2.2.5 In SFL
This section focuses on the researches of conjunctive devices in the domain of SFL,in which the scholars tend to use conjunctions(e.g.,Martin,1992;Halliday,1994;Thompson,2001;Halliday & Matthiessen,2004)or conjunctive adjuncts(e.g.,Halliday & Hasan,1976)as the umbrella terminology to refer to the conjunctive resources.As an element of a clause,conjunctions themselves could manifest all of the three metafunctions:ideational,interpersonal and textual.Manifestations of conjunctions across metafunctions are illustrated as follows.
2.2.5.1 Conjunctions of logical-semantic manifestations
As Halliday & Matthiessen(2004:365)point out,the effect of combining clauses into a clause complex is one of“tighter integration in meaning”:the figures that are realized grammatically in a clause are construed to make up a whole clause complex.According to Halliday & Matthiessen(2004),there are two basic systems to determine how one clause is related to another:the degree of INTERDEPENDENCY or TAXIS;and LOGICO-SEMANTIC RELATION.This could be set out in Figure 2.8.
Figure 2.8 The system of clause complexing(Halliday & Matthiessen,2004:373)
Seen from Figure 2.8,in terms of degree of interdependency or taxis,the relation of the clause complex is either hypotactic or paratactic.As to the logical-semantic type,the clause complex can be expansive or projective.Expansive clause complexes are divided into elaboration,extension and enhancement while in projection,the secondary clause is projected by the primary clause by idea or locution.
In Halliday’s(1994:218)model,parataxis is the relation between two elements of equal status;while hypotaxis is the relation between a dependent element and its dominant,the element on which it is dependent.Considering the following examples:
(21)We argue that opportunity and entrepreneurship are mutually constitutive,and emphasise that the entrepreneur shares agency with a heterogeneous array of‘actants’in the network of opportunity.(H,AEs[2])
(22)When the two officials’PPPs are at the central government,irrespective of whether one or both have CCYL experience,the preferred choice is pioneering.(S,ANEs)
Example(21)presents a paratactic clause complex connecting by the conjunction and.Here there are two clauses that are potentially independent of one another:we argue something and we emphasize something.These two clauses could be treated as having equal status.Comparatively,the two clauses in Example(22)could not be considered as being equal.Here there is only one clause that could stand on its own—the preferred choice is pioneering.This is treated as the main clause,and the other clause is related to it as a temporal qualification.
As to the logico-semantic relationships,both expansive clause complexes and projective clause complexes are connected by conjunctive resources(Halliday,1994).For the former,conjunctions such as and,but,in addition,if,because can be employed to connect elaborating,extending and enhancing clause complexes;for the latter,projective clause complexes are mainly signaled by that.For example,
(23)From a firm-specific perspective,this pioneer trial by the Chinese scholar bureaucrat elites turned out a failure largely because the firm failed to establish effective corporate governance.(H,ANEs)
(24)The archival evidence indicates that its institutional deficiency was also closely correlated with the over-stressing of the role of elites.(H,AEs)
Example(23)is an expansive clause complex which is signaled by the conjunction because,while Example(24)is a projective clause complex which signals ideas rather than locutions.
Specifically,all of these three sub-types of expansive clause complexes,i.e.,elaboration,extension and enhancement,could be either paratactic or hypotactic.According to Halliday(1994:226),paratactic elaboration and hypotactic elaboration are largely complementary in terms of meaning,covering different aspects of elaboration.Table 2.1 presents the meaning of both paratactic and hypotactic elaboration and the typical lexicogrammatical realizations.
Table 2.1 Paratactic and hypotactic elaboration(Halliday & Matthiessen,2004:397)
Seen from Table 2.1,which is summarized by Halliday & Matthiessen(2004:397),paratactic elaboration involves exposition,exemplification and clarification,while hypotactic elaboration involves description.At the level of grammatical realization,the secondary clause in paratactic relationship is often unmarked and may be introduced by i.e.,e.g.,and viz.Comparatively,the second clause in hypotactic relationship is nondefining relative clause,which is either finite clause introduced by whelement or non-finite clause.
Furthermore,Halliday(1994:230)propose that in extension,one clause extends the meaning of another by adding something new to it.What is added may be just an addition,or else a replacement,or an alternative.The principles of extension are listed in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2 Categories of extension and principal markers(Halliday & Mathiessen,2004:405)
续表:
As presented in Table 2.2,extension is divided into three types:addition,variation and alternation.According to Halliday & Matthiessen(2004:405),addition could be further divided into additive:positive relation,representing X and Y,additive:negative relation,representing not X and not Y and adversative relation,representing X and conversely Y.Paratactic additions are often accompanied by cohesive expressions such as and,not only...but also,nor.Hypotactic additions are typically represented by conjunctive items such as while,whereas,which lead finite clauses,and besides,apart,from,as well as,which lead non-finite clauses.Variation falls into two subtypes—replacive and subtractive.Typical paratactic markers of variation are but not,not...but,only,but,except while typical hypotactic markers are except that,which leads finite clauses and instead of,rather than,except for,other than,which could lead non-finite clauses.Alternation means that one clause is presented as an alternative to another.Typical paratactic markers of alternation are(either...)or,(else)while typical hypotactical markers are if...not,(...then).Last but not least,Halliday & Matthiessen(2004:444)consider enhancement as a type in which one clause enhances the meaning of another by qualifying it in one of a number of possible ways:by reference to time,place,manner,cause or condition.
