External vs Internal Conjunction

Halliday (1994: 338):

Internal Temporal Conjunction

Halliday (1994: 325-6):

The Metaphorical Use Of Verbs To Express Logical-Semantic Relations Between Nominalised Processes

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 544-5):

When the processes and properties turn into nouns, the verbs do not disappear from the scene. Scientific discourse is still written in clauses, and these clauses still have verbs in them. Let us return briefly to the examples from Newton's "Opticks":

those Colours argue a diverging and separation of the heterogeneous Rays from one another by means of their unequal Refractions

the variety of Colours depends upon the Composition of Light

the cause of Reflexion is not the impinging of Light on the solid, impervious parts of Bodies

We might suggest a more congruent form of the first and second examples here: 

colours vary because light is composed [in this way];  

because those colours (appear] we know the heterogeneous rays diverge and separate from one another.... 

The verbs depend upon and argue both express a logical-semantic relation between the two nominalised processes: either an external cause, 'a happens; so x happens', or an internal cause, 'b happens, so we know y happens'. This is another grammatical metaphor; the congruent form of representation of a logical relation is a conjunction. The two types of metaphor work together, to construe the two processes as one: 'happening a causes happening x', 'happening b proves happening y'. 

It is not the case, of course, that this type of construction had never occurred in English before; it had. But it was rare; whereas from the time of Newton onwards it gradually took over, becoming the most favoured clause type of scientific language — as indeed we find it today.

Metaphors Of External And Internal Conjunction

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 262-3):

At the same time, a further distinction has evolved between two kinds of logical-semantic relation: 

(i) a relation 'in rebus' between two experiential events, 

(ii) a relation 'in verbis between two stages in the discourse; 

e.g.

(i) Political pressures brought about his downfall. Major changes ensued.

(ii) This section illustrates the main argument. Further discussion follows.

These correspond respectively to the 'external' and 'internal' types of conjunctive relations in cohesion (Halliday & Hasan, 1976: Ch. 5).

Ontogenesis: Providing Causal Evidence For Categorisation

Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 75):

In his fourth year, Stephen begins to provide causal evidence for categorisation, by adding an enhancing figure. The figure that is linked causally specifies attributes that are critical to the construal. For example: Mother refers to Bond airship as 'spaceship balloon' — Stephen: Not a spaceship — an airship — cause a spaceship has bits like this to stand it up; Stephen (pointing at page numbers): That's fifteen because it's got a five; that's fourteen because it's got a four. 

These causal relations are internal (Halliday & Hasan, 1976), i.e. oriented towards the interpersonal act of communication itself ('I know it is an x, because it has feature y') rather than external ('it is an x, because it has feature y'). 

In other words, Stephen is attending to the act of construal itself — 'I construe it as x because of y'. At this stage in the development of Stephen's construal of experience, the construal has become something that is not only shared, but can also be explicitly negotiated and argued about.

Metaphorical Realisations Of Internal Cause

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 721):

Relations of internal cause – cause in the sense of ‘x so I think/say y’ – are construed metaphorically by verbs of proving such as prove, show, demonstrate, argue, suggest, indicate, imply in ‘intensive identifying relational’ clauses:

||| The wide range of potential contributions by the RC has proven to be a bright spot || as we strive to match available resources to a demanding mission load, || and demonstrates clearly the enduring value and relevance of the citizen-soldier. ||| 

||| Further experiments proved [[[ that the dye lowered fertility in rats, || induced still-births || and even produced malformed and macerated foetuses]]] . ||| 

||| Large amounts of feldspar in a sandstone may imply rapid deposition and burial [[ before chemical weathering could decompose the feldspar]] , || or it might imply a cold climate [[ in which chemical weathering is very slow]] . |||

Simple Internal Temporal Conjunction Exemplified

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 618):

simple internal

||| Organisationally, there are equally strong imperatives and challenges. ||| Again, a first requirement is [[to do no harm to organisational frameworks [[that, through years of evolution, are finally at the stage [[where they are supporting programs [[that are actually helping us to get on with the business of increasing understanding]] ]] ]] ]] . ||| Second, having ensured [[that we do as little harm as possible]], || we must make sure [[that the interdisciplinary linkages [[mentioned earlier]] do not fall between organisational stools]] . ||| Third, we must take steps to ensure [[that the organisations [[we do have in place]] do not impede research [[that is crossing over their historical boundaries of self-definition]] ]] . ||| Finally, the ultimate challenge is [[to identify which, if any, new organisational frameworks would make a positive contribution to our ability [[to get on with the substantive work of [[understanding global change]] ]] ]]. ||| [following; conclusive]

Temporal Conjunction: Internal vs External

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 618):

Many temporal conjunctives have an ‘internal’ as well as an ‘external’ interpretation (cf. Halliday & Hasan, 1976: Ch. 5; Martin, 1992: Ch. 4; cf. also Mann & Matthiessen, 1991); that is, the time they refer to is the temporal unfolding of the discourse itself, not the temporal sequence of the processes referred to. In terms of the functional components of semantics, it is interpersonal not experiential time. Parallel to the ‘simple’ categories above we can recognise the simple internal ones. These play an important role in argumentative passages in discourse. …

These shade into temporal metaphors of an expanding kind such as meanwhile, at the same time (meanwhile let us not forget that ... , at the same time it must be admitted that ... )

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, Martin (1992) misunderstands Halliday & Hasan's internal vs external distinction; evidence here.

