Misconstruing A Mood Adjunct (Intensity) As A Continuity Item [3]

Martin (1992: 231):

[4:167] CONJUNCTION You have to consider the aspect.

                                 Also the question of polarity comes into it. 

            CONTINUITY   Ben beat Lindley

                                 and he also beat Carl.

Blogger Comment:

The function of also here is interpersonal: a mood Adjunct of intensity (counterexpectancy: exceeding), and so it does not mark a continuity relation with the previous clause in the complex.

and	he	also	beat		Carl
	Subject	mood Adjunct: intensity: counterexpectancy: exceeding	Finite	Predicator	Complement
	Mood			Residue

Misconstruing A Mood Adjunct (Intensity) As A Continuity Item [2]

Martin (1992: 231):

[4:164] CONJUNCTION He felt like relaxing,

                                 only he was upset about the race. 

            CONTINUITY    No, I'm not busy.

                                 I was only reading.

Blogger Comments:

[1] In SFL theory, this is not conjunction, a non-structural resource of the textual metafunction, but a structural relation (extension: variation: subtractive) of the logical metafunction.

[2] The function of only here is interpersonal: a mood Adjunct of intensity (counterexpectancy: limiting), and so it does not mark a continuity relation with the previous message.

I	was	only	reading
Subject	Finite	mood Adjunct: intensity	Predicator
Mood			Residue

[3] Ironically, there is a continuative in this example, no, which marks a genuine relation of continuity with a previous message (not presented).  As previously noted, Martin misconstrues genuine continuatives as marking a logico-semantic relation of addition.

Misconstruing A Mood Adjunct (Intensity) As A Continuity Item [1]

Martin (1992: 231):

[4:165] CONJUNCTION Ben will run

                                 even if I have to drag him there. 

            CONTINUITY    Ben beat Lindley.

                                 He even beat Carl.

Blogger Comments:

[1] In SFL theory, this is not conjunction, a non-structural resource of the textual metafunction, but a structural relation of the logical metafunction.  The logico-semantic relation in the clause complex is concessive condition and marked by even if.

[2] The function of even here is interpersonal: a mood Adjunct of intensity (counterexpectancy: exceeding), and so it does not mark a continuity relation with the previous message.

He	even	beat		Carl
Subject	mood Adjunct: intensity	Finite	Predicator	Complement
Mood			Residue

Misconstruing A Mood Adjunct (Temporality) As A Continuity Item [3]

Martin (1992: 230-1):

[4:164] CONJUNCTION Ben left early.

                                 Yet he felt a little tired. 

            CONTINUITY    Ben has left;

                                 But Flo hasn't yet arrived.

Blogger Comment:

The function of yet here is interpersonal: a mood Adjunct of temporality, and so it does not mark a continuity relation with the previous message.

but	Flo	hasn‘t	yet	arrived
	Subject	Finite	mood Adjunct: temporality	Predicator
	Mood			Residue

Misconstruing A Mood Adjunct (Temporality) As A Continuity Item [2]

Martin (1992: 230):

[4:163] CONJUNCTION The results are significant.

                                 Finally let me consider the question of applicability. 

            CONTINUITY    Ben trained for hours

                                 and by eleven he'd finally finished.

Blogger Comment:

The function of finally here is interpersonal: a mood Adjunct of temporality, and so it does not mark a logical relation with the previous clause in the clause complex.

and	by eleven	he	‘d	finally	finished
	circumstantial Adjunct	Subject	Finite	mood Adjunct: temporality	Predicator
	Resi-	Mood			-due

Misconstruing A Mood Adjunct (Temporality) As A Continuity Item [1]

Martin (1992: 230):

[4:162] CONJUNCTION Ben is here.

                                 Still I wonder if Flo is coming. 

            CONTINUITY    Ben has left.

                                 But Flo is still here.

Blogger Comments:

[1] The function of still is ambiguous here.  It is conjunctive only if its meaning is similar to 'yet':

Ben is here.  Yet I wonder if Flo is coming.

still ('yet')	I	wonder
conjunctive Adjunct	Subject	Finite	Predicator
	Mood		Residue

However, if the clause is a textual agnate of:

Ben is here. I still wonder if Flo is coming.

I	still	wonder
Subject	mood Adjunct: temporality	Finite	Predicator
Mood			Residue

then still is functioning as a mood Adjunct of temporality (see Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 128), and does not mark a relation of conjunction with the previous message.

still	I	wonder
mood Adjunct: temporality	Subject	Finite	Predicator
Mood			Residue

[2] The function of still here is interpersonal: a mood Adjunct of temporality, and so it does not mark a logical (for Martin) relation of continuity.

but	Flo	is	still	here
	Subject	Finite	mood Adjunct: temporality	circumstantial Adjunct
	Mood			Residue