Martin's MOOD Network For Clauses Realising SPEECH FUNCTION [New]

Martin (1992: 40-1, 91n):

The MOOD network underlying this definition is presented below, along with examples of realisations for terminal features. [Ventola's 1988a criticisms of the unit proposed will be taken up in 2.3 below.] 

² The I/T superscript notation shows that dependent/embedded clauses are declarative by default; according to this network projected proposals have both nonfinite (I asked him to come) and dependent (I asked him if he could come) realisations.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this MOOD network falsely proposes that all dependent and embedded clause are finite. This is falsified by Martin's own example I noticed you making a small one which features a nonfinite embedded clause. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 171):

Whether they are dependent or downranked, ‘bound’ clauses may be either ‘finite’ or ‘non-finite’.

As Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 23-4) explain:

A major clause is either indicative or imperative in MOOD; if indicative, it has a Finite (operator) and a Subject. An indicative clause is either declarative or interrogative (still in MOOD); if declarative, the Subject comes before the Finite. An interrogative clause is either yes/no type or WH-type; if yes/no type, the Finite comes before the Subject; if WH-type, it has a Wh element.

[2] To be clear, Martin is concerned here with determining the grammatical unit that realises a proposition or proposal, despite the fact that Halliday had already identified the unit as the clause in its interpersonal guise. Martin has determined that only clauses "selecting independently for mood" realise these major speech functions, but falsely claims that this excludes dependent and embedded clauses; see previous post.

Essentially, Martin here confuses speech function with arguability. Dependent and embedded clauses can realise propositions and proposals; it's just that, in such forms, they are presented as less arguable than propositions and proposals realised by ranking independent clauses.

[3] This is misleading, because it is untrue. To be clear, this network says nothing whatsoever about projected proposals. Moreover, non-finite vs dependent is a false dichotomy: both projected clauses are dependent, the first being non-finite, the second finite. Note also that the non-finite projected clause is simply to go, because, in both projection nexuses, him serves as the Receiver of the projecting clause I asked him.