Just as Table 2.3 presents two dimensions:(1)the level of projection,i.e.,idea,with single quotation mark‘as the signal and locution,and locution,with the parallel quotation mark“as the signal;(2)the mode of projection,i.e.,indirect hypotactic reporting,with the signalsα andβto refer to the primary and secondary clause,and direct paratactic quoting,with Arabic numbers 1 and 2 to refer to the primary and secondary clause.Based on the two dimensions it is possible to define four kinds of projection nexus,which is illustrated in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3 Four kinds of projection nexus(Halliday & Matthiessen,2004:444)
Conjunctions may be used to mark the secondary clause in both parataxis and hypotaxis.Halliday & Matthiessen(2004)summarize various kinds of conjunctive resources such as linkers(e.g.,and,or,but)and binders(e.g.,when,while,because,since,if,although,despite).Conjunctions are so crucial in clause complexes that they are the explicit signals of the logico-semantic relationship between clauses.
2.2.5.2 Conjunctions of textual manifestation
The role of conjunctions of textual manifestation is to make the text cohesive.Halliday & Hasan(1976:230)term this kind of conjunctions as conjunctive adjuncts.
Actually,there are four ways by which cohesion is created in English(Halliday & Hasan,1976;Halliday,1994;Halliday & Matthiessen,2004):(1)conjunction,(2)reference,(3)ellipsis and(4)lexical organization.Conjunctive adjuncts are typical conjunctive expressions to realize conjunctive relation.In Halliday & Hasan’s(1976:231)interpretation,there are three syntactic types of conjunctive adjuncts:(1)adverbs,which include simple adverbs such as but,so,then,next,compound adverbs in-ly such as accordingly,subsequently,actually,and compound adverbs in there-and where-such as therefore,thereupon,whereas;(2)other compound adverbs such as furthermore,nevertheless,anyway,instead,besides,and prepositional phrases such as on the contrary,as a result,in addition;(3)prepositional expressions with that or other reference item,the latter being optional such as as a result of that,instead of that,in addition to that,or obligatory such as in spite of that,because of that.
Furthermore,Halliday & Hasan(1976:231)divide the conjunctive relation into four semantic categories:additive,adversative,causal and temporal.All of the categories could be either external or internal.What’s more,there are five kinds of additive relations:simple additive relations,complex additive relations,complex additive relations,comparative relations,and appositive relations.But,however and yet are the most common expressions of adversative conjunctive relation.Under the heading of causal relations,there are three specific sub-types:result,reason and purpose.Temporal relations contain simple temporal relations,complex temporal relations conclusive relations,sequential and conclusive relations,“here and now”relations,and summary relations.
Being different from Halliday & Hasan(1976),who study conjunctions from the perspective of lexicogrammar,Martin(1992)and Martin& Rose(2003)analyze conjunctions from the perspective of discourse semantics.According to Martin & Rose(2003),there are four kinds of discourse semantics in SFL:ideation,conjunction,identification and interaction/appraisal.The common concessive conjunctive expressions such as even though,however,while,though,even if,but,nevertheless,in spite of,and despite are considered to express the logical or cohesive function at the same time.What’s more,Martin(1992)points out that these conjunctive devices could express the meaning of obligation of modality.In fact,Halliday & Hasan(1976)also claim that these conjunctive resources could express the subjective stance of the authors but do not go into deep research.
Martin(1992)analyzes the conjunctions from two axes:four types of semantic categories:additive,comparative,consequential and temporal;and the external-internal opposition.The similarities between Halliday & Hasan(1976)and Martin(1992)is that“all three classifications set up very comparable additive,temporal and consequential categories for the meanings clustering around the proto-typical and,then and so”(Martin,1992:171).
According to Martin(1992:229),internal and external conjunctions could be distinguished by the metaphorical realisations.External relations favour circumstantial identifying relations whereas internal relations rely on projection.Table 2.4 lists the congruent and metaphorical realisation of external and internal conjunctive relations.
Table 2.4 Congruent and metaphorical realisation of external and internal conjunctive relations(Martin,1992:229)
As Table 2.4 presents,external conjunctions could be metaphorically paraphrased as circumstantial,and identifying relational processes.For example,the conjunction by could be paraphrased as enable,because can be interpreted as cause and whereas means contrasts with.Internal conjunctions are usually metaphorically explained as verbal process plus locution,behavioural process via act,and identifying relational process plus assigner and act.For example,in conclusion can be paraphrased into the clause since I have written all this.
2.2.5.3 Conjunctions of interpersonal manifestation
This section mainly concerns the interpersonal function of conjunctions,which plays a crucial role in realizing authorial stance in academic discourse.
