On The Breadth And Systematic Interrelationships In 'English Text'

Bateman (1998: 25): 

One of the difficulties in approaching English Text is at the same time one of the principal reasons for making the effort—that is, its breadth. Work in the complex area of discourse organisation and function typically achieves a fragmentary view at best, focusing in on particular areas and phenomena. English Text goes beyond this, presenting both detail and systematic interrelationships that successfully evoke a feel for the semantics of discourse and its realisation in lexicogrammatical patterns as a complex interacting whole.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is very misleading.  Martin's model of discourse semantics is largely confined to the textual metafunction, and only part of that.  This is because Martin's systems of IDENTIFICATION, CONJUNCTION and IDEATION are misunderstandings of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) lexicogrammatical cohesion, rebranded and misrepresented as semantic stratum systems of three different metafunctions.  (The one exception is NEGOTIATION, which is Martin's rebranding of Halliday's interpersonal semantic system of SPEECH FUNCTION.)

[2] This is very misleading.  Martin's systems of IDENTIFICATION, CONJUNCTION and IDEATION do not specify how their paradigmatic features are realised syntagmatically, and do not specify how they are realised at the level of lexicogrammar.  Moreover, due to Martin's misunderstanding of theoretical concepts, the model creates mismatches between semantics and lexicogrammar, even in the absence of grammatical metaphor.

[3] Given all the misunderstandings that invalidate Martin's model, it is not true to claim that it evokes even a feeling for such matters successfully.

∞

The arguments that constitute the evidence for all the above claims can be read here.

On Martin's System Of Nuclear Relations

Bateman (1998: 22-3):

Even I am not quite sure about Figure 5.23, which sets out the subtypes of nuclear lexical relations in IDEATION: It could be a summary overview of the material or a very interesting hypothesis about the relationship between the semantic region of IDEATION and its lexicogrammatical realisation. I suspect the latter, but this interpretation is certainly missed in, for example, Tucker’s (1998) review of approaches to lexis, Martin’s included. Tucker criticises Martin for not giving details of lexicogrammatical realisation, whereas the details of Figure 5.23 are very precise in the particular grammatical environments called for. Martin may well have intended these possible alternative interpretations; they certainly invite close consideration of the nature and form of a linguistic description!

These superficial difficulties can all, by and large, be unravelled or contextualised by close reading, but for the student who is perhaps still struggling with the overall map of the system, the difficulty is an unnecessary overhead.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As this blog demonstrates, Bateman's "modest" use of even I (thematised counter-expectancy: exceeding) is entirely unwarranted.

[2] To be clear, Martin's Figure 5.23, Nuclear Relations In English, is the system network for nuclear relations, one of the more delicate systems of Lexical Relations In English (Figure 5.10), and so, in that sense, it is a "summary overview of the material".

The reason why Figure 5.23 is not "a very interesting hypothesis about the relationship between the semantic region of IDEATION and its lexicogrammatical realisation" is that it does not specify how any of its features are realised grammatically.

One reason why Bateman was fooled, in this respect, is that Martin falsely presents examples — chase + cat, her + cat, etc — in the form of realisation statements.

Another reason why Bateman was fooled, in this respect, is that the network presents a view of what is purported to be a semantic system from the perspective of the view from below, lexicogrammar, as demonstrated by the "discourse semantic" features [clausal], [verbal], [nominal].  The view from below is the opposite perspective of that taken in theorising in SFL.

In this regard, Bateman has mistaken a network of grammatical features for the grammatical realisations of a discourse semantic system.

The irony, of course, is that, in modelling lexical relations, Martin's system is a proposal for a lexicogrammatical system.  It's just that neither Martin nor Bateman realises it.

[3] As the argument in [2] demonstrates, Tucker was entirely justified in criticising "Martin for not giving details of lexicogrammatical realisation".

[4] Strictly speaking, these are not alternative interpretations, since the system in Figure 5.23 is presented by Martin as both, "a summary overview of the material" and as a discourse semantic system realised in lexicogrammar.

[5] This is true.

[6] To be clear, "superficial difficulties" such as those identified in [2] are more accurately described as serious theoretical inconsistencies, which even Bateman's close reading failed to identify.

