Friday 14 August 2015

Misconstruing Residue Substitution As Continuity

Martin (1992: 233):
The use of so and too to hold the Residue constant underlies their function in polarity focussed arguments such as the following where they resemble the clause substitutes not and so; so and too are always tonic in this function (tonic syllable in bold face):
[4:178] Ben won really.
            — // He did not. //
            — // He did so. //
            — // He didn't. //
            — // He did too. //

Blogger Comments:

[1] As demonstrated in previous posts, 'holding the Residue constant' is not the function of either too functioning as a conjunctive Adjunct or so functioning cohesively as substitute for Predicator and Complement.

[2] In SFL theory, not, so and too don't just resemble cohesive substitutes, that is their function in the example provided.  Substitution of the Residue occurs with positive polarity, whereas ellipsis of the Residue occurs with negative polarity.

Ben
won
really
Subject
Finite
Predicator
comment Adjunct: speech-functional: unqualified: factual
Mood
Residue

He
did not
Ø
Subject
Finite
Predicator
comment Adjunct: speech-functional: unqualified: factual
Mood
Residue

He
did
so
Subject
Finite
Predicator
comment Adjunct: speech-functional: unqualified: factual
Mood
Residue

He
didn’t
Ø
Subject
Finite
Predicator
comment Adjunct: speech-functional: unqualified: factual
Mood
Residue

He
did
too
Subject
Finite
Predicator
comment Adjunct: speech-functional: unqualified: factual
Mood
Residue