Confusing Textual Clarification With The Enactment Of Meaning

Martin (1992: 212-3):

Reformulation introduced by in fact, actually, at least, indeed and so on carry the implication that the original formulation was not quite right; it needs more than rephrasing in other words — it has to be adjusted to tune in accurately to the meaning being made.  The difference between at least and indeed has to do whether the reformulation is toned up or down.  In [4:123] the first formulation is something of an overstatement and needs to be played down; in [4:124] on the other hand the first formulation understates and needs to be amplified:

REFORMULATION:ADJUST…DIMINISH

[4:123]  The way in which Liz addresses Mary is also significant: she feels perfectly free to use her first name, whereas Mary does not once use Liz's name.

At least Mary does not use Liz's name when actually addressing her.  She does use it once when quoting something an [sic] former client had told her about Mary. 

REFORMULATION:ADJUST…AUGMENT

[4:124]  The way in which Liz addresses Mary is also significant: she feels perfectly free to use her first name, whereas Mary does not once use Liz's name.

Indeed Mary does not address Liz at all, by name or otherwise.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This again construes clarifying elaboration (Martin's 'reformulation') as a repair strategy.

[2] As the wordings 'toned up or down', 'needs to be played down' and 'needs to be amplified' suggest, the metafunctional perspective being taken here is interpersonal, rather than textual (Martin's logical).  Attention has shifted from the type of relation between the messages to the enactment of meaning.

[3] In SFL theory, the conjunctive relation here is corrective clarification, a type of elaboration within the textual metafunction (see Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 542).  Here it is relocated to within similarity — i.e. comparison, a type of enhancement within the logical metafunction.

[4] In SFL theory, the conjunctive relation here is verifactive clarification, a type of elaboration (see Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 542).  Here it is relocated to within similarity — i.e. comparison, a type of enhancement.

The "amplification" here — which is interpersonal — arises from the likely realisation of indeed as a tone5 tonic, giving it the KEY of 'insistent statement' (see Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 142).


Conclusion: In terms of SFL theory, the discourse semantic logical opposition of diminish vs augment reformulation is the textual opposition of corrective vs verifactive clarification.

Misconstruing Summative Clarification (Elaboration) As Comparison (Enhancement)

Martin (1992: 211-2):

The final reformulation option to be noted has to do with the summative generalisation realised through in short, in brief, in summary, to sum up and so on.  This relation ranges retrospectively across an accumulation of more specific meanings which are brought together by way of summary.

REFORMULATION:REWORK:GENERALITY:GLOBAL

[4:122] The riot began shows that riot is a process term, even though it is in nominal form. Similarly, the violence ended suddenly marks violence as a process term even though it has no corresponding verb form. [cf 'violate'] 

In short, several colligations in the text show that many nominals are encoding actions, not things.

Blogger Comment:

In SFL theory, this conjunctive relation is classified as summative clarification, a type of elaboration (see Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 542).   Here it has been relocated to similarity — i.e. comparison, a type of enhancement.

Misconstruing A Modal Adjunct As A Conjunctive Adjunct

Martin (1992: 210, 211):

Unlike intensive attributive clause relations, internal reformulation can work either from particular to general as in [4:119] above or from general to particular as in [4:121] (intensive attributive clauses can only assign subclasses to classes; it is for this reason that possessive relationals are so commonly used in science to subclassify — Mammals include monotremes, marsupials and placentals) and has distinct conjunctions for moving in one direction or the other.

REFORMULATION:REWORK:GENERALITY…GENERALISE

[4:119] The riot began shows that riot is a process term, even though it is in nominal form. 

In general, nominals which function as Mediums for processes which characterise them as having beginnings and ends are in fact realising actions.

REFORMULATION:REWORK:GENERALITY…PARTICULARISE

[4:121] The text has a number of actions encoded as nouns which colligation clearly shows to be actions. 

In particular, certain of these occur as Mediums with verbs indicating they have a beginning and end, which concepts apply only to actions.

Blogger Comments:

[1] In SFL theory, in general functions interpersonally as a modal Adjunct, not textually as a conjunctive Adjunct (see Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 82, 125).  It is therefore not conjunctive in function.  (The asymmetry of the analogy, attributive relational clauses, might have served as a warning.)

