Misrepresenting The Interpersonal Function Of Independent, Dependent And Embedded Clauses [New]

Martin (1992: 41):

These classes can be interpreted semantically as follows. Independent clauses negotiate MODALISATION and MODULATION — speakers typically work towards consensus as far as grading probability, usuality, inclination and obligation are concerned. Dependent and embedded clauses on the other hand code meanings as already negotiated — the responses in the following example are to the main clause, not the clause embedded in it (Did you love the beer? not Did you try the beer?):

I loved the beer I tried last time.

— Did you?

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is not true. On the one hand, speakers do not necessarily "work towards consensus" in any respect, let alone with respect to MODALISATION and MODULATION, as demonstrated, for example, by discussions on academic email lists. On the other hand, not all independent clauses feature either type of MODALITY, as demonstrated by Martin's own example:

I loved the beer I tried last time.

— Did you?

[2] To be clear, dependent and embedded clauses present speech functions as presumed, regardless of whether or not the meanings have been "already negotiated".

[3] To be clear, the embedded clause realises a statement which can be "negotiated" as follows:

I loved the beer I tried last time.
— I didn't realise you tried it last time.