On Martin's Assessment Of Rhetorical Structure Theory

Bateman (1998: 15):

Finally, Martin also carries out here a detailed comparison of conjunctive relations and Mann and Thompson’s (RST: 1988) Rhetorical Structure Theory, one of the most widely used approaches currently taken to the analysis of extended texts. Martin comes to the conclusion that RST treats text as a finished product, whereas his own conjunctive relation approach emphasises more the dynamic, unfolding nature of text. He therefore predicts that RST might be more appropriate when the mode of a text is written, whereas conjunctive relations might favour spoken language [p264]; although there do appear to be some general properties of texts that RST-type structures do not as yet handle.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Martin's assessment of Rhetorical Structure Theory does not survive close scrutiny, as demonstrated by the clarifying critiques at Criticising Others For Not Making The Same Mistakes.

[2] To be clear, Martin's conclusion is based on his own theoretical misunderstandings; see the clarifying critiques at Confusing Textual Relations With Logogenesis and Confusing Semantic Relations With Logogenesis.

Misrepresenting Martin's Conjunction In A Favourable Light

Bateman (1998: 15):

In the detailed description of the networks for each area, the individual relations introduced are each illustrated with substantial examples, together with a battery of tests for distinguishing between internal and external readings. Several extended texts are also presented as examples of analysis within the framework. The networks themselves usually contain several examples of the kind of lexical conjunction that would be selected congruently in the lexicogrammatical manifestation of the semantic relation indicated. The networks together can therefore also be seen as a rich semantic classification of the conjunctions of English; it would be very interesting and valuable to compare these classifications with those developed from different starting points (such as the corpus-based work of Knott and Dale mentioned above), as well as to attempt more exhaustive networks covering a still wider range of connectives. The networks themselves do not, however, yet carry sufficient information to allow the ‘generation’ of the structures that we see in the example analyses: but, given the general state of the art in representations of discourse structure, this is not too surprising. Nor does it impact particularly negatively on the use of the framework for discourse analysis.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading because it is patently untrue.  Martin provides no "battery of tests", he merely takes Halliday & Hasan's (1976) distinction, misunderstands it, and discusses the internal and external systems separately.  Bateman here shows little familiarity with the contents of Martin's chapter.

[2] To be clear, the networks include exemplifying conjunctions and conjunctive Adjuncts; they do not provide any realisation statements of how discourse systems are realised structurally (axis) or grammatically (stratification).

[3] To be clear, conjunction is grammatical, not lexical.  Bateman here confuses the functional system with the formal word class.

[4] To be clear, as previously explained, and argued elsewhere in detail, because Martin misunderstands and misapplies the categories of expansion, his discourse model is largely incongruent with the lexicogrammar, even in the absence of metaphor.

[5] Here Bateman misconstrues Martin's network of discourse functions as a semantic classification of forms (conjunctions).

[6] Here Bateman excuses the absence of realisation statements in Martin's systems (paradigmatic axis) on issues of representations of structure (syntagmatic axis); and this, despite having already described Martin's method of representing conjunctive structures.

To be clear, Martin's conjunction is a confusion of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) cohesive conjunction, which is not structural and textual, and the logical relations in clause complexes, both of which are lexicogrammatical systems.

[7] The lack of structural realisation statements in Martin's networks is consistent with the fact that conjunction is theorised on a misunderstanding: that conjunctive relations are structural rather than cohesive.  This, along with all the other theoretical misunderstandings, especially the misunderstanding of expansion categories, does indeed "impact particularly negatively on the use of the framework for discourse analysis".

On Misunderstood Expansion Relations

Bateman (1998: 14-5):

Individual conjunctive relations are described by a selection of features from the appropriate discourse semantic network of this region and the corresponding discourse structure is shown using an extended form of the ‘reference chain’ notation developed in the preceding chapter. Additional requirements for representing conjunctive relations, however, are that scoping plays an important role — i.e., a given conjunctive relation can relate groups of messages—and that both internal and external relations may hold simultaneously. How these are captured is shown in the following example of the notation Martin proposes [p237; ex. 4.187].

(j) a. Ben was unlucky.
    b. He had to take steroids for his injured hamstring
    c. and then they introduced more sophisticated tests.

