Confusing Ranks

Martin (2013: 67-8):

Blogger Comments:

Again, this poses no problems for a clause rank system and its realisation statements, because these are lower rank markers of a clause rank distinction, polarity, and realisation statements at clause rank only specify structural consequences at clause rank, or preselect a systemic feature at group/phrase rank.

Misrepresenting Polarity And Tag Potential

Martin (2013: 56-7):

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, because of the unwarranted conditional marking, this network fails to account for either negative Mood Tags in negative clauses, such as So, he won't pay, won't he?, and negative exclamatives, such as How tidy you are…not!.

[2] To be clear, a realisation statement specifies the structural consequences of a systemic feature at the rank in question. If the feature 'tagged' is selected, the structural consequence is simply + Finite^Subject. Nominal and verbal group variation is accounted for at group rank, and is irrelevant to structure at clause rank.

Misrepresenting The Tagging Of Negative Clauses

Martin (2013: 55-6):

Blogger Comments:

This is misleading, because it is simply not true that negative clauses always reverse their polarity in the Tag, as demonstrated by instances like They won't pay, won't they?. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 173-4) provide the view 'from above':

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)

Positive Exclamatives Only

Martin (2013: 54):

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, this is no longer true. Instances like the following are now commonplace:

What a generous person you are … not!