Mood - clause as exchange

Unitati de invatare

The definition of mood

Structure of the Mood element

Polarity and Modality

Structure of the Residue

Identifying structural elements

Obiective

• Studentii trebuie sa poata identifica modurile in structura propozitiilor
• Studentii trebuie sa isi insuseasca structura elementelor din mod
• Studentii trebuie sa fie capabili sa recunoasca modurile de exprimare a polaritatii si modalitatii
• Studentii trebuie sa poata identifica tipurile de elemente din Mood.

Timpul alocat temei: 4 ore

Bibliografie recomandata :

Bloor, Thomas, Bloor, Meriel. The Functional Analysis of English. A Hallidayan Approach. Second edition. London: Arnold, 2004.

Dik, Simon. Studies In Functional Grammar, Amsterdam University Press, 1980

Eggins, Suzanne. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Pinter, 1996.

Fries, Peter. On the Status of Theme in English: arguments from discourse in Forum Linguisticum 6, pp. 1-38, 1981.

Halliday, M.A.K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar, second edition, Arnold, London, 1994

Halliday, M.A.K. On Grammar, eds. Jonathan Webster, London & New York: Continuum, 2003.

Ghadessy, Mohsen. Thematic Development in English Texts, London: Pinter, 1995.

Martin, J.R. English Text: System and Structure, Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1992.

Lyons, John. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1968

Matthienssen, Christian & Bateman, John. Text Generation and Systemic- Functional Linguistics, Pinter, London, 1991

Matthienssen, Christian; Painter, Claire & Martin, J.R. Working With Functional Grammar, Arnold, London, 1997

Thompson, Geoff. Introducing Functional Grammar, Arnold, London, 1996

R. Quirk and J. Svartvik, A Corpus of English Conversation, Eds. 1980.

2.1. The definition of MOOD

The system of MOOD belongs to the interpersonal metafunction of the language and is the grammatical resource for realizing an interactive move in dialogue. For example, each of the following alternatives has a different interactional status and each embodies an alternative MOOD choice:

Example Mood

The spy came in from the cold.   declarative

Did the spy come in from the cold? interrogative: yes/ no

Who came in from the cold?    interrogative: wh-

Where did the spy come from?

Come in from the cold!    imperative

If we look at each of these as a possible move in a dialogue, we can see that one difference between them lies in the role of the speaker - the speaker may be giving something to the addressee or demanding something of him/ her. Moreover, the 'something' here will be either information or goods and services. While goods and services exist independently of language (and can be exchanged without accompanying language) information is constitued in language and has no existence outside the symbolic exchange.

The key to a semantic understanding of a dialogue is the metaphor of symbolic exchange among the persons taking part , which gives us the two notions of

(i)      the role taken on by an interactant in the exchange and;

(ii)    the nature of the exchange- good and services versus information.

Table 1:

As you can see from the table 1, (i) and (ii) combine the traditional speech functional categories of statement, question, offer and command. Statements and questions involve exchanges of information and are called propositions while offers and commands are exchanges of goods and services called proposals. These semantic categories are realized by grammatical MOOD options.

So far we have been looking at single clause examples, but to understand interpersonal grammar it is important to focus on its role in realizing dialogues which is essentially an interactive, collaborative process. To explore the role of the MOOD further, let us look more closely at a minimal example of dialogue. In the following dialog exchange A demands information and B gives on demand:

A: What the hell is structuralism?

B: It's a form of analysis, dear.

The most central aspect of this passage of dialogue is that it is acted out as an exchange between A and B. The example above is, semantically, a demand for information (question) followed by a piece of information (statement) realized grammatically as 'interrogative: wh-' and 'declarative', respectively.

Structurally, the exchange revolves around two parts: is structuralism?- It is and What the hell- a form of analysis. The first is the MOOD element, here the combination of Subject and the Finite verb, while the other is the Residue element (which may involve one or more elements). You can see that the order of the Subject and Finite element within the MOOD element is interpersonally significant. In this exchange, it switches from MOOD (Finite^ Subject), indicating that the clause is interrogative, to MOOD (Subject^ Finite), indicating that the clause is declarative:

A: What the hell is structuralism?

. . ..Residue . .. . . . . .Mood . . . . .

Finite Subject

B: It 's a form of analysis, dear.

. ..Mood . . . . . . Residue . . . . .

Subject Finite

The example above also illustrates other interpersonal choices. For example, B chooses to respond It's a form of analysis, dear rather than It's a form of analysis, thus naming the addressee with a good and services Vocative embodying an interpersonal attitude, an undearment (dear).