On Martin's Use Of System Networks

Bateman (1998: 22):

An example of one of the more superficial presentational problems is the ready use made of system networks for a number of different purposes as well as for linguistic descriptions at all of the strata treated in the book — i.e., lexicogrammar, discourse semantic, register, and genre. It is as a consequence not always immediately clear at what level of description a particular system network is being presented—thus Figure 2.2 is for MOOD (i.e., from the lexicogrammar) while the figure following, Figure 2.3, is speech function (i.e., from the discourse semantics); similarly, Figure 5.10 is a discourse semantic network, whereas Figures 5.11 and 5.12 are drawn from the field component of register and Figures 5.3–5.9 from the lexicogrammar. Sometimes, it is not even clear if a network is part of the intended linguistic description at all; some networks are simply presenting overviews of the material introduced in the book: e.g., Figure 1.16’s overview of types of linguistic structure, or Figure 3.10’s summary of types of phoricity (although these latter can then always, of course, be considered as field-specific taxonomies defining the technical terms involved as set out in the chapter on IDEATION: they are not earmarked as such in the text however).

Blogger Comments:

[1] Bateman's confusion in this regard stems from the fact that Martin uses the system network schema both for genuine system networks and for simple classifying taxonomies (e.g. Figures 1.16, 3.10, 5.11, 5.12).  

[2] To be clear, Halliday's speech function is a genuine semantic system — one that can be realised congruently or metaphorically in a grammatical system of the same metafunction (mood) — rather than Martin's rebranding of textual grammatical systems (cohesion) as discourse semantic systems of various metafunctions.

[3] To be clear, Martin's Figure 5.10 presents relations between lexical items (lexicogrammar) as a discourse semantic system.

[4] To be clear, the fact that these latter taxonomies are not identified in the text by Martin as taxonomies specific to the field of discourse semantics demonstrates that Martin did not realise that they could be interpreted as such in terms of his own model.

On Required Extensions Of Genre Theory

Bateman (1998: 21):

Martin himself draws attention to some of the ways in which the theory will have to be extended, including the move from genre ‘agnation’ (i.e., organisation into system networks) to genre topology, and the tension between synoptic (language as product) and dynamic accounts.

Blogger Comments:

[1] On the one hand, this misunderstands genre agnation, since genre agnation is concerned with systemic relations between genres in a genre taxonomy, not with agnation in system networks that model genre as potential.  On the other hand, this is misleading, since Martin provides neither a taxonomy of genres nor a system network of genre potential to "move from" in extending the theory.

[2] To be clear, a genre topology would represent the degrees of relatedness between different genres.  In SFL theory, where genre means text type — that is: register viewed from the instance pole of the cline of instantiation — the degree of relatedness between text types is measured by the relative frequencies of shared semantic and lexicogrammatical features.

[3] As previously demonstrated, Martin misunderstands the synoptic vs dynamic distinction, with  his 'synoptic' corresponding to syntagmatic structure and his 'dynamic' to instantiation in logogenesis.  In relation to genre, this distinction arises in his application of metafunctional structure types — particle, prosody and wave — to genre (pp548-60), despite the fact that his genre, contrary to SFL theory, is not theorised on the basis of the three metafunctions.

On Martin's Taxonomic Relations Systems

Bateman (1998: 18):

Taxonomic relations are better understood than both configuration-based, or nuclear, relations and activity-sequence relations. They include traditional lexical relationships such as hyponymy, hyperonymy, cohyponomy, etc. Martin suggests that the taxonomic relations appear to be used to generate/define particular field-specific taxonomies [e.g., p295--6]. They also each have typical structural realisations in the lexicogrammar, involving Classifiers, Pre-Classifiers (that kind of, this sort of), ... as well as structures such as ‘class of noun’, ‘brand of car’, ‘genre of text’, etc. The sequence of networks given in Figures 5.10, 5.16--5.18, 5.20 and 5.21 provides a detailed network for taxonomic lexical relations, with several examples of the distinct kind of lexicogrammatical patterns that they employ for their realisation. For English Text, these also set out a detailed classification system for kinds of cohesive ties that may be found in text analysis.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Here Martin confuses the non-structural use of lexical relations to create textual cohesion with structural grammatical relations in the construal of experience, and relocates his confusion from lexicogrammar to discourse semantics.  The primary theoretical inconsistencies created are thus metafunctional and stratal.

[2] Martin's Figure 5.10, on lexical relations, a system proposed for the discourse semantic stratum, is actually concerned with the stratum below (lexicogrammar) and composed of features purported to be of the stratum above (contextual field: activity sequences).  As might be expected, given these confusions, the network features neither an entry condition nor any realisation statements.

[3] These are more delicate elaborations of the system presented in Figure 5.10, and so embody the same theoretical confusions and inconsistencies.

[4] This is misleading.  The networks do not provide "examples of the distinct kind of lexicogrammatical patterns that they employ for their realisation", they merely provide instances that exemplify relation types, such as tenor-sax for the feature hyponymy.  Moreover, the examples are misleadingly presented by Martin as if they were realisation statements — which accounts for Bateman's misleading interpretation.

