Misrepresenting Internal Relations

 Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 282):

These internal relations, as we can see, tend to be realised between rather than within clause complexes and are oriented to phases of the generic structure of texts rather than what happened per se. Working with Discourse introduces conventions for analysing internal relations alongside external ones, rather than ignoring them (because they are between clause complexes) or subsuming some of them as delicate sub-types of expansion (inside clause complexes).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, as previous posts have demonstrated, the authors mistake instances of continuity for instances of internal conjunction.

[2] This is misleading, because internal relations also obtain structurally within clause complexes as well as cohesively between them. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 484):

… the enhancing relation may be internal rather than external (cf. Halliday & Hasan, 1976: Ch. 5; Martin, 1992: Ch. 4; Mann & Matthiessen, 1991); that is, the β-clause may relate to the enactment of the proposition or proposal realised by the α-clause rather than to the figure that it represents. For example, if it is not too personal an inquiry, what limits do you set ... means ‘if it is not ..., I ask you ...’; that is, the condition is on the act of questioning, not on the content of the question.

[3] To be clear, this is a bare assertion, unsupported by evidence. In the data analysed by the authors, it was the continuatives, not internal conjunctions, that marked new turns in the text — as is their function.

[4] For a summary of the many misunderstandings of internal conjunction in Working with Discourse, see Theoretical Problems With The System Of Internal Conjunction.

[5] This is very misleading indeed, because it falsely implies that, in Halliday's original model, cohesive internal relations between clause complexes are ignored, and that structural internal relations between clauses have less explanatory power by being subtypes of expansion. Martin's logical discourse semantic system lacks the general category of expansion, and its three subtypes: elaboration, extension and enhancement, because it derives from Halliday & Hasan (1976), at which time Halliday had not yet devised these categories. 

Importantly, contrary to the impression given above, the distinction between internal and external relations originates in Halliday & Hasan (1976), and others, such as Martin (1992) and Martin & Rose (2007), are merely trying to use their ideas.