2.2. Structure of the Mood element

The Mood element makes the clause 'negotiable' and consists of Finite, Subject and sometimes Modal Adjuncts. The finite makes a cluase negotiable by coding it as positive or negative and by grounding it, either in terms of time (it is/ it isn't: it was/ it wasn't: it will/ it won't) or in terms of modality (it may/ it will/ it must etc). The Subject is the element in terms of which the clause can be negotiated. Modal adjuncts add meanings related to the speaker judgement or to the positive/ negative aspect of the Finite. Table 2 outlines the class of unit which typically realizes functions within the Mood element.

Table 2: Functions within the Mood element

For example:

Unfortunately the girl has already done it.

. . . . . . . . . . . .Mood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..    . . ..Residue . .

Modal adjunct Subject Finite Modal adjunct

(comment) (mood)

To probe for a Subject role, add a Moodtag. In the tag the Subject will be repeated as a pronoun, as in The girl has already done it, hasn't she? In a similar way, the Finite can be identified as the verb which reappears in the Moodtag.

As shown above, there are two kinds of Modal adjunct: the mood Adjunct and the comment adjunct. The mood Adjunct construes meaning most closely related to those of the Finite, which comment Adjuncts provide an attitude towards, or comment upon, the exchange itself of the information being exchanged.

It is the structure of the Mood element which distinguishes the principal mood types (of declarative, interrogative, imperative), as shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Relation of Mood selection and Mood structure

2.3. Polarity and modality

The Mood element of the clause is also where the interpersonal resources of POLARITY (positive/ negative) and MODALITY (probability etc.) are realized in English. These meanings can be expressed either as a feature of the Finite or as a separate Mood adjunct.

Finite mood adjunct

polarity hasn't not

modality may perhaps

For instance:

He   may be at home : He is perhaps at home

..Mood . .. . ..Residue . . . . . .Mood . . . . . Residue

Su Fi Su Fi Adjunct

There are four main kinds of Modality: probability, usuality, obligation and readiness. Halliday refers to probability and usuality together as modalization, which he associates with propositions (statements and questions); he refers to obligation and readiness as modulation, which is associated with proposals (offers and commands). See the below table:

The Interpretation Of Subject As An Interpersonal Function

Halliday interprets Subject as an interpersonal function, not as a textual or ideational one. He approaches it from dialogue in the first instance rather than just a monologue. Halliday's notion of 'moral responsibility' as the characterization of Subject may take a while to understand; but it is crucial to an understanding to the category of Subject in English. You can see it most clearly in clauses that express proposals- imperative clauses and indicative clauses with a modal auxiliary indicating obligation or readiness (modulated indicative clauses).

For example:

- proposal in the form of an imperative 'you do': implicit Subject you:

Oh, don't (you) say that!

Don't (you) touch me!

(you) be quick, will you?

- proposal in the form of a modulated indicative clause: Subject in bold:

You mustn't mind what a sick person says.

You should go to bed.

You can go to sleep.

Shall I pour you another glass?

Can we give you a ride home?

Here the Subject is responsible for the success of the proposal. But you can also get a sense of Subject as the modally responsible element in propositions - indicative clauses negotiating information when you consider the potential embodied in the combination of Subject and Finite:

Meg:   You slept like a log last night.

Pete:    Did I?

Meg:   I was the belle of the ball.

Pete:    Were you?

Meg:   Oh, yes. They all said I was.

Meg:   Well, I bet you don't know what it is.

Pete:    oh, yes, I do.

These examples indicate that the Subject is also modally responsible in an indicative clause realizing a proposition. In propositions we might characterize the meaning of Subject in terms of that element of meaning which the speaker assesses to be most at risk; most likely to be a candidate for the listener rejecting the proposition. Thus characterized, the Subject is a kind of variable and the Residue a constant. Extended to proposals, this interpretation would imply that proposals are most at risk in terms of who is responsible for carrying them through, rather than whether they should be done in the first place.

In contrast to Halliday's dialogic approach to Subject, most recent linguistic work has tried to interpret it in textual terms as a grammaticalization of 'topic' in a monologic environment. But, as you have seen, (topical) Theme and Subject are only conflated in the unmarked case (in declarative clauses). Furthermore, the interpretation of Subject as a grammaticalization of 'topic' entirely fails to account for its contribution to Mood together with Finite and facts that follow from that, such as the following:

a.  As already implied, modulations (obligations and inclinations) are oriented towards the Subject of the clause, not towards any other elements. Thus, in you shouldn't say that word, 'you' (Subject) rather than 'that word' (Complement) is vested with obligation.

b. When a clause is negative, the negation normally starts with Finite and affects the whole of residue, but Subject is not negated: it is the element with respect to which something is affirmed or denied, etc- he - he has bought something for you/ hasn't bought anything for you.