[2] In SFL theory, the conjunctive relation of particularising is a type of clarification within elaboration (see Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 542).  Here it is relocated within similarity — i.e. comparison a type of enhancement.

[3]  Intensive attributive clauses construe class membership: both delicacy (hyponymy) and instantiation (token/instance/specimen to type).  See Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 144-5).

Misconstruing Apposition (Elaboration) As Comparison (Enhancement)

Martin (1992: 211):

Within the "identifying" mode, both relational clauses and internal conjunction make a distinction between "exhaustive" and "exemplificatory" (i.e. non-exhaustive) manifestation.  In this respect [4:115] contrasts with [4:120].

REFORMULATION [:REWORK:ABSTRACTION:EXHAUSTIVE]

[4:115] The riot began shows that riot is a process term, even though it is in nominal form. 

That is, the fact that riot is a noun does not mean that it cannot represent an action as its colligation with began shows.

REFORMULATION:REWORK:ABSTRACTION:EXEMPLIFY

[4:120] When a clause shows that an idea encoded as a noun has a temporal beginning and end, this stands as evidence that the "idea" is an action. 

For example, certain of these occur as Mediums with verbs indicating they have a beginning and end, which concepts apply only to actions.

Blogger Comments:

In SFL theory, the opposition in conjunctive relations here is between two main types of apposition within elaboration: expository ('that is') and exemplifying ('for example'). Here Martin has relocated them at several degrees of delicacy within similarity — i.e. comparison, a type of enhancement.

Confusing (Elaborating) Conjunctive Relations With (Elaborating) Relational Processes

Martin (1992: 210, 211):

Reworking to clarify takes a number of different forms. There are two basic strategies. One is to shift the level of abstraction at which the meanings are formulated; the other is to shift generality. … 

This is in effect the distinction between identification (Token Value) and attribution (Carrier Attribute) in intensive relational clauses.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This confuses the experiential meaning of the messages being cohesively conjoined with the conjunctive relation between them.

[2] The connection between clarifying conjunction and intensive relational processes is that both are manifestations of the transphenomenal fractal type: elaboration.

However, in Martin's model, clarifying conjunction is classified under similarity — i.e. comparison, which in terms of the fractal types, is a subtype of enhancement.

Such an inconsistency is a serious violation of the principle of parsimony in theorising.

Misconstruing Types Of Elaboration As Types Of Enhancement

Martin (1992: 209-10):

With [reformulation], the basic distinction is between reworking a meaning in order to clarify it and adjusting it to get it right.  This is the opposition between [4:115] above (repeated below) and [4:118].  In [4:115] that is does not imply that anything was wrong with the first formulation; its experiential meaning is simply restated by way of clarification.  In [4:118] on the other hand in fact does imply that something was not quite right the first time round; in this example the implication is that the first formulation was not strong enough.

REFORMULATION:REWORK:ABSTRACTION:EXHAUST

[4:115] The riot began shows that riot is a process term, even though it is in nominal form.

That is, the fact that riot is a noun does not mean that it cannot represent an action as its colligation with began shows. 

REFORMULATION:ADJUST

[4:118] The riot began shows that riot is a process term, even though it is in nominal form.

In fact, riot would have to be classified lexically as an action word.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This misconstrues the conjunctive relation of expository apposition ('that is'), which is a type of elaboration, as a subtype of similarity — i.e. comparison, a type of enhancement — despite being interpreted as clarification, another type of elaboration.

[2] This misconstrues the conjunctive relation of verificative clarification ('in fact'), which is a type of elaboration, as a subtype of similarity — i.e. comparison, a type of enhancement.  The meaning of (what is) clarification — 'to be precise' — is interpreted as a repair strategy 'adjusting it to get it right'.

Summary:  In SFL theory, the conjunctive contrast exemplified here is between two types of elaboration: expository apposition ('that is') and verificative clarification ('in fact').

Misconstruing Cohesive As Internal

Martin (1992: 209):

Internal and external comparison are not always easy to separate.  Text [4:116] above for example does have an external reading in which phasing processes like began and ended are argued to unveil metaphorical processes in the same way.  The following example is more clearly internal; the comparison is between two lines of argument and interpretation, not between experiential meanings:

[4:117] Thirdly there is the question of the relation of language to culture, on which we have little information in the reports on the north-west Amazon referred to above, but on which we can make some safe guesses.  For instance, it would be surprising if any of the languages concerned lacked a word for 'long house' or 'tribe', and we might reasonably expect a word for 'phratry' (though such higher-level concepts often lack names. 

