Modality: Subjective vs Objective Orientation

Halliday (1994: 362):

Modality: Orientation

Halliday (1994: 357-8):

Qualities Of Projection As Agnate With Modality and Attitude

 Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 210):

As we have seen, sensing is agnate with modality and, in the case of emotive sensing, with attitude. Similarly, qualities of projection extend to include modalities and attitudes; when the thing (or metathing) they are assigned to is agnate with the Phenomenon, these qualities are construed as objective, impersonal ones: it is certain/likely/possible that the moon's a balloon. (Contrast: I'm certain the moon's a balloon.) With qualities of usuality, this is the only possible orientation.

Why Interpersonal Metaphor Can Be Learnt Early

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 709):

The interpersonal metafunction defines the environment in which children first learn the strategy of grammatical metaphor. No doubt this is partly because interpersonal metaphors tend to make selections more explicit, as when probability is realised by a ‘mental’ clause projecting the modalised proposition (‘explicit’ orientation), and partly because the interpretation of interpersonal metaphors is often both supported and ‘tested’ immediately in the ongoing dialogic interaction. For example:

Oh. Stefan, can you turn off the tape? – [Non-verbal response: tape is turned off.]

Here the responses show that the ‘yes/no interrogative’ clauses are interpreted as metaphorically realised commands rather than as congruently realised questions. The expansion of the interpersonal semantic system through grammatical metaphor provides speakers with additional, powerful resources for enacting social roles and relations in the complex network of relations that make up the fabric of a community of any kind. 

The Expansion Of Speech Function Through Interpersonal Metaphor

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 703):

In the type of mood metaphor shown in Table 10-11, the proposition/proposal is realised by a clause nexus of projection rather than by a simple clause. The interpersonal projection embodied in speech function has thus been realised as if it was an ideational projection. This has two consequences for the expansions of the meaning potential of speech function, just as in the case of modality. On the one hand, the option of making the subjective orientation of the speech functional selection explicit is added to the system, as in vote against ... (implicit) vs. I urge you to vote against (explicit). On the other hand, the speech functional system can be further elaborated in delicacy by drawing on the extensive resources of the lexicogrammar of ‘verbal’ and ‘mental’ clauses. Thus in addition to vote against ..., we now have, for example, (‘verbal’) I tell you/command you/order you/ask you/urge you/implore you/ beseech you/plead with you/suggest to you → to vote against ...; (‘mental’) I want/desire/‘d like/ intend/plan → (for) you to vote against .... And while these clauses are constrained in terms of SUBJECT PERSON and DEICTICITY, they still allow for additional systemic variation; for example: I urge you/I would urge you/I should urge you/I must urge you//can I (please) urge you/could I perhaps urge you → to vote against ....

The Line Between Explicitly Objective Propositions And Modal Assessment

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 703):

In the realm of propositions, the line between explicitly objective propositions and modal assessment seems to disappear. Forms such as it is said that, it is rumoured that serve as assessments of the nature of the evidence for a proposition: it is, as it were, represented as being projected by somebody other than the speaker (thus it is said and they say are very close in meaning); the projection thus serves as a device enabling speakers to distance themselves from the proposition. For example:

||| Of Samuel it is said || that when he asked the people || to bear witness || that he had not taken anything of theirs || the people said || that they were witnesses. |||

||| It is said || that television keeps people at home. ||| But you, at any rate, have proved that wrong. ||| And they say, too, || that television makes its appeal to those of lesser intelligence. |||

||| Furthermore, it is claimed, || there are no known connections between the languages of the Old World and those of the Americas. |||

Interpersonal Projection: Modality

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 700-1):

But the notion of interpersonal projection is not, in fact, limited to modal assessment. Consider the short persuasive text in Text 10-5:

Text 10-5: Exploring – arguing: open letter appealing to members of an organisation [Text 6]

I don’t believe that endorsing the Nuclear Freeze initiative is the right step for California Common Cause. Tempting as it may be, we shouldn’t embrace every popular issue that comes along. When we do so we use precious limited resources where other players with superior resources are already doing an adequate job. Rather, I think we will be stronger and more effective if we stick to those issues of governmental structure and process, broadly defined, that have formed the core of our agenda for years. Open government, campaign finance reform, and fighting the special interests and big money – these are our kinds of issues. 

Let’s be clear: I personally favour the initiative and ardently support disarmament negotiations to reduce the risk of war. But I don’t think endorsing a specific freeze proposal is appropriate for CCC. We should limit our involvement in defence and weaponry to matters of process, such as exposing the weapons industry’s influence on the political process. Therefore, I urge you to vote against a CCC endorsement of the nuclear freeze initiative.