[5] To be clear, cohesive ties are non-structural textual relations at the level of lexicogrammar.  Martin, in contrast, rebrands lexical cohesion as a structural experiential system, IDEATION, at the level of discourse semantics.

On Determining The Unit Of Ideation

Bateman (1998: 18):

Martin then turns to the motivation and elaboration of these discourse semantic aspects of lexical relations, and again needs to address the question of units within IDEATION at the discourse semantic stratum. Here it is quickly made clear that collocation is not a sufficient motivation for defining units, since there is a gradient between idioms and non-idioms and Sinclair has gone so far as to maintain that mutual expectancy can be extended up to include entire texts. So, to counter this, Martin takes the constructs of field from register (discussed in more detail in Chapter 7: p497) as the basis of the units that are subject to lexical semantic relations [p297].

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Martin is concerned with determining the unit of IDEATION, a structural system of experiential discourse semantics, which is his rebranding of his misunderstanding of lexical cohesion, a non-structural system of textual lexicogrammar.

Because the original system is non-structural, he is unable to identify a structural unit — i.e. a unit with internal function structure, such as all the units of lexicogrammar and phonology.  Moreover, because the original system is concerned with relating lexical items to each other, Martin's unit is essentially a rebranding of his misunderstanding of a lexical item, which he terms a 'message part'.

Adding further to the above confusions and theoretical inconsistencies, this unit of lexical relations is grammatical, not lexical, as demonstrated (pp292-3) by the types of message part: actions, people, places, things and qualities.

[2] To be clear, in order to identify his discourse semantic unit, Martin looks to field, the ideational dimension of cultural context, which he misunderstands as register.  This is further complicated by Martin confusing contextual field with the ideational semantics that realises it.

The number of theoretical confusions, and the confused relations between them, in this section of Martin's chapter, are difficult to untangle, but an attempt has been to do so in the following clarifying critiques:

• Inconsistencies Of Structure And Metafunction 
• Misconstruing The Difference Between Lexical Item And Grammatical Word 
• Confusing Register (Language) With Context (Culture)
• Confusing Context With Semantics 
• Misconstruing First Order Field As Its Semantic Description [1]
• Misconstruing First Order Field As Its Semantic Description [2]
• Misconstruing Experiential As A Constituent Of Logical 
• Misconstruing Stratification: Semantics Realising Semantics 
• Misrepresenting Congruent Vs Incongruent 
• Confusing Context, Semantics And Lexicogrammar

On Martin Locating Some Lexical Taxonomies Outside Language

Bateman (1998: 17):

This naturally leads to a consideration of lexical cohesion: both stratificational and systemic work on cohesion posit cohesive ties between lexical items that include classifications such as ‘same item repeated’, ‘synonym or near synonym’, ‘superordinate’, ‘general term’, ‘collocation’ or ‘same co-occurrence group’ [p286-7]. However, these relations are often difficult or impossible to ascertain without also considering the field of discourse, despite the fact that, as Martin notes, discussions of lexical cohesion have typically defocused this issue. Martin suggests as a possible solution the following:

“One way of keeping the grammar neutral would be to locate specialised taxonomies in the register variable field, allowing the grammar to focus on field neutral oppositions. This would mean for example that the similarity between morphology in linguistics and in geology could be brought out in lexicogrammar and the differences between them in field taxonomies.’’ [p289] 

Thus the ‘lexis as most delicate grammar’ alternations are to be considered as taxonomies, that are neutral with respect to field, and particular ‘lexical sets’ [p290]. These serve as realisations of discourse semantic lexical relations, which in turn serve as realisations of the field specific taxonomies of register.

Blogger Comments:

[1] On the one hand, ascertaining lexical relations is a problem for the text analyst, not for the speaker of the text.  On the other hand, the claim is manifestly untrue, since even the most field-ignorant text analyst can ascertain such relations by consulting a thesaurus (± dictionary); see also Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 643-4).

[2] To be clear, this issue does not feature in discussions of lexical cohesion because it only arises through Martin's misunderstanding of SFL theory in general, and lexical cohesion in particular; see further below.

[3] To be clear, the 'similarity between morphology in linguistics and in geography' is formal, not functional.  In Systemic Functional terms, the two uses of the form are specified by different bundles of lexicogrammatical features.  That is, the "problem" only arises because Martin gives priority to form over function.

Martin's solution to his imaginary problem is to separate lexical taxonomies by two strata, leaving "field-neutral" lexical taxonomies within the lexicogrammar and moving "field-specific" lexical taxonomies to context (field), which is not even language, let alone semantics.  