As with reference chains, the particular relationships at issue are drawn from the labels defined in the conjunctive relation system networks, and these are written alongside the linking dependency relation. In addition, internal conjunctive relations are written to the left of the list of messages, and external relations are written to the right. Therefore this Conjunctive Relation ‘reticulum’ shows that the ‘internal cause’ of message (j.a) is both (j.b) and (j.c), while these latter messages are also related both by external (temporal) ‘succession’ and by ‘addition’. The reticulum also states whether the relations are realised explicitly in the text or not; thus the succession and addition relations are explicitly present (then and and respectively in (j.c)), while the cause relation is not explicitly present.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL theory, the cohesive conjunction relation between the clause simplex (j.a) and the following clause complex (j.b, j.c) is not implicit cause, but implicit elaboration.  The elaborating relation can be demonstrated by making the implicit relation explicit, as in:

• Ben was unlucky. For instance, he had to take steroids for his injured hamstring and then they introduced more sophisticated tests (elaboration: apposition: exemplifying);
• Ben was unlucky. In particular, he had to take steroids for his injured hamstring and then they introduced more sophisticated tests (elaboration: clarification: particularising);
• Ben was unlucky. In short, he had to take steroids for his injured hamstring and then they introduced more sophisticated tests (elaboration: clarification: summative).

Conversely, a causal interpretation can be falsified by making a causal relation explicit, as in:

• Ben was unlucky. Therefore, he had to take steroids for his injured hamstring and then they introduced more sophisticated tests (cause);
• Ben was unlucky. In consequence, he had to take steroids for his injured hamstring and then they introduced more sophisticated tests (cause: result);
• Ben was unlucky. For that reason, he had to take steroids for his injured hamstring and then they introduced more sophisticated tests (cause: reason).

As Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 622) advise:

It is perhaps as well, therefore, to be cautious in assigning implicit conjunction in the interpretation of a text.

[2] To be clear, in SFL theory, the structural relation between clause (j.b) and clause (j.c) is not temporal succession and addition, but paratactic temporal enhancement.  That is, Martin mistakes a tactic relation (parataxis, marked by and) for a logico-semantic relation (addition).

∞

Misunderstandings and misapplications of expansion, like those above, occur throughout Martin's chapter on logical relations, as demonstrated in detail here.  The effect of such misunderstandings is to create incongruent relations between discourse semantics and lexicogrammar, even in the absence of grammatical metaphor.

On Questions Not Raised And Answers Not Given In Mistaking Conjunction For Expansion

Bateman (1998: 14):

Accepting these very different grammatical environments as realisations of a single semantic conjunctive relation (see Martin’s Figure 4.3, p170 for an overview) raises the central functional linguistic question of how each selection is to be motivated and related to its appropriate contexts of use. This naturally involves discussion of other areas of grammar and, more crucially, the semantics of those areas of grammar — e.g., the semantics of nominal groups (textual, referring, etc.), of verbal groups (e.g., phasal, modulation, temporal, etc.), and so on — thereby encouraging wider perspectives to be taken on the question. It also opens up the range of evidence that can be considered when formulating the contents of the discourse semantic systems: examples of the use of many distinct grammatical environments can all be taken into account in order to focus in on the semantics at issue rather than, as is more common (e.g., Knott and Dale, 1994), restricting attention to particular grammatical environments, such as ‘connectives’.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously explained, in SFL terms, Martin confuses expansion with conjunction; it is not that such grammatical environments are realisations of conjunction, but that cohesive conjunction is one of the grammatical environments manifesting expansion.

[2] To be clear, Martin’s Figure 4.3 presents grammatical realisations of expansion — misunderstood as conjunction — as a system network (with no entry condition).

[3] This is misleading. Martin nowhere deals with motivations for selecting grammatical realisations of expansion — misunderstood as conjunction — or how they are related their "appropriate contexts of use", which is why Bateman can supply no page references.

[4] This is misleading. Martin nowhere deals with the semantics of nominal or verbal groups in relation to grammatical realisations of expansion — misunderstood as conjunction — which is why Bateman can supply no page references.

[5] Here Bateman follows Martin in misrepresenting reference as a system of the nominal group, partly as a result of confusing interpersonal deixis of the nominal group with the non-structural system of textual reference.

[6] This is misleading. Martin nowhere deals with "the range of evidence that can be considered when formulating the contents of the discourse semantic systems" in relation to grammatical realisations of expansion — misunderstood as conjunction — which is why Bateman can supply no page references.