2.4. Structure of the Residue

The Residue consists of Predicator, sometimes also of Complement(s), and sometimes also of Adjunct(s).

Residue functions:

For example:

Whereas the Finite specifies the domain of arguability as through time or modality, the Predicator may specify features of temporality or modality (or other domains) that are related to whatever specification is made in the Finite. For example,

She was going to respond.

Su Fi Predicator

Here the primary tense in the Finite establishes arguability in terms of past (was) in relation to 'now', while the secondary tense in the Predicator specifies future (going to) in relation to the past.

The difference between Complements and Adjuncts is that the Complements are potential Subjects, whereas Adjuncts are not.

She gave my aunt these flowers out of pity.

My aunt was given these flowers out of pity.

These flowers were given to my aunt out of pity, but not

Out of pity was given these flowers my aunt.

Wh- : an itinerant function

One particular interpersonal clause function is sometimes found in Mood and sometimes in Residue. This is the Wh element, which always combines or 'conflates' with another function. If it conflates with the Subject, it becomes part of the Mood element, if it conflates with a Complement or Adjunct it becomes part of the Residue. For example:

Who has seen the new Schwarzenegger movie?

. . ..Mood . . . .   . . . . . .Residue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Wh/Subject Finite Predictor Complement

When did you see it?

Residue . . .Mood . . . . . .. . . Residue . . ..

Wh/Adjunct Finite Subject Predicator Complement

Elements Which Are Outside the Mood Residue Structure

Some elements of clause structure fall outside the Mood + Residue (+ Moontag) structure. These include (i) interpersonal elements which are not part of the proposition or proposal being negotiated and (ii) textual elements which have no interpersonal role at all.

(i). Interpersonal elements:

Vocative: Identifies the addressee in the exchange

e.g. Madam, you'll look like a flower, won't you?

Vocative Mood . ..Residue . . . .. Moontag

Expletive: Expresses attitude towards the exchange itself or the information being exchanged

e.g. Heavens, you'll look like a flower, won't you?

Expletive Mood . ..Residue . . . .. Moontag

(ii). Textual elements:

Continuative: yes, no or structural conjunction, such as and, but, or, when, while.

e.g. yes, it usually does rain

. . ..Mood . . .. Residue

Semantically, the fact that all these parts fall outside the Mood-Residue structure means that these elements are not part of the proposition or proposal being negotiated. They relate to it by indicating its textual relevance as a message (by means of continuatives or conjunctions) and by indicating the addressee (by means of the Vocative) and by indicating speaker stance (by means of Expletive), but they do not form part of what is being negotiated.

The Unit of Analysis

Every 'major' clause in English will embody a choice from the MOOD system. Such choices are also inherent in elliptical clauses, where all or part of Mood or Residue may be absent. For example:

A: Did you get a newspaper today?

B: No, I didn't [ ] elliptical declarative

There are, however, two kinds of clause which do not embody a Mood choice as the following:

a.  The 'non-finite' clause, such as: to give a book, giving her a book, having given her a book, etc. Such clauses are not grounded or bounded by the tense or modality meaning carried in a Finite element and are consequently not arguable or negotiable. They generally consist of Residue only, although sometimes a Subject is present as in her having given him a book.

b. Minor clauses are a second kind of clauses without Mood. They are 'minor' because they are not open to any kind of major systems of Theme, Mood or Transitivity. Such clauses such as oh, hi, thanks, may, however, fulfill a minor speech functional meaning and thus they can serve an interpersonal function as a greeting, or like. They have a semantic role in dialogue but can simply be ignored when analysing the Mood grammatically.

2.5. Identifying Structural Elements

Sometimes it is difficult to identify structural elements due to the particular structure of the clause. Here are some of the most important problems raised by the Mood Structure:

Finite and Predicator realized together

In the simple present or simple past tense, the Finite function is combined with that of Predicator; this is shown in the analysis by writing Finite/Predicator.

simple past Mary had her baby.

Subject Finite/Predicator Complement.

simple present John feels angry.

Subject Finite/Predicator Complement

Note that, for purposes of emphasis, negation and tagging, The Finite is realized separately from the Predicator, through the auxiliary verb do.

emphatic Mary did have her baby,

Subject Finite Predicator Complement

tagged didn't she?