Leaving aside the absurdity of locating words outside language, in SFL terms, as explained in the previous post, Martin misunderstands a difference along the cline of instantiation (potential vs sub-potential) as a difference in symbolic abstraction (lexicogrammar vs context), with the sub-potential ("field-specific") construed as two levels of symbolic abstraction above the potential ("field-neutral"), despite lexical taxonomies, as the term suggests, being on the same level of symbolic abstraction (lexicogrammar).

[4] Here again Bateman follows Martin in confusing lexical items (as the realisations of lexicogrammatical features) with the relations between lexical items that provide cohesion in a text.

[5] To be clear, Martin (p290) uses the term 'lexical sets' for collocation patterns.  However, in SFL theory, 'lexical set' is opposed to 'collocation'. That is, it describes the types of lexical cohesion in which the nature of the relation is paradigmatic (repetition, synonymy, hyponymy and meronymy). However, Martin misapplies the term to the opposite type of lexical cohesion, collocation, in which the nature of the relation is syntagmatic.  See Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 644).

[6] To be clear, Martin's proposal (Table 5.2 below) is that field-specific taxonomies of lexical relations at the level of context are realised by cohesive lexical relations at the level of discourse semantics, that are realised by field neutral taxonomies of lexical relations at the level of lexicogrammar.

Table 5.2. Lexical relations across planes and strata

Context	Language
	DISCOURSE SEMANTICS	LEXICOGRAMMAR
field specific taxonomies	lexical relations (cohesion)	field neutral taxonomies (as delicate grammar) collocation patterns (lexical sets)

Given all of the above, it is fair to say that neither Martin nor Bateman have sufficient understanding of the principles on which the architecture of SFL theory is constructed.

For more detailed argument on these matters, see:

• Confusing Textual Cohesion With Experiential Delicacy
• Relocating Lexis Outside Language
• Misconstruing Semantics As Context

Misunderstanding Halliday's 'Lexis As Most Delicate Grammar'

Bateman (1998: 16): 

The basic statement of belief for systemic approaches to lexis is generally given in terms of Halliday’s (1961) ‘grammarian’s dream’, that is, lexis is to be seen as ‘most delicate grammar’. When sufficiently fine-grained lexicogrammatical distinctions have been drawn (including cross-classification along distinct metafunctional dimensions), then the realisational consequences of those distinctions will be in terms of particular lexical items, rather than in broader structural configurations. The ‘lexis as most delicate grammar’ position is very attractive in its integration of lexical and grammatical phenomenon — an orientation in fact now shared by most modern linguistic approaches. However, its ‘subordination’ of the details of lexis to the broader organisation of grammar has not yet been shown to work in detail.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, here Bateman has digressed from reviewing Martin's Chapter 5 to discussing the notion of 'lexis as most delicate grammar', by which Halliday (2002 [1961]: 54) means:

The theoretical place of the move from grammar to lexis is therefore not a feature of rank but one of delicacy. It is defined theoretically as the place where increase in delicacy yields no further systems; this means that in description it is constantly shifting as delicacy increases. The grammarian’s dream is (and must be, such is the nature of grammar) of constant territorial expansion. He would like to turn the whole of linguistic form into grammar, hoping to show that lexis can be defined as “most delicate grammar”. The exit to lexis would then be closed, and all exponents ranged in systems.

[2] This misunderstanding is misleading.  Theoretically, lexicogrammatical networks specify both lexical items and grammatical structures (of units along the rank scale).

[3] To be clear, 'phenomenon' is the singular form; the plural form is 'phenomena'.

[4] This misunderstanding is misleading.  In SFL theory, the details of lexis are not "subordinated" to the broader organisation of the grammar; they are specified by the networks of lexicogrammar.  What is missing is the theoretical development of networks delicate enough to specify individual lexical items, as previously explained.

On Martin's Chapter 5: Ideation

Bateman (1998: 16):

The final chapter on discourse semantic regions, Chapter 5 [pp271--379], introduces the area of IDEATION, by which Martin means in the context of English Text, the “contribution made by open system items to discourse structure’’ [p271]— i.e., the role that lexis plays in creating and manipulating discourse structure and discourse coherence. This includes Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) notion of lexical cohesion and so critically involves many issues of ‘lexis’. Lexis is in any case a difficult and troubled area in systemic-functional accounts and Chapter 5 is probably one of the more difficult chapters of the book; the position taken on lexis and its description is sufficiently novel to pose difficulties should the reader’s map of the area not align sufficiently closely.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Bateman's use of the terms 'regions' and 'area' helps to disguise a fundamental theoretical inconsistency in Martin's model of discourse semantics.  The "regions" are systems organised according to the four metafunctions, but three of the systems, IDENTIFICATION, CONJUNCTION and IDEATION are all rebrandings of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) systems of the textual metafunction — reference, conjunction and lexical cohesion — misunderstood and relocated from non-structural lexicogrammar to structural discourse semantics.

