the four clauses, only one actually realises any causal or temporal relation — non-structurally through conjunctive cohesion — as will be demonstrated below.

[2] In SFL theory, the first two clauses are related cohesively to their respective previous text through anaphoric demonstrative reference marked by that.  Neither clause realises a causal relation to the preceding text.  Instead, in the first, an attributive reason is ascribed, via the reference item, to a referent:

that	’s	[[because it’s a low dog]]
Carrier reference: demonstrative: anaphoric	Process: relational	Attribute: reason because it ’s a low dog Carrier Process: relational Attribute

and in the second, a mental purpose is ascribed, via the reference item, to a referent:

that	is	[[so the judge can get the hind movement of your dog]]
Carrier reference: demonstrative: anaphoric	Process: relational	Attribute: purpose so the judge can get the hind movement of your dog Senser Process: mental Phenomenon

[3] Contrary to the claim, the second "temporal" example does indeed make use of "text" reference (anaphoric demonstrative), and on Martin's analysis of the first example, it does as well (but see point [4] below).

[4] In SFL theory, after that functions as a conjunctive Adjunct, rather than a circumstantial Adjunct, and functions cohesively to mark a temporal conjunctive relation with a previous message.

after that	he	usually	tells		you
conjunctive Adjunct	Subject	mood Adjunct: modality	Finite	Predicator	Complement

[5] This confuses temporal relations between messages with the time-phase elaboration of a Process.  See Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 499-501).

he	proceeds to do	that	with every dog
Actor	Process: material proceeds to do a =b	Goal reference: demonstrative: anaphoric	Accompaniment

[6] The Process is realised by the elaborating verbal group complex proceeds to do.

Postscript: 

These clause simplex examples are presented as the motivation for theorising a discourse semantics of logical relations (p163), and it is later (p262) claimed that these examples 

cause problems for the clause complex analysis, in spite of the fact that Halliday's system was specifically designed to handle the dynamics of clause combining.