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)