On Nuclearity And Expansion Relations

Bateman (1998: 19):

To unpack the relations underlying such cohesive ties, Martin uses the complexing relations set out by Halliday in IFG — elaboration, extension and enhancement — in order to provide an abstract classification. This then provides another perspective on notions of ‘peripherality’, and extends to net in participants and circumstances. A network of available options is given in Figure 5.23 with a substantial set of examples.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the expansion relations between lexical items (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 644) and the expansion relations between grammatical functions of the clause are distinct metafunctional manifestations of the 'fractal type' expansion, the former textual, the latter ideational.  Moreover, lexical items and grammatical functions are lexicogrammatical, not discourse semantic.

[2] To be clear, Martin's discourse semantic network is concerned with grammatical units (clause, verbal group, nominal group) and falsely presents the exemplifying instances as realisation statements.  More importantly, the network is based on multiple misapplications of expansion categories and grammatical structure.  This can be demonstrated by considering the table presented by Bateman:

• Process and Medium form the clause nucleus, and it is this that is related to other functions; i.e. the Medium does not extend the Process.
• The relation between frying and pan is enhancement (purpose), not elaboration.
• The nominal group frying fish is Classifier^Thing, not Epithet^Thing; Epithets can accept degrees of comparison or intensity (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 377), whereas Classifiers, like frying, cannot.
• The relation between frying and fish is elaboration, not extension, since Martin (p312) glosses it as 'a fish that is frying'.
• The relation between the Epithet difficult and Thing group is elaboration, not extension; the Epithet further specifies the Thing.
• The particle of a 'phrasal verb' is not a constituent of the verbal group, and so does not elaborate the Event of a verbal group.  The 'particle', is either a preposition group or adverbial group that realises a clause Adjunct.
• The wording try (to) shoot is a verbal group complex, not a verbal group.

This small sample gives some indication of the extent of misunderstandings of expansion and grammatical structure in Martin's model of "discourse semantic" nuclear relations.

On Martin's "Convincing" Use Of Ideation

Bateman (1998: 17):

He then turns to Sinclair’s (e.g, 1987) counter-position that collocation is in fact the better model to start from:

“collocation patterns may map more closely onto contextual ones than caution may have first led linguists to expect: ‘there is a great deal of overlap with semantics, and very little reason to posit an independent semantics for the purpose of text description’ (Sinclair, 1987:331).’’ [p277] 

Since the entire point of English Text is to provide an independent linguistic semantics that is primarily for the purposes of text description, Sinclair’s claim can be seen as something of a challenge — at least in the area of lexis and IDEATION. But, in direct answer to the challenge, Martin not only proposes a model of an independent discourse semantics for lexical relations but then provides several convincing examples of its use in text analysis, both alone in this chapter and, in the chapter following, in coordination with the other discourse semantic regions discussed.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the source of "Martin's" model is Halliday & Hasan's (1976) lexical cohesion, a non-structural resource of the textual metafunction at the level of lexicogrammar.  Martin relocates this model to his own discourse semantic stratum, misunderstands it as experiential rather than textual, confuses it with 'lexis as most delicate grammar' (and with clause nuclearity), and rebrands the confusion as his own system of IDEATION, all of which is demonstrated in great detail here.

[2] For some of the problems with Martin's text analyses, unnoticed by the 'convinced' Bateman, see:

• Misconstruing Extension As Elaboration
• Misconstruing General Lexical Cohesion As Instantial
• Misconstruing Mode As Genre (1)
• Misrepresenting Processes As Subclasses Of Clause
• Misconstruing Enhancement (And Complementarity) As Extension
• Misconstruing Mode As Genre (2)

[3] For the cornucopia of theoretical misunderstandings in Martin's Chapter 6, see the evidence here.

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.

On Martin's Mistaking Different Manifestations Of Expansion For Different Realisations Of Conjunction

Bateman (1998: 13-4):

CONJUNCTION is then perhaps quite appropriately the discourse semantic region for which Martin discusses the most varied selection of possible lexicogrammatical realisations. Not only does he make sure to preserve the required continuity between congruent grammatical realisation in terms of clause complexes and cohesive realisations of conjunctive relations (as illustrated in examples (c-f) above), he also makes considerable use of the diverse grammatical metaphors available below the clause. Thus, the following variants can all be seen as alternative realisations of a single discourse semantic temporal relation between two semantic messages [pp168–169]:

We walk the ring with our dogs and then we just wait.
After we walk the ring with our dogs, we just wait.
Subsequent to walking the ring with our dogs, we just wait.
After our tour of the ring, we just wait.
Our tour of the ring is prior to our wait.
Our tour of the ring is before we wait.
Our tour of the ring is the antecedent of our wait.
Our tour of the ring precedes our wait.
The first thing we do is tour the ring with our dogs; the second thing we do is we wait. 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Martin's conjunction is Halliday & Hasan's (1976) conjunction, relocated from lexicogrammar to discourse semantics, and misunderstood as a structural logical system instead of a non-structural (cohesive) textual system.  The theoretical inconsistencies are both stratal and metafunctional.  To add to the confusion, Martin also relocates expansion relations between clauses from lexicogrammar to discourse semantics, while ignoring projection relations; that is, the logico-semantic relation of projection is entirely absent from Martin's logical discourse semantics, with the consequence that projection systems in the lexicogrammar have no discourse semantic systems to realise.

To add further to the confusion, because Martin uses Halliday & Hasan (1976) as the source of his ideas, instead of Halliday (1985), his conjunction systems do not present elaboration, extension and enhancement as the most general types of relations, with the consequence that the stratal relation between discourse semantic and grammatical features are incongruent, even in the absence of grammatical metaphor.

To add further still to the confusion, Martin misunderstands and misapplies the types of expansion, including the distinction between internal and external relations, which he claims (wrongly) to be the 'main factor distinguishing Halliday's (1985) classification from that being developed here (1992: 182).

For the evidence on which all the above assessments are based, and much more, see the extensive clarifications and critiques here.

[2] To be clear, in "preserving the required continuity between congruent grammatical realisation in terms of clause complexes and cohesive realisations of conjunctive relations", Martin confuses expansion in the service of the logical metafunction (clause complexes) with expansion in the service of the textual metafunction (cohesive conjunction) and relocates the confusion from lexicogrammar to discourse semantics.

[3] To be clear, this "considerable use" amounts to displaying a few example sentences on a single page (p169).

[4] To be clear, Martin confuses conjunction with the more general resource of expansion, of which conjunction is but one manifestation.  What these instances have in common is not conjunction, but the expansion category temporal enhancement.  Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 669) 'present a systematic and comprehensive summary of the different grammatical environments in which elaboration, extension and enhancement are manifested':

the environments of manifestation can be differentiated in terms of (i) metafunction – textual (CONJUNCTION), logical (INTERDEPENDENCY; MODIFICATION) and experiential (CIRCUMSTANTIATION; PROCESS TYPE: relational), and (ii) rank – clause and group/phrase. …

From a grammatical point of view, the environments … are, of course, all different. But seen from above, from the vantage point of semantics, they are all agnate ways of construing expansion. Collectively they thus construe expansion as a semantic system. This means that for any given type of expansion we want to express, we have at our disposal a range of resources.

[5] To be clear, in SFL theory, a message is a textual unit at the level of semantics (cf. 'clause as message').  This is why cohesive conjunction, a grammatical resource of the textual metafunction, is concerned with conjoining messages.  In rebranding Halliday & Hasan's (1976) textual grammar as his own logical discourse semantics, Martin also rebrands a textual unit as a logical unit.

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.

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).