Misconstruing Residue Substitution As Continuity

Martin (1992: 233):

The use of so and too to hold the Residue constant underlies their function in polarity focussed arguments such as the following where they resemble the clause substitutes not and so; so and too are always tonic in this function (tonic syllable in bold face):

[4:178] Ben won really.
            — // He did not. //
            — // He did so. //
            — // He didn't. //
            — // He did too. //

Blogger Comments:

[1] As demonstrated in previous posts, 'holding the Residue constant' is not the function of either too functioning as a conjunctive Adjunct or so functioning cohesively as substitute for Predicator and Complement.

[2] In SFL theory, not, so and too don't just resemble cohesive substitutes, that is their function in the example provided.  Substitution of the Residue occurs with positive polarity, whereas ellipsis of the Residue occurs with negative polarity.

Ben	won		really
Subject	Finite	Predicator	comment Adjunct: speech-functional: unqualified: factual
Mood		Residue

He	did not	Ø
Subject	Finite	Predicator	comment Adjunct: speech-functional: unqualified: factual
Mood		Residue

He	did	so
Subject	Finite	Predicator	comment Adjunct: speech-functional: unqualified: factual
Mood		Residue

He	didn’t	Ø
Subject	Finite	Predicator	comment Adjunct: speech-functional: unqualified: factual
Mood		Residue

He	did	too
Subject	Finite	Predicator	comment Adjunct: speech-functional: unqualified: factual
Mood		Residue