Falsely Finding Fault In The Mood Network Of Halliday & Matthiessen

Martin (2013: 93):

Blogger Comments:

This is misleading because it is not true. The feature [explicit] can be selected, and it can be realised: metaphorically as a projecting mental clause instead of congruently as a modal Adjunct; see previous post. There is thus no need to remove the feature [explicit] from the network.

Giving Priority To Structure In Devising System

 Martin (2013: 93):

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading because it is untrue. The system of MODALITY represents the choices at clause rank. If one of these choices is realised metaphorically as a projecting mental clause instead of an Adjunct, it can be specified by a realisation statement attached to the feature in the network. Martin's misunderstanding here again derives from giving priority to the view 'from below', structure.

Moreover, in order to account for grammatical metaphor, it is necessary to provide both the congruent and metaphorical analyses. Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 613-4):

Here the cognitive mental clause I don’t believe is a metaphorical realisation of probability: the probability is realised by a mental clause as if it was a figure of sensing. Being metaphorical, the clause serves not only as the projecting part of a clause nexus of projection, but also as a mood Adjunct, just as probably does.

[2] To be clear, the entry condition to clause complexing is the feature clause, and in this metaphor, modality is realised within a clause complex instead of within a clause.

Misrepresenting Comment Adjuncts

Martin (2013: 76-7):

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this network is poorly wired, since there is no need for two sets of wiring from the 'declarative' and 'interrogative' features if the two more delicate systems are represented as conjunctive systems (grouped by a curly bracket).

[2] To be clear, comment Adjuncts, according to Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 190):

express the speaker’s attitude either to the proposition as a whole or to the particular speech function. In other words, the target of the comment may be either ideational (the content of the proposition) or interpersonal (the speech function).

That is, the distinction is not one of 'feeling' vs 'dialogism', since both types express an attitude, and both types — e.g. arguably vs broadly — can serve a dialogistic function.

Summary Of Exclamatives And Negative Imperatives

Martin (2013: 55):

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, a proscription against negative exclamative clauses fails to account for instances like What a good boy you are…not!

[2] To be clear, the discussion of negative imperatives misrepresented Finite not as a Mood Adjunct.

See Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 165-6) for the full paradigm of negative imperatives:

Mistaking Part Of The Finite For A Mood Adjunct [2]

Martin (2013: 54):

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, this again misunderstands not as a Mood Adjunct instead of part of the Finite do not. Again, here not is simply a formal or written variant of n't. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 175):

Finally, we should note that the negative word not occurs in two functions: either it is simply a formal or written variant of the Finite negative element n’t, in which case it is part of the Finite; or it is a distinct modal Adjunct in Mood or Residue. In the latter case it is phonologically salient and may also be tonic

A genuine example of not as a Mood Adjunct is

After all that, I couldn't not go, could I?

Mistaking Part Of The Finite For A Mood Adjunct [1]

Martin (2013: 53, 54):

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the not in the data is not a Mood Adjunct, but part of the Finite, as Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 175) explain:

Finally, we should note that the negative word not occurs in two functions: either it is simply a formal or written variant of the Finite negative element n’t, in which case it is part of the Finite; or it is a distinct modal Adjunct in Mood or Residue. In the latter case it is phonologically salient and may also be tonic.

A genuine example of not as a Mood Adjunct is

After all that, I couldn't not go, could I?

 Cf. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 177)

Confusing Mood Adjuncts With Comment Adjuncts

Martin (2013: 37, 39):

And in other contexts verbs are used to classify (and are thus not gradable):

running shoes

industrialised nations

… Imperative clauses, giving commands, are typically indicated in English by the absence of a Finite and a Subject function.

In addition Halliday recognises Modal Adjuncts which add an interpersonal comment of some kind to the clause (a modalisation of probability below) …

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, industrialised is gradable: there are less industrialised nations and more industrialised nations.

[2] To be clear, 'giving' is a poor choice of words, pedagogically, since commands involve demanding goods-&-services, as opposed to giving them.

[3] This is misleading, because, within the category of modal Adjunct, SFL Theory distinguishes between mood Adjuncts and comment Adjuncts. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 184):

We can recognise two types of modal Adjuncts, (i) mood Adjuncts and (ii) comment Adjuncts. (i) Mood Adjuncts serve within the Mood element, and are closely associated with the meaning of the Finite element – the limiting case being modality, which (as we have seen) can also be realised by the operator serving as Finite. (ii) Comment Adjuncts serve outside the Mood + Residue structure of the clause. They are not part of the proposition realised by Mood + Residue, but are instead comments on it (propositional) or on the act of exchanging it (speech-functional).