According to Halliday & Hasan(1976)and Halliday(1994),compared with external conjunctions which are motivated by ideational aspects,internal conjunctions carry the interpersonal meanings.In the elucidation of Halliday & Hasan(1976),external conjunctions represent a relation between meanings in the sense of representations of“contents”while internal conjunctions are interpreted in terms of interpersonal function of language.They(Halliday & Hasan,1976:240)propose that internal conjunctions represent“a relation between meanings in the sense of representations of the speaker’s own‘stamp’on the situation-his choice of speech role and rhetorical channel,his attitudes,his judgements and the like”.Halliday(1994:338)mentions that internal conjunctions set up a relationship between propositions or proposals,and the semantic relations are between the steps in an argument,not between phenomena of experience.
Being similar to Halliday & Hasan(1976),Martin(1992)also separates the relation of conjunctions into external and internal types,in which internal relations of conjunctions can organize the argument on the one hand and exchange the information on the other hand.He(Martin,1992:178)finds that some conjunctions are more rhetorical than others.For example,equally could code the arguments it connects as equal in status;furthermore indicates that there was another argument to be considered;and finally signals that the last in a series of arguments was being presented.
As Section 2.2.5.2 reviews,Martin(1992:229)makes a distinction between external and internal conjunction by paraphrasing them.When paraphrasing external and internal conjunctions into processes,it is interesting to note that external conjunctions favour circumstantial identifying relationals whereas internal conjunctions are generally paraphrased as projective clause complexes.It has been proved that clauses can construe interpersonal meanings through projection(Xin,2009),so internal conjunctions are consequently interpersonal.
Actually speaking,the distinction between internal and external conjunctions is clear in principle,but in some cases it is hard to draw.For example,the concessive conjunctions,according to Martin(1992:183),are interpersonal enough that they fudge the distinction between organizing text and constructing field.Out of this reason,this dissertation does not focuses on the differentiation between internal and external distinction,but only focus on their interpersonal potential.
Being different from Halliday & Hasan(1976),Halliday(1994)and Martin(1992),Thompson(2001)explores the internal-external distinction in greater detail,sets out a more fully rounded model of conjunctions and lays emphasis on the interpersonal function of internal conjunctions.On the one hand,based on the theories of metafunction,he(Thompson,2001:775)draws a three-dimensional model of conjunctions in expansion,in which the speaker/writer may pay more attention to the connections in the real world(i.e.,the experiential function),or to make explicit the structure of the contents(i.e.,the textual function),or to align the hearer/reader’s reactions to the contents(i.e.,the interpersonal function).On the other hand,by analyzing an extract from a doctor-patient consultation,the interpersonal relations expressed by conjunction are analyzed(Thompson,2001:784).
Table 2.5 Interpersonal conjunction and its subcategories(Thompson,2001:784)
Table 2.5 shows that only comparison and consequence could express interpersonal meanings.Expectation-affirmation and denial-counter are two types of comparative conjunctions.As to consequence conjunctions,there are four types,among which both assessment-basis and condition-assessment can be divided into two sub-types respectively.Thompson(2001:785)mentions that the patterns of expectation-affirmation,denial-counter,and concession-assertion are addressee-oriented,in that they signal the speaker or writer’s awareness of the addressee’s potential beliefs and expectations.The relations of situation-evaluation,assessment-basis,and condition-assessment are more oriented toward the addresser,in that they express aspects of the speaker or writer’s stance toward the information being exchanged.However,Thompson(2001)does not make very clear the criteria to make these types of conjunctive markers.
All in all,conjunctions of logical,textual and interpersonal manifestations could all realize meanings that develop as the speaker/writer produces the successive utterances.Since the aim of the dissertation is to explore how conjunctive markers could help to construe authorial stance,so the interpersonal manifestations play a dominant role.
In China,there are some researches on the evaluative meanings of conjunctions from the perspective of SFL.Xu & Duan(徐章宏,段贞绵,1996)analyze and explain the semantic functions of concessive conjunctions.Ma(马伟林,2009,2011)mainly discusses the evaluative function of some conjunctive devices such as conjunctions and adjuncts.He(Ma,2009)mentions that these conjunctions not only could realize the conjunctive function,but also could trigger the authors’positive or negative evaluation such as concession and reformulation.He(马伟林,2011)compares both English conjunctive devices such as but,however,in that sense and Chinese conjunctions such as但是,然而,这样看来in the chosen corpus.Yao & Chen(姚银燕,陈晓燕,2012)treat the linguistic resources of concession such as concessive conjunctions or adjuncts as a type of attribution which reflects interactions between authors and readers and achieves dialogistic effects.Their studies show some enlightenment to the writing of English academic reviews.Another significant phenomenon of Chinese scholars in researching conjunctive markers is the comparison of the use of conjunctions in the writings by AEs and ANEs(莫俊华,2005;潘璠,冯跃进,2004;陈鹏,2010;李桂瑶,2012;吴晓春,2012).