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

Martin (1992: 230-1):

[4:164] CONJUNCTION Ben left early.

                                 Yet he felt a little tired. 

            CONTINUITY    Ben has left;

                                 But Flo hasn't yet arrived.

Blogger Comment:

The function of yet here is interpersonal: a mood Adjunct of temporality, and so it does not mark a continuity relation with the previous message.

but	Flo	hasn‘t	yet	arrived
	Subject	Finite	mood Adjunct: temporality	Predicator
	Mood			Residue

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

Martin (1992: 230):

[4:163] CONJUNCTION The results are significant.

                                 Finally let me consider the question of applicability. 

            CONTINUITY    Ben trained for hours

                                 and by eleven he'd finally finished.

Blogger Comment:

The function of finally here is interpersonal: a mood Adjunct of temporality, and so it does not mark a logical relation with the previous clause in the clause complex.

and	by eleven	he	‘d	finally	finished
	circumstantial Adjunct	Subject	Finite	mood Adjunct: temporality	Predicator
	Resi-	Mood			-due

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

Martin (1992: 230):

[4:162] CONJUNCTION Ben is here.

                                 Still I wonder if Flo is coming. 

            CONTINUITY    Ben has left.

                                 But Flo is still here.

Blogger Comments:

[1] The function of still is ambiguous here.  It is conjunctive only if its meaning is similar to 'yet':

Ben is here.  Yet I wonder if Flo is coming.

still ('yet')	I	wonder
conjunctive Adjunct	Subject	Finite	Predicator
	Mood		Residue

However, if the clause is a textual agnate of:

Ben is here. I still wonder if Flo is coming.

I	still	wonder
Subject	mood Adjunct: temporality	Finite	Predicator
Mood			Residue

then still is functioning as a mood Adjunct of temporality (see Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 128), and does not mark a relation of conjunction with the previous message.

still	I	wonder
mood Adjunct: temporality	Subject	Finite	Predicator
Mood			Residue

[2] The function of still here is interpersonal: a mood Adjunct of temporality, and so it does not mark a logical (for Martin) relation of continuity.

but	Flo	is	still	here
	Subject	Finite	mood Adjunct: temporality	circumstantial Adjunct
	Mood			Residue

Conjunction, "Continuity" And Thematicity

Martin (1992: 230):

Unlike CONJUNCTION, which is typically realised as textual Theme in clause initial position, CONTINUITY is realised rhematically.  Since all CONTINUITY items except already can also function as conjunctions, this difference in realisation proves useful in focussing on the differences between the two systems.

Blogger Comments:

[1] When cohesive conjunction is marked by a conjunction, a structural element in the clause, it is obligatorily textual Theme.  On the other hand, while conjunctive Adjuncts, realised by adverbial groups or prepositional phrases, are characteristically thematic, they also occur elsewhere in the clause.  See Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 83).

[2] The neutral clause position of mood Adjuncts (Martin's 'continuity items') is just before or after the Finite, but they also occur before a thematic Subject, as interpersonal Theme, and at the end of the clause as Afterthought (Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 126).  Genuine markers of continuity, continuatives, occur as textual Themes.

[3] To be clear, 'conjunction' is a word class, not a function. Words of other classes do not function as conjunctions.

Misrepresenting Continuity

Martin (1992: 230):

Before turning to the question of conjunctive structures in text, an additional set of meanings, closely related to CONJUNCTION in certain respects, will be brought into the picture.  This system will be referred to as CONTINUITY and is realised through already, still, yet, anymore, any longer, finally, at last, only, just, even, also, as well, too, either and neither.

Blogger Comment:

In SFL theory, continuity is the cohesive system, within conjunction, that is realised by continuatives like yes, no, well, oh, now which 'signal a move in the discourse: a response, in dialogue' as related to a previous move, or 'a new move to the next point if the same speaker is continuing' (Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 81, 534).

It will be seen in coming posts that the adverbs listed above do not function logically (in Martin's terms), but interpersonally — as modal Adjuncts.  That is, what in SFL theory, is an interpersonal system, is construed here as the logical system of continuity — a system which in SFL theory, is a textual system (cohesion).

Misconstruing The Meaning Of Internal Conjunctive Relations

Martin (1992: 229-30):

With comparatives and concessives, internal relations are clearest when lines of argumentation are being compared, contrasted or conceded.  These relations often range retrospectively over a number of clauses in a text… .  Note that there is no single message in [4:161] which can be compared externally with Similarly, a plural object affects the status of the statement; it is the same point that is being made and this is what the internal relation is about:

INTERNAL COMPARATIVE
[4:161]  Now there are innumerable hand–to–hand fights going on with this fearsome loaf.  Plurals have a kind of imprecision that singulars do not.  Take

Bugner fights Ellis tonight.

Bugner and Ellis fight tonight.

In the first there must be a single action (the singular imposing unity on what could otherwise be regarded as many related action [sic]).  In the second they may be fighting different opponents, in different bouts, at different times, perhaps even in different continents. 

