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.