Internal Elaborating Conjunctive Adjuncts And Mood Or Comment Adjuncts

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 614-5, 616n):

Certain items that serve as ‘elaborating’ conjunctions that are ‘internal’ only in orientation may also serve as modal adverbs (e.g. actually, in fact, indeed, as a matter of fact), functioning either as mood Adjuncts of intensity or as comment Adjuncts of factuality. In fact, these are related historically through processes of grammaticalisation: starting from an experiential source, items such as these tend to develop into textual conjunctions, and by a further step into interpersonal modal adverbs…

Some of the items that are used as conjunctions with verifactive senses also have assessment senses and serve as mood or comment Adjuncts: actually, in fact, indeed – (i) verifactive (‘in reality’), (iia) intensity: counterexpectancy (‘even’), and (iib) factual (speech functional comment: ‘really’); as a matter of fact – (i) verifactive (‘in reality’), and (ii) factual (speech functional comment: ‘really’). The link between the verifactive and assessment senses is the orientation towards the interpersonal: in their assessment senses, these items are, of course, purely interpersonal; and in their verifactive senses, they are internal in orientation (cf. Halliday & Hasan, 1976: 240ff.): the clarification relates to the speech function rather than to the experiential content of the proposition or proposal being exchanged – ‘I’ll tell you by way of clarification of what I said before’. Thus in the following example, in fact serves as a cohesive conjunctive Adjunct and actually as a mood Adjunct: But that basic training helped me in the part. In fact, when Tom Quayle (Tom Jennings) actually did knock me down in the fight scene, I saw red and had to take a few deep breaths and hold myself back. Traugott (1997) shows how both indeed and (during a later period in the history of English) in fact developed (in our terms) from items serving as circumstantial Adjuncts, to items serving as interpersonal Adjuncts and also to items serving as conjunctive Adjuncts. They follow one of the grammaticalisation paths she has identified.

Extending The Conjunction System In Delicacy

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 612, 614):

This interpretation of conjunction as a system embodying two variables brings out the underlying principle. However, the two systemic variables are not entirely independent of one another. The ‘elaborating’ type tends to be ‘internal’ rather than ‘external’, and while ‘extending’ and ‘enhancing’ relations can be either ‘internal’ or ‘external’, particular conjunctions may be either one or the other. Thus when we extend it in delicacy, we would need to take account of the all the possible combinations of type and orientation: (i) a number of conjunctions can be used to mark either external or internal relations, but a number of other conjunctions can be used only to mark either (ii) external or (iii) internal relations. For example:

(i) external/internal: and, or, but, however, then, next, so, therefore
(ii) external: just then, previously, soon, meanwhile, next time
(iii) internal: in fact, actually, incidentally, in short, briefly, finally, in conclusion, furthermore, moreover, in this respect, otherwise

The Distinction Between External And Internal Conjunctive Relations

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 611, 612):

As we have seen, elaborating, extending and enhancing conjunctions mark relations between semantic domains, i.e. between text segments. These text segments are simultaneously ideational and interpersonal; they construe experience as meaning, e.g. an episode in a narrative or a recount, and they enact roles and relations, e.g. an exchange in a conversation or consultation, or an argument in an exposition. Relations link text segments either in their ideational guise or in their interpersonal guise: they relate either chunks of experience or chunks of interaction. …

Relations between representations of segments of experience are called external relations, and conjunctions marking such relations are called external conjunctions. … Relations linking text segments in their interpersonal guise are called internal relations – internal to the text as a speech event, and conjunctions marking such relations are called internal conjunctions. …

The distinction between external and internal relations was introduced by Halliday & Hasan (1976: Chapter 5) and developed by Martin (e.g. 1992: Chapter 4) in his account of conjunction as a semantic system.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, Martin (1992) misunderstands Halliday & Hasan's conjunction (evidence here), and the distinction between internal and external relations (evidence here), and rebrands their grammatical system as his discourse semantic system. Relabelling misunderstandings of original work is not developing a theory.

Internal (Vs External) Enhancing Relations

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 484):

… the enhancing relation may be internal rather than external; 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.

Blogger Comments:

Monty Python's Life Of Brian provides an easy–to–remember instance:

If it's not a personal question, are you a virgin?

Note that English Text: System And Structure (Martin 1992) is a major source of confusion on the internal/external distinction (evidence here), as is Working With Discourse: Meaning Beyond The Clause (Martin & Rose 2007).