Martin (1992: 476):
Instead the Subject codes the modally responsible participants (including the metaphorical interpersonal "participant" a vital responsibility and two further nominalisations the earlier conflict–the latter); these are at risk not because they contrast with each other but because they are alternatives to potential Subjects in the Residue. The argument can be changed completely by promoting these to Subject position, as outlined below. The main result of this transformation is that the success of the propositions no longer depends on the American armed forces; these are demoted from modal responsibility and no longer seen to be at risk.
Blogger Comments:
[1] A participant is a construal of experience. This demonstrates that Martin is here misconstruing interpersonal meaning as experiential meaning.
[2] Here the meaning of Subject, modal responsibility, is misconstrued as "meaning at risk". It is the proposition that is arguable, and the validity of the proposition rests on the Subject.
[3] Here the validity of propositions is misconstrued as "the success of the propositions", presumably in the sense of 'closing negotiation' (p462). This follows from misconstruing modal responsibility as a type of social responsibility incumbent on the interlocutors, as explained in previous posts.
[3] Here the validity of propositions is misconstrued as "the success of the propositions", presumably in the sense of 'closing negotiation' (p462). This follows from misconstruing modal responsibility as a type of social responsibility incumbent on the interlocutors, as explained in previous posts.