Similarly, we may predict that most concepts relevant to the culture will have words in each language to express them, and that most words in each language will express cultural concepts, definable only in terms of the culture concerned.  (Hudson, 1980: 10)

Blogger Comments:

[1] The comparison relation in [4:116] — see earlier post — is cohesive but not internal.  The fact that it conjoins messages non-structurally, makes it cohesive.  In order to be an internal relation, it would have to be internal to the 'speech' event itself, as in the case of internal temporal conjunction marked by such items as firstly, secondly, thirdly.

[2] The comparison relation in [4:117] is again cohesive but not internal.  See [1] above.

[3] The opposition of 'between two lines of argument' versus 'between experiential meanings' is nonsensical.  In terms of conjunctive relations, the text begins with an internal temporal (enhancing) relation, marked by Thirdly, then makes a textual transition through an exemplifying apposition (elaborating) relation, marked by For instance, and finally makes a textual transition through manner: comparison (enhancing) relation, marked by Similarly.

The positive comparison is thus with the messages that exemplify the third point being made by the author Hudson.

Misconstruing 'Elaboration: Clarification' As 'Similarity: Reformulation'

Martin (1992: 208-9):

Invoking the conduit metaphor (pace Reddy 1979), one might argue that [reformulation] is about different ways of saying the same thing, while [comparison] is about similarities between ways of saying different things.  But since reformulations are not in any useful sense "synonymous", this formulation is somewhat misleading (as ever when content and form are dualised in functional linguistics).  It would be better to say that with [reformulation], the first formulation and the second have almost all their meaning in common; a little fine tuning is all that's required.  With [comparison] on the other hand, the meanings compared are different; but the way in which they are presented is in some respect the same… .

Blogger Comments:

[1] 'The conduit metaphor […] operates whenever people speak or write as if they "insert" their mental contents (feelings, meanings, thoughts, concepts, etc.) into "containers" (words, phrases, sentences, etc.) whose contents are then "extracted" by listeners and readers. Thus, language is viewed as a "conduit" conveying mental content between people.' [source]

[2] In SFL theory, content is "dualised" into the strata of semantics (meaning) and lexicogrammar (wording), and the latter into function and form (higher rank functions realised by lower rank forms).

[3] In SFL theory, conjunctive relations of this type are categorised as elaboration: clarification. The example previously given for reformulation (see yesterday's post), in contrast, involves elaboration: apposition.

[4] In SFL theory, the meaning of manner: comparison is simply N is like M.

Misconstruing 'Elaboration: Apposition' As 'Similarity: Reformulation'

Martin (1992: 208):

Internal similarity will be developed first. […] These can be usefully divided into two main groups […] according to whether they mark the fact that the text is reformulating meaning in order to clarify what is meant, or whether they signal that something is the same about the way in which distinct meanings are being organised.  This is the contrast between that is and similarly in [4:115] and [4:116] below. 

REFORMULATION

[4:115] The riot began shows that riot is a process term, even though it is in nominal form.

That is, the fact that riot is a noun does not mean that it cannot represent an action as its colligation with began shows. 

COMPARISON

[4:116] The riot began shows that riot is a process term, even though it is in nominal form.

Similarly, the violence ended suddenly marks violence as a process term even though it has no corresponding verb form (Trew 1979: 123).

Blogger Comments:

[1] Neither of these examples involves internal conjunctive relations.  (The reasons are provided in previous critiques.)

[2] This confuses the enhancement category of similarity (N is like M) for the elaboration category of apposition: exposition (P i.e. Q).

[3] In SFL theory, the conjunctive relation of clarification contrasts with apposition, within the major expansion type: elaboration.

[4] Note that, hyponymically, comparison is presented here as a subtype of — more delicate than — similarity.  (If similarity, then either comparison or reformulation.)  This is the reverse of the logically coherent relation: if comparison, then either similarity or difference.

Conclusion: the contrast being presented as two subtypes of (internal) similarity — reformulation and comparison — is actually, in SFL theory, the contrast between elaboration: apposition: expository and enhancement: manner: comparison.

