Misapplying Logical Nesting To Textual Relations

Martin (1992: 238):

The point is that "nesting" is a feature of conjunctive relations whether they are expressed through a clause complex structure or not.

Blogger Comment:

In SFL theory, nesting, or internal bracketing, occurs in logical structures whenever there is a change in taxis or in logico-semantic relation (Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 382).  Cohesive conjunction, on the other hand, is a non-structural resource of the textual metafunction.

Misconstruing An Implicit Conjunctive Relation As Internal

Martin (1992: 237):

A text with a simultaneous internal and external structure, including an implicit internal consequential is illustrated below.

[4:187] a.  Ben was unlucky.

            b.  He had to take steroids for his injured hamstring

            c.  and then they introduced more sophisticated tests.

Blogger Comment:

By the SFL definition of the term — see previous posts — there are no internal relations in this example.  

In SFL theory, the logical relation in the clause complex (b. c.) is enhancement: temporal: later (rebranded as 'successive'), and the textual (cohesive conjunction) relation between the message (a.) and the message group (b. c.) is implicit enhancement: cause: reason (rebranded as 'consequential').

With regard to implicit conjunction, in general, Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 549) recommend:

It is perhaps as well, therefore, to be cautious in assigning implicit conjunction in the interpretation of a text.  It is likely that there will always be other forms of cohesion present, and that these are the main source of our intuition that there is a pattern of conjunctive relationships as well.

Misconstruing Parataxis As Addition (Extension)

Martin (1992: 236):

Additives are treated in this way to simplify the representation since they often combine with other external relations (e.g. and so, and then, and thus etc.) and are extremely frequent in certain modes.

Blogger Comment:

In such cases, the expansion relation is determined by the second conjunction: so, then, thus.  When functioning structurally (logically), rather than cohesively (textually), the and only marks the paratactic interdependency of clauses in a nexus.  Both examples given (237, 239) are of paratactic enhancement — temporal and cause— with no additive (extension) relation:

He had to take steroids for his injured hamstring	and then they introduced more sophisticated tests
1	x 2 (temporal)

On top of all that he won his race	and so had to be tested
1	x 2 (cause: result)

The Omission Of Projection And Hypotactic Elaboration From The Logic Of Discourse Semantics

Martin (1992: 235):

The Hartford school modelled conjunctive relations between actions, more or less equivalent to the TRANSITIVITY function Process in systemic theory.  Since TRANSITIVITY relations are treated as part of lexicogrammar in the model developed here, an appropriate discourse semantics unit needs to be found.  The unit message will be adopted here, where this is realised as a ranking clause that is neither a projection, nor a hypotactically dependent elaborating clause.  This means that locutions and ideas, elaborating beta clauses and all embedded clauses will be treated as part of messages rather than as conjunctively related units in their own right.

Blogger Comments:

[1] In SFL theory, transitivity is a system of the experiential metafunction.  A consistent discourse semantics unit with 'transitivity relations' would therefore be an experiential unit.  Here, however, it is a logical discourse semantics unit that is deemed 'appropriate'.  In the grammar, it is the rank units (forms) that are logically related in complexes.

[2] In SFL theory, the term 'message' is already used for a unit of the textual metafunction on the semantic stratum, and it is (groups of) messages that are conjoined by cohesive conjunction.  Here it is used for units related by conjunction, but, as conjunction is misconstrued as logical and structural, it is misconstrued as a unit of logical structure.  That is, although textual meaning has been misconstrued here as logical, the textual term has been retained, thereby creating a further theoretical inconsistency — cf 'clause as message', the thematic (textual) structure of the clause.

[3] In SFL theory, there are two major types of logical relations: expansion and projection.  The second of these major types, projection, is thus not included as a logical relation at the level of discourse semantics.

Similarly, within expansion, there are three major types: elaboration, extension and enhancement.  The first of these major types, elaboration, is thus not included as a logical relation at the level of discourse semantics — if the interdependency relation is hypotactic.

Excluding both major logical relations has serious ramifications for considerations of the distinction between congruent and incongruent stratal relations in determining grammatical metaphor.

The absence of projection follows from the rebranding of cohesive conjunction, which is the deployment of (only) expansion relations by the textual metafunction at the stratum of lexicogrammar, as the logical dimension of a higher stratum: discourse semantics.

On the other hand, in the discourse semantic model, types of elaboration are variously misconstrued as types of extension or enhancement, as demonstrated in earlier posts.

Misconstruing A Circumstantial Adjunct As A Continuity Item

Martin (1992: 233-4):

Again is used to mark the recurrence of a Process · Medium nucleus at a later date:

[4:180] Ben beat Carl in Rome
            and Carl lost again in Seoul. 

Blogger Comment:

In SFL theory, again may function as a conjunctive Adjunct or as a circumstantial Adjunct (Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 133).  Here it functions experientially, identifying a temporal Location ('at a later time').

Ben	beat	Carl	in Rome
Agent	Process	Medium	Location: place
	Nucleus

and	Carl	lost	again	in Seoul
	Medium	Process	Location: time	Location: place
	Nucleus

Misconstruing Residue Substitution As Continuity

Martin (1992: 233):

The use of so and too to hold the Residue constant underlies their function in polarity focussed arguments such as the following where they resemble the clause substitutes not and so; so and too are always tonic in this function (tonic syllable in bold face):

[4:178] Ben won really.
            — // He did not. //
            — // He did so. //
            — // He didn't. //
            — // He did too. //

Blogger Comments:

[1] As demonstrated in previous posts, 'holding the Residue constant' is not the function of either too functioning as a conjunctive Adjunct or so functioning cohesively as substitute for Predicator and Complement.

[2] In SFL theory, not, so and too don't just resemble cohesive substitutes, that is their function in the example provided.  Substitution of the Residue occurs with positive polarity, whereas ellipsis of the Residue occurs with negative polarity.

Ben	won		really
Subject	Finite	Predicator	comment Adjunct: speech-functional: unqualified: factual
Mood		Residue

He	did not	Ø
Subject	Finite	Predicator	comment Adjunct: speech-functional: unqualified: factual
Mood		Residue

He	did	so
Subject	Finite	Predicator	comment Adjunct: speech-functional: unqualified: factual
Mood		Residue

He	didn’t	Ø
Subject	Finite	Predicator	comment Adjunct: speech-functional: unqualified: factual
Mood		Residue

He	did	too
Subject	Finite	Predicator	comment Adjunct: speech-functional: unqualified: factual
Mood		Residue