Expressions of modulation are bolded and expressions of modalisation are italicised; metaphorical expressions are underlined. Subjective assessment of modality permeates the text, like a prosody. In the case of modalisation, it is largely explicit; in the case of modulation, it is implicit until the very last clause. This clause realises the nucleus of the whole text; it is here that the key proposal is presented with a nuclear punch… . 

But what is the key proposal? One variant of I urge you to vote ... is you must vote ..., the two being relatable as explicit and implicit variants of subjective, high modulations of the type obligation. However, we can take one step further in the analysis. What the author is saying is Vote against ..., which is an ‘imperative’ clause – the congruent realisation of a proposal of the subtype ‘command’. This indicates the connection between ‘imperative’ clauses and modulation, which is why modulation was characterised as the ‘imperative type’ of modality. On the one hand, an ‘imperative’ clause imposes an obligation; on the other hand, the imperative tag checks the addressee’s inclination to comply (will you?). But the example also illustrates the connection between mood and projection.

Interpersonal Projection

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 700):

There is thus a fundamental relationship between modal assessment, including modality, and projection. To bring this out, we can interpret modal assessment as interpersonal projection. Interpersonal projection always involves the speaker or addressee as ‘projector’: ‘I think’, ‘I say’; ‘do you think’, ‘do you say’. It is always implicit unless it is made explicit through grammatical metaphor, by ‘co-opting’ ideational resources to do interpersonal service.

Metaphor Opens Up New Systemic Domains Of Meaning

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 699-700):

This is the general effect of grammatical metaphor: it construes additional layers of meaning and wording. To capture this layering in our grammatical analysis, we introduce one or more additional structural layers in the box diagram. The representation of grammatical metaphor in such diagrams shows how the metaphor is embodied in the structural organisation as an increase in the layers of meaning and wording. 

But there is, of course, also a systemic effect. Systemically, metaphor leads to an expansion of the meaning potential: by creating new patterns of structural realisation, it opens up new systemic domains of meaning. And it is the pressure to expand the meaning potential that in fact lies behind the development of metaphorical modes of meaning. Thus in the system of MODALITY, the system of ORIENTATION is expanded by the addition of a systemic contrast in MANIFESTATION between ‘explicit’ and ‘implicit’: the metaphorical modalities described above make it possible to make the orientation explicit in wordings such as I think and it is likely that, which, in turn, makes it possible to increase the delicacy of differentiations (cf. I think/imagine/expect/assume/suppose/reckon/guess; I would think/I would have thought; I imagine/I can imagine; and so on). 

As we have already seen, this same principle extends beyond modality and applies to modal assessment more generally (e.g. I regret, it is regrettable that). The metaphoric strategy is to upgrade the interpersonal assessment from group rank to clause rank – from an adverbial group or prepositional phrase serving within a simple clause to a clause serving within a clause nexus of projection.

The Extension Of Modality Through Metaphor

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 698-9):

As we have seen, the semantic domain of modality is extended through grammatical metaphor to include explicit indications of subjective and objective orientation: a modal proposition or proposal is realised, as if it was a projection sequence, by a nexus of two clauses, or as if it was a fact embedded as a Carrier in a relational clause with a modal Attribute, rather than by a single clause. Here the modal assessment itself is given the status of a proposition in its own right; but because the projecting clause of the nexus is metaphorical in nature, standing for an interpersonal assessment of modality, it is also, at the same time, a modal Adjunct in the clause realising the proposition/proposal.

The Apparent Paradox On Which The Modality System Rests

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 698):

The importance of modal features in the grammar of interpersonal exchanges lies in an apparent paradox on which the entire system rests – the fact that we only say we are certain when we are not. If unconsciously I consider it certain that Mary has left, I say, simply, Mary’s left. If I add a high value probability, of whatever orientation, such as Mary’s certainly left, I’m certain Mary’s left, Mary must have left, this means that I am admitting an element of doubt – which I may then try to conceal by objectifying the expression of certainty. Hence whereas the subjective metaphors, which state clearly ‘this is how I see it’, take on all values (I’m sure, I think, I don’t believe, I doubt, etc.), most of the objectifying metaphors express a ‘high’ value probability or obligation – that is, they are different ways of claiming objective certainty or necessity for something that is in fact a matter of opinion. Most of the ‘games people play’ in the daily round of interpersonal skirmishing involve metaphors of this objectifying kind.