Confusing Internal With Cohesive, Similar With Elaboration, Different With Adversative

Martin (1992: 207-8):

Internal comparative relations are a resource for organising meanings with respect to similarity and difference.  The comparison involved is a textual one; it is not oriented to how meanings are alike or unlike with respect to field.  One way to see this is to take the same experiential meaning and recast it internally as in [4:113] and [4:114] below.  In [4:113] a text is developed in which Dr. Metherell's conservative politics are presented in opposition to his interest in 'reforming' education — the text is organised to challenge the idea that conservatives don't in fact turn back the clock.  In [4:114] on the other hand a text is presented in which Dr. Metherell's reforms are presented as an elaboration of his conservative nature — the text takes it for granted that reactionary Ministers of Education will undo liberal reforms.

INTERNAL SIMILARITY (sic)
[4:113] Dr. Metherell's a conservative;
             he wants to preserve the status quo.

             On the other hand he does want education to change,
             and his approach has alienated many parents and teachers.

INTERNAL DIFFERENCE (sic)
[4:114] Dr. Metherell's a conservative;
             he wants to preserve the status quo.  

             That is, he does want education to change,
             and his approach has alienated many parents and teachers.

The internal conjunction in these two texts codes different ideologies — different attitudes to what conservative governments do; but as far as external relations are concerned, what Dr. Metherell is up to experientially in the two texts remains the same.

Blogger Comments:

(Presumably the terms SIMILARITY and DIFFERENCE were intended to be in reverse order.)

In terms of SFL theory, the conjunctive relations demonstrated here are neither internal nor comparative.  In terms of conjunctive cohesion:

[4:113] is extension: addition: adversative
[4:114] is elaboration: apposition: expository.

[1] This is a definition of cohesive conjunction in general, not internal conjunction in particular.  External conjunctive relations involve textual relations between 'external phenomena', whereas internal conjunctive relations involve textual relations that are internal to the communication situation itself.  See previous critiques here and here.

[2] This confuses difference (means: comparison) with adversative (extension: addition), as the term 'opposition' suggests.

[3] This confuses similar (means: comparison) with expository (elaboration: apposition), as the term 'elaboration' suggests.

In terms of cohesion, the lexical antonymy of status quo and change is inconsistent with the conjunctive elaboration.

[4] Cohesive conjunction does not 'code ideology' — it deploys the categories of expansion as a non-structural text-forming resource.

Confusing Negative Addition With Negative Polarity

Martin (1992: 205-6):

External additive relations, like external comparative ones, form a small resource compared with temporals or consequentials.  The basic distinction is between addition and alternation.  With addition, there is a positive/negative system opposing and to nor, in spite of morphological appearances which make it look like a negative realisation of or (Our Corgi didn't win nor did the Dachshund means that 'the Corgi didn't win and that the Dachshund didn't either').  All additive relations have correlative paratactic realisations [both…and, neither…nor, either…or].

[4:105] [addition:positive]
             a.  Our Dachshund performed well.  And she looked splendid on the day.
             b.  Besides performing well our Dachshund looked splendid on the day.
             c.  – 

[4:106] [addition:negative]
             a.  She didn't move at all well in the ring.  Nor did she stand still when tabled.
             b.  Alongside not moving well in the ring, she didn't stand still when tabled.
             c.  – 

[4:107] [alternation]
             a.  You could go down to Melbourne.  Or you could go in the Easter Show.
             b.  If you don't go down to Melbourne, you could go in the Easter Show.
             c.  –

Blogger Comments:

[1] In SFL theory, addition, alternation and variation are the three main categories of extension relations between clauses.  In contrast, in Martin's model:

1. both addition and alternation are subsumed under the category additive, 
2. variation subtypes are construed as subcategories of adversative, and 
3. adversative — a subcategory of addition in SFL — is construed as a subcategory of comparison — a subcategory of the enhancement category manner in SFL.

Halliday & Matthiessen			Martin
extension	alternation		alternation	additive
	addition	additive: positive	addition: positive
		additive: negative	addition: negative
		adversative*
	variation	replacive	replacement	adversative	comparison
		subtractive	exception

[2] The logical relation here is positive, not negative addition — hypotactic negative addition does not occur in English.  The negation here is realised as polarity in verbal groups, not as a logical relation between clauses.

