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

Misconstruing Substitution As Continuity

Martin (1992: 233):

Where the Mood changes, but the Residue is constant, the realisation so ^ Finite ^ Subject is possible:

NEW MOOD
[4:178] Ben won the race,
            but later so did Carl.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Contrary to the claim, part of the Residue (the substitution) and part of the Mood (the Finite) are constant across clauses here.

[2] In SFL theory, so marks an instance of substitution, a resource of textual cohesion, as shown by the variant ordering of elements; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 564-5). Here it is misconstrued as continuity, which in turn is misconstrued as logical instead of textual.

Ben	won		the race
Subject	Finite	Predicator	Complement
Mood		Residue

but	later	so		did	Carl
	circumstantial Adjunct	Predicator	Complement	Finite	Subject
	Residue			Mood

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)