Metaphorical Realisations Of Modality

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 698):

The explicitly subjective and explicitly objective forms of modality are all strictly speaking metaphorical, since all of them represent the modality as being the substantive proposition. Modality represents the speaker’s angle, either on the validity of the assertion or on the rights and wrongs of the proposal; in its congruent form, it is an adjunct to a proposition rather than a proposition in its own right. Speakers being what we are, however, we like to give prominence to our own point of view; and the most effective way of doing that is to dress it up as if it was this that constituted the assertion (‘explicit’ I think ... ) – with the further possibility of making it appear as if it was not our point of view at all (‘explicit objective’ it’s likely that ... ).

Subjective vs Objective Orientation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 696, 698):

The general difference in meaning between the subjective and the objective orientation can be seen from the effect of the tag. Compare the following two clauses:

he couldn’t have meant that, could he?
surely he didn’t mean that, did he?

In the first, the speaker wants the listener to confirm his estimate of the probabilities: ‘I think it unlikely; do you share my opinion?’. In the second, he wants the listener to provide the answer: ‘I think it unlikely, but is it in fact the case?’. It is possible to switch from a subjectively modalised clause to a non-modalised tag, as in this exchange in a store selling children’s books:

What do you reckon would be good for a five-year-old kid?
– She’ll like fairy tales, does she?

Here the salesperson’s reply means ‘I think it likely she likes fairy tales; is that the case?’ – whereas she’ll like fairy tales, will she? would have meant ‘do you agree that it is likely?’. The speaker is assuming, in other words, that the customer knows the preferences of the child; there would be no point in simply exchanging opinions on the subject.

Key To 30 Of The 144 Categories Of Modality

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 695-6):

Modality Examples By Type Of Orientation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 692-3):

Examples of the combination of orientation and type are given in Table 10-8.

 

System Of Types Of Orientation In Modality

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 692):

The basic distinction that determines how each type of modality will be realised is the ORIENTATION: that is, the distinction between subjective and objective modality, and between the explicit and implicit variants… . The system is as in Figure 10-7.

 

These combine with all four types of modality, but with gaps; for example, there are no systematic forms for making the subjective orientation explicit in the case of usuality or inclination (i.e. no coded expressions for ‘I recognise it as usual that ... ’ or ‘I undertake for ... to ... ’). This is a systematic gap; these particular combinations would represent semantic domains where the speaker cannot readily pose as an authority.

Projection And Interpersonal Assessment

Halliday And Matthiessen (2014: 679):

Projection is thus dispersed across different grammatical environments. But the different manifestations of projection are not, of course, synonymous. The ideational manifestations make explicit the orientation of the assessment: the logical manifestation is explicitly subjective (e.g. I regret) whereas the experiential manifestation is explicitly objective (e.g. it’s regrettable). In contrast, the interpersonal manifestation leaves the orientation implicit:

ideational, logical – nexus:      explicit orientation: subjective (I regret)
ideational, exper. – 2 clauses: explicit orientation: objective (it’s regrettable)
interpersonal – 1 clause:          implicit orientation (regrettably)

The difference between ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’ orientation in the ideational manifestation follows from the general difference between a projecting ‘mental’ or ‘verbal’ clause with a Senser or Sayer and a ‘relational’ clause without such a ‘projector’. When the assessment is explicitly ‘subjective’, the Senser or Sayer has to be the speaker I if the clause is ‘declarative’ or the addressee you if it is ‘interrogative’ (as in Do you regret that it’s taken so long for you and your dad to get to work together?). If it is a person other than the speaker or addressee, the clause will still be a projecting one; but it will not be agnate with an interpersonal assessment.

The Orientation Of Demonstrative & Possessive Specific Deictics

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 314):

The two are closely related, both being (as indicated by the term ‘deixis’) a form of orientation by reference to the speaker — or more accurately, to the ‘speaker–now’, the temporal–modal complex that constitutes the point of reference of the speech event.

Behavioural Processes: Orientation

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 302):

Some [behavioural processes] also regularly feature a prepositional phrase with to, at or on: I’m talking to you, don’t look at me, fortune is smiling on us.  These are in origin circumstances of Place; in the behavioural context they express orientation, but we may continue to use that label.

Polar Interrogatives & Implicit Modality

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 182n):

Yes/no interrogatives with mood Adjuncts are more restricted than yes/no interrogatives with modal Finites. For example, has he perhaps left? is fine, but has he probably left? and has he surely left? seem less likely; and interrogatives with thematic Adjuncts seem unlikely (e.g. perhaps has he left?).