Using Clause Simplexes To Theorise Conjunctive Relations

Martin (1992: 204):

There are two variations on [similarity], one conditional and one temporal, where apparently hypotactically dependent clauses cannot appear initially in the clause complex:

SIMILARITY (conditional)

[4:99]  Ben looked

            as if he'd just won the Best of Show. 

SIMILARITY (temporal)

[4:100] Ben looked

            like when he won Best of Show.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Neither of these is a clause complex; each is an attributive clause.  If Ben looked were a clause, it would be one without an Attribute.

In the first, an embedded clause serves as Attribute:

Ben	looked	[[as if he'd just won the Best of Show]]
Carrier	Process: attributive	Attribute/Manner: comparison

In the second, an embedded clause complex (with Mood ellipsis) serves as Attribute:

Ben	looked	[[like (he did) || when he won Best of Show]]
Carrier	Process: attributive	Attribute /Manner: comparison

[2] Both Attributes construe comparison (as if, like).

Misconstruing Subtractive And Replacive Variation (Extension) As Subtypes Of Comparison (Enhancement)

Martin (1992: 204):

In addition to the kind of contrast illustrated in [4:95], there are replacement and exception categories to consider.  With replacives (e.g. instead of, in place of) the blurry line between contrast and alternation discussed in 4.2.2 above is hardest to draw:

EXCEPTION

[4:97]  We had a good day

            except for losing the Best of Show award. 

REPLACEMENT

[4:98]  We won Best of Show

            instead of missing out as usual.

Blogger Comments:

[1] In SFL theory, the logical relation in [4:97] is extension: variation: subtractive ('except').  Its meaning is X but not all X.

[2] In SFL theory, the logical relation in [4:98] is extension: variation: replacive ('instead').  Its meaning is not X but Y.

The basic opposition that is proposed for contrast within 'external comparison' (enhancement) is thus actually between subtractive variation (extension) and replacive variation (extension).

Note that the entry condition to this opposition, 'contrast', corresponds in SFL theory to a subtype of addition (adversative), which opposes variation and alternation within extension.

[3] The logical meaning of alternation is X or Y; the logical meaning of 'contrast' (adversative addition) is X and conversely Y.

Misconstruing Adversative Addition (Extension) As Manner: Comparison (Enhancement)

Martin (1992: 203):

The external comparison network is a small one; the basic opposition is between [contrast] and [similarity]:

CONTRAST

[4:95]  Whereas usually we win

            this time we lost. 

SIMILARITY

[4:96]  As usually happens

            we won.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This confuses the notion of contrast (A in contrast to B) with the notion of dissimilarity (A is unlike B).

[2] In SFL theory, the logical relation in [4:95] is extension: addition: adversative ('but').  Its meaning is X and conversely Y: usually we win and conversely (but) this time we lost.  (The logical relation in [4:96] is manner: comparison — N is like M).

The basic opposition that is proposed for 'external comparison' (enhancement) is thus, in SFL terms, between adversative addition (extension) and manner: comparison (enhancement).

The Argument For Comparison As A Major Logical Category

Martin (1992: 203):

Taking into account these textual patterns and the fact that a similar/different opposition is basic to all other discourse semantic systems, comparison will be set up as a major category of conjunctive relation here.  The congruence of the like/unlike opposition across discourse systems is shown below. 

Table 4.11 Contrast and similarity across discourse semantic systems
	“LIKE”	“UNLIKE”
CONJUNCTION	similarity	contrast
IDENTIFICATION	semblance	difference
IDEATION	synonymy	antonymy
NEGOTIATION (Halliday 1985: 69)	accept undertake acknowledge answer	reject refuse contradict disclaim

Blogger Comment:

[1] As demonstrated in previous critiques, the analysis of 'these textual patterns' is compromised by the logical error of confusing different/unlike with contrastive/adversative.

[2] The opposition of similar/different and of like/unlike demonstrates the semantic distinction between adversative (opposition) and dissimilar (different/unlike) — dissimilar is one of the elements in opposition.

[3] Difference is the basis of semiosis itself, not just discourse semantic systems.  Similarity is the basis of agnation, including metaphorical agnation.

Conclusion:  The argument for setting up comparison as a major category of conjunctive relations rests on two misunderstandings:

1. confusing enhancement: manner: comparison with extension: addition: adversative, and
2. presenting a fundamental feature of all semiosis as specific to discourse semantic systems.