[2] To be clear, Martin's experiential discourse semantic system of IDEATION is a confusion of lexical cohesion (textual lexicogrammar), lexis as most delicate grammar (lexicogrammar), clause nuclearity (experiential lexicogrammar) and logical relations between clause transitivity functions (ideational lexicogrammar).  For the detailed evidence on which this assessment is based, see here.

[3] To be clear, in SFL theory, lexis — the synthetic realisations of the most delicate systems at the level of lexicogrammar — does not "create" and "manipulate" structures at the level of discourse semantics.  The absurdity can be made more apparent by considering the analogous claim that phonemes — the synthetic realisations of the most delicate phonological systems — "create" and "manipulate" structures at the level of lexicogrammar.

[4] To be clear, in SFL theory, coherence is achieved through the textual metafunction (e.g lexical cohesion), not the experiential metafunction (Martin's IDEATION).  Here Bateman has connected with the source of Martin's ideas (lexical cohesion), but failed to notice the metafunctional inconsistency in Martin's rebranding the original system as an experiential system.

[5] To be clear, lexis is the synthetic realisation of the most delicate lexicogrammatical systems as lexical items, whereas lexical cohesion involves relations between lexical items in the creation of texture.

[6] To be clear, lexis in SFL is not "a difficult and troubled area".  The principle itself is clear and theoretically consistent; the difficulty lies in developing lexicogrammatical networks delicate enough to specify individual lexical items.  As Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 67) put it:

If we maintain the grammarian’s viewpoint all the way across the cline, lexis will be defined as grammar extended to the point of maximum delicacy. It would take at least a hundred volumes of the present size to extend the description of the grammar up to that point for any substantial portion of the vocabulary of English; and, as we have noted, the returns diminish the farther one proceeds.

[7] To be clear, the difficulty in Martin's Chapter Five, especially for the reader of average theoretical competence, lies in the multidimensional theoretical confusions that form its foundation.

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 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 Internal vs External Conjunctive Relations

Bateman (1998: 13):

Distinct networks are also presented for both the ‘internal’ and ‘external’ (cf. Halliday and Hasan, 1976:241) guises of the logico-semantic relationships. This latter division is one that is now well-established in work on discourse connectives, although usually referred to under different terms (e.g., quite typically, ‘semantic’ for external, and ‘pragmatic’ for internal: cf. Sanders, 1997 and the further references there). Internal relations, according to Halliday and Hasan, are when conjunctive relations are used to create text; external relations are when the relations refer to some experiential ‘reality’ external to the text. An example of the distinction is the contrast in meanings involved in (i).

(i.a) He is out of breath because he has been running.

(i.b) He has been running because he is out of breath.

In (i.a) the consequential causal relationship is one external to the text: the cause of his being out of breath is that he had been running; in (i.b), however, the causal relationship is within the text itself, a paraphrase of the sentence would be:

The reason that I believe, and am telling you, that he has been running is that he is out of breath.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Martin (1992: 182) emphasises the centrality of the internal vs external distinction in his rebranding of Halliday's work:

The centrality of the internal/external distinction to an adequate account of the discourse semantics of logical relations is the main factor distinguishing Halliday's (1985) classification of expansion from that being developed here.

However, as demonstrated by the 50 clarifications and critiques here, Martin misunderstands Halliday & Hasan's (1976) distinction between internal and external conjunctive relations.

[2] Here Bateman, following Martin (1992: 180), also misunderstands Halliday & Hasan's distinction.  Both external and internal conjunctive relations are used to create text.  Halliday & Hasan (1976: 241):

The distinction between external and internal conjunctive relations, in textual cohesion, is made on the basis of the metafunctional distinction between experiential and interpersonal.  Halliday & Hasan (1976: 240):

[3] The use of 'refer' here demonstrates that Bateman takes a transcendent perspective on meaning, such that the meanings of language refer to meanings outside language.  This contradicts the perspective taken by SFL theory, which assumes that meaning is immanent, within semiotic systems like language, such that experience is construed as meaning.

[4] Here Bateman, following Martin (1992: 180), misunderstands the external/internal distinction to mean external/internal to the text; see [3].  To be clear, both types of conjunctive relation are internal to the text.  For Halliday & Hasan (1976: 240), the external/internal distinction means external/internal to the communication situation: