Misconstruing A Mood Adjunct (Intensity) As A Continuity Item [4]

Martin (1992: 231):

[4:168] CONJUNCTION Either Ben didn't want to compete

                                 or he couldn't. 

            CONTINUITY   Ben couldn't pass the test

                               and Lindley couldn't either.

Blogger Comment:

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

[2] The function of either here is interpersonal: a mood Adjunct of intensity (counterexpectancy: exceeding) — cf even Lindley could(n't) — and so it does not mark a continuity relation with the previous message.  (The structural logico-semantic relation between the clauses is extension: addition: additive.)

and	Lindley	couldn't	either
	Subject	Finite	mood Adjunct: intensity: counterexpectancy: exceeding
	Mood

This is agnate with Ben couldn't pass the test and neither could Lindley, where 'negative' is a feature of the Adjunct instead of the Finite:

and	neither	could	Lindley
	mood Adjunct: intensity: counterexpectancy: exceeding	Finite	Subject
	Mood