Misrepresenting Halliday & Hasan (1976)

Bateman (1998: 4):

This is not an isolated example. The two fragments (e) and (f) show the same pattern, where (e) again exhibits a structural relation within the grammar and (f) a nonstructural cohesive tie (this time of causal conjunction: Halliday and Hasan, 1976:256).

(e) Because the poem was appalling, Trillian frowned.
(f) The poem was appalling. Consequently Trillian frowned.

Here two semantic ‘messages’ (the ‘appallingness’ of the poem and Trillian’s frowning) are placed in a semantic relation of consequence: this may be realised either entirely within a single grammatical unit (e), or across distinct grammatical units (f).  In both cases a text is made coherent partially by virtue of the discourse semantic relation of consequence that they realise. The traditional cohesion account does not, therefore, emphasise what pairs such as these share, even though they might stand as possible alternatives in particular texts.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Here Bateman again repeats Martin's theoretical misunderstanding in contrasting grammar with cohesion.

[2] In SFL theory, the logico-semantic relation in (e) is 'cause: reason', whereas the logico-semantic relation in (f) is 'cause: result'.

More importantly, having used the commonality of the structural (logical) and non-structural (textual) deployments of logico-semantic relations as a reason for setting up a discourse semantic stratum, Martin ignores the commonality and sets up discourse semantic systems that are inconsistent with those of the grammar, as well as with the meanings of the relations themselves, as demonstrated in great detail here.  For example, Martin abandons the fundamental distinction of elaboration vs extension vs enhancement that can be found at different locations and scales across the theory.

[3] The term 'coherent' has a precise meaning in SFL theory, and it relates to the textual metafunction, not the logical.  See Hasan in Halliday & Hasan (1989: 72ff).

[4] As demonstrated in the previous post, this misrepresents Halliday & Hasan (1976: 227-8), who took great pains to demonstrate "what pairs such as these share".  Here Bateman uncritically accepts Martin's misrepresentation without consulting the source publication for dis/confirmation.