Wednesday 12 August 2015

Misconstruing the Function Of A Mood Adjunct (Misconstrued As A Continuity Item)

Martin (1992: 232):
The items too, also and as well are sensitive to parallels between the Mood ^ Residue structures of proposals and propositions.  They signal that either the Mood or the Residue is the same:
NEW MOOD
[4:176] Ben won the race,
            but later Carl did too. 
NEW RESIDUE
[4:177] Ben won in Rome,
            and he won in Seoul too.

Blogger Comments:

In SFL theory, this function of too, also and as well is interpersonal, not logical; they are mood Adjuncts of intensity, not continuity items.  (Hence the reference to Mood, Residue, proposals and propositions.)

Demonstrably, these mood Adjuncts do not 'signal that either the Mood or the Residue is the same'.

In the first instance, it is not the Mood that has changed, but part of both the Mood and the Residue.

Ben
won
the race
Subject
Finite
Predicator
Complement
Mood
Residue

but
later
Carl
did
too

circumstantial Adjunct
Subject
Finite
mood Adjunct: intensity

Residue
Mood

In the second instance, it is not the Residue that has changed, but only part of it (circumstantial Adjunct).  The Predicator has not changed.

Ben
won
in Rome
Subject
Finite
Predicator
circumstantial Adjunct
Mood
Residue


and
he
won
in Seoul
too

Subject
Finite
Predicator
circumstantial Adjunct
mood Adjunct: intensity

Mood
Residue
(Afterthought)