On "The Continuity Between Structural And Non-Structural Resources" As Exemplifying "The Boundaries Of Grammatical Description"

Bateman (1998: 3-4):

For Halliday and Hasan, then, cohesive ties are present whenever one linguistic element is interpreted by reference to another, regardless of distance and structural relationship. But this, as Martin points out, “fails to bring out the continuity between the structural ... and non-structural ... resources.’’ [p19] Both (c) and (d), for example, appear to share that aspect of their textuality concerned with the temporal relation expressed.

(c) As soon as the Vogon began his poem, Ford yawned.

(d) The Vogon began his poem. Immediately Ford yawned.

However, (c) is an example of grammatical dependency (taxis within a single grammatical clause complex), whereas (d) illustrates a nonstructural, nongrammatical relationship between two sentences (a cohesive tie).

Blogger Comments:

[1] Here Bateman follows Martin in misrepresenting Halliday & Hasan, who are explicit about the "continuity" between these structural and non-structural resources. Halliday & Hasan (1976: 227):

There is a range of different structural guises in which the relations that we are here calling CONJUNCTIVE may appear. These relations constitute a highly generalised component within the semantic system, with reflexes spread throughout the language, taking various forms; and their cohesive potential derives from this source. Because they represent very general relations that may be associated with different threads of meaning at different places in the fabric of language, it follows that when they are expressed on their own, unaccompanied by other explicit connecting factors, they have a highly cohesive effect.

Halliday & Hasan (1976: 227-8) even use a temporal relation to exemplify this:

Let us take as an example the relation already mentioned above, that of succession in time. This appears in many different realisations, according to the other semantic patterns with which it is associated. It may first of all, be embodied in a predication, as in [5:1a]; here the verb follow means 'occur subsequently in time'. Note that the same relation can be expressed, still as a predication but with the terms reversed, by making the verb passive, or using a different verb precede. Secondly, the relation of succession in time can he expressed as a minor predication; that is, it may be realised prepositionally, as in [5:1b]. Again the relationship could be viewed from either direction, with before instead of after. 

Thirdly, time sequence may be expressed as a relationship between predications, with one clause being shown as dependent on another by means of a conjunction as in [5:1c]; sometimes, but not in all instances, the same words may occur both as conjunction and as preposition. Finally, in [5:1d], we have two separate sentences. Here there is no structural relationship at all; but the two parts are still linked by the same logical relations of succession in time.

[5:1]  a. A snowstorm followed the battle. (The battle was followed by a snowstorm.)

         b. After the battle. there was a snowstorm.

         c. After they had fought a battle, it snowed.

         d. They fought a battle. Afterwards, it snowed.

Contrast the following: 

[5:1) a'. A snowstorm preceded the battle.

        b'. Before the battle, there had been a snowstorm.

        c'. Before they fought a battle, it had snowed.

        d'. They fought a battle. Previously, it had snowed.

In (d) and (d'), the relation of sequence in time is expressed by an adverb, functioning as Adjunct, and occurring initially in the second sentence. Here the time relation is now the only explicit form of connection between the two events, which in the other examples are linked also by various structural relationships. The time sequence has now become a cohesive agent, and it is this, the semantic relation in its cohesive function, that we are referring to as CONJUNCTION.

Moreover, it will be seen later — as demonstrated elsewhere — that Martin misunderstands and misapplies expansion relations, both, in the analysis of textual cohesion (conjunction), and in the analysis of logical relations between clauses, and in doing so, creates "discontinuities" out of the "continuities" in the theorising of Halliday & Hasan.

[2] Here Bateman repeats Martin's misunderstanding in distinguishing cohesion from grammar.  In SFL theory, cohesion is the non-structural resource of the textual metafunction, and there are two broad types: grammatical and lexical.  The cohesion in (d) is grammatical (conjunction).