Similarly a plural object affects the status of the statement: Shirley fights seventeen three-bob loaves.

Blogger Comments:

This misrepresents the meaning of internal conjunctive relations as those between "lines of argumentation".

Internal relations are those that conjoin the interpersonal meanings of messages, and external relations are those that conjoin the experiential meaning of messages.  Here the conjunctive relation is clearly between the experiential meanings, as "it is the same point being made" acknowledges.

Misconstruing Structural Vs Cohesive As External Vs Internal

Martin (1992: 228-9):

With additives, one useful rule of thumb is to check whether the second of the messages involved in the relation is potentially "branched".  If so, the relation can be taken as external.  Thus [4:159] can be read as external, because of the missing Subject and Finite elements; there is no possibility of paratactic ellipsis of this kind in [4:160], which can accordingly be taken as internal (this reading is reinforced by the clause complex initial position of and).

EXTERNAL ADDITIVE (paratactic ellipsis)

[4:159]  Such assumptions are embedded in language, learnt through language, and  reinforced in language use. 

INTERNAL ADDITIVE (no branching possible)

[4:160]  Language fixes a world that is so much more stable and coherent than that we actually see that it takes its place in our consciousness and becomes what we think we have seen. 

And since normal perception works by constant feed-back, the gap between the real world and the actually constructed world is constantly being reduced, so that what we do 'see' tends to become what we can say.

Blogger Comments:

[1] The contrast being construed here as external vs internal additive relations is, in SFL theory, the contrast between a structural additive relation (logical metafunction) and a cohesive additive relation (textual metafunction).  The cohesive additive relation is not internal because it relates the experiential meanings realised by the clauses, not the interpersonal meanings.

[2] The clause complex initial position of the linker 'and' does not "reinforce" an internal reading of the additive relation. This is where structural conjunctions operate, even when functioning cohesively to mark a textual transition between two groups of messages.

Misrepresenting Internal Vs External Relations

Martin (1992: 228):

In spite of the usefulness of the paraphrase test to tease out incongruent realisations for internal connections, distinguishing internal from external additive, comparative and concessive relations can be difficult, since with these relations the difference between constructing text and constructing field is not always clear.

Blogger Comment:

The difference between internal and external relations is not the difference between constructing text and constructing field.

On the one hand, the contrast between internal and external conjunctive relations is a metafunctional contrast, interpersonal vs experiential, in the meanings being conjoined.

• Internal conjunction sets up an expansion relation between the interpersonal meanings, propositions and proposals, realised by the clauses, whereas 
• external conjunction sets up an expansion relation the experiential meanings, figures, realised by the clauses.

On the other hand, the contrast between constructing text and constructing field is the contrast between semogenesis and stratification.  'Constructing text' is logogenesis — language unfolding at the instance pole of the cline of instantiation — whereas 'field' is the ideational dimension of context — the culture as semiotic system — as realised by language.

Mistaking A Thematised Mood Adjunct Of Temporality For Internal Temporal Conjunction

Martin (1992: 224-5):

In addition the conjunction still is used to signal that non-contiguous information remains relevant (still resembles again in its ability to connect non-adjacent messages):

[4:151]  Don't you think that the transformation is really an inappropriate concept here.  I mean it implies directionality and change where in fact we're looking at texts generated once from a set of option [sic] in their context of culture. 

— Well, we don't mean to imply process or change.  It's just a way of showing the marked and unmarked forms of certain relations.  When we say the police killed the rioters is transformed into rioters shot, we're simply pointing out the ideological transformation that has taken place. 

— But still, you're implying that something has changed in the text.  In fact nothing has changed; though the text is agnate to others in the culture where the Agent is specified.  And surely no text is ideologically neutral.  All texts encode some ideology as you yourselves argue.  So is there really any need for a concept of markedness, however represented?

Blogger Comments:

[1] Trivially, still is an adverb, not a conjunction.

[2] Non-trivially, the adverb still is functioning here as a mood Adjunct of temporality (i.e. interpersonally), not as a conjunctive Adjunct (i.e. textually — Martin's logically), and so it does not mark a conjunctive relation of internal temporality.  It is the conjunction but that marks a conjunctive relation (adversative addition, not internal temporality).

The mood Adjunct functions textually in the clause as interpersonal Theme:

but	still	you	‘re	implying
conjunctive Adjunct	mood Adjunct: temporality	Subject	Finite	Predicator
textual	interpersonal	topical	Rheme
Theme

Cf  But you're still implying that something has changed in the text.

but	you	‘re	still	implying
conjunctive Adjunct	Subject	Finite	mood Adjunct: temporality	Predicator
textual	topical	Rheme
Theme

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 127):

Mood Adjuncts of temporality relate to interpersonal (deictic) time… .  They relate either (i) to the time itself, which may be near or remote, past or future, relative to the speaker-now; or (ii) to an expectation, positive or negative, with regard to the time at issue.