Finite Subject

negative  Mary didn't have her baby.

Subject Finite Predicator Complement

Note the contrast with bare imperatives:

simple present You swim well.

Subject Finite/Predicator Adjunct

imperative  (you) swim well!

Subject Predicator Adjunct

Adjuncts: in Mood or in Residue?

Modal Adjuncts have meanings related to those of the Finite (e.g. probably relates to might) and/ or involve a measure of speaker 'intrusion' through an expression of judgement (presumably) or inclination (gladly). Adjuncts in the Residue lack this intruding function and differ in that they also carry ideational meaning. The Modal Adjuncts, most frequently confused with circumstantial Adjuncts in the Residue are the Mood Adjuncts of usuality and time as follows:

(I). Usuality: always, often, sometimes, never, seldom, etc. Usuality is an interpersonal system because, like modality, it involves gradations between positive and negative, thus involving speaker judgement and a close relationship to the meaning of the Finite.

(II). Time: yet, still, already, once, soon, just. It may be less obvious that mood Adjuncts of time are purely interpersonal in function, since time is an area of meaning also prominent in circumstantial Adjuncts like: at 6 o'clock that evening on January. What distinguishes the mood Adjuncts is that they are concerned with time from the perspective of speaker expectation and judgement. The mood Adjuncts of time, unlike the circumstantial Adjuncts, are referenced to the moment of speaking and indicate the speaker's expectation regarding the timing or the duration of the activity. Being purely interpersonal, they can not become the focus of theme predication, e.g. It was still/ just/already that he came is not possible.

Yes and no: modal Adjunct or conjunctive Adjunct?

Yes and no may be either interpersonal or textual in function. When they constitute or initiate a statement in response to a question, statement, command or offer, they are interpersonal in function and thus a modal Adjunct as the following examples illustrate:

A: Did you bring the keys?

B: Yes, I did.

A: Peter brought the keys.

B: No, he didn't.

A: Peter, bring the keys!

B: Yes, yes.

A: I'll bring the keys, shall I?

B: Yes.

On other occasions, yes or no do not realize a polarity choice in a response, but function as continuatives with a purely textual function, simply linking the polarity with what has gone before. In such a case, no switch in polarity from the previous move is possible and the yes or no will be phonologically weak:

A: Peter's been having a difficult time at work.

B: Yes he's had a bad year all round.

In the example above, yes is textual rather than interpersonal in character (conjunctive rather than modal Adjuncts).

Phrasal verbs: how far does the Predicator extend?

English is rich in 'phrasal verbs', which are formed of a lexical verb and an adverb or preposition, such as look for, look at, go for, go out, call up, etc. In terms of content, the ideational meaning being represented, these phrasal verbs function as a single unit. However, since this is not the meaning we are concerned with when we analyse Mood and Residue, it does not constitute a good reason for treating the adverb or the preposition as part of the Predicator. On the contrary, Halliday in Introduction in Functional Grammar prefers to treat the adverb or the preposition as an Adjunct or part of an Adjunct.

We  didn't give the books out.

Subject Finite Predicator Complement Adjunct

He won't wait for us.

Subject Finite Predicator Adjunct

They didn't give in to the union.

Subject Finite Predicator Adjunct Adjunct

They won't be waiting too long for us.

Subject Finite Predicator Adjunct Adjunct

The analysis allows for generalizations concerning the order of Adjuncts relative to each other. Thus a modal Adjunct that could precede a Complement, such as unfortunately in They won't be borrowing, unfortunately, any good books can also precede a prepositional phrase serving as Adjunct, as in they won't be waiting unfortunately for any good books. However, this interpersonal Adjunct could not occur between the preposition and the noun in the prepositional phrase serving as Adjunct- they won't be waiting for, unfortunately, any good books. The analysis suggests, in other words, that one Adjunct can not interrupt another.

Ambiguous POLARITY

We can probe the polarity value of a clause by adding a Moodtag (if the clause is declarative or imperative; if it is interrogative, just check the related declarative instead). In the unmarked case, the Moodtag always reverses the polarity of the Mood. For example, They like sweets, don't they?; you haven't got a clue, have you? In the normal case, there will be little doubt regarding the polarity value. However there are at least three types of situation that may cause some analytical problems, as follows:

The negative polarity value can appear in sentences expressing usuality or degree. The clause is still negative, even though you don't find a not and even though the negative is scaled down from the definite no: They seldom come here nowadays, do they?; He can hardly speak English, can he?

The negative is a feature of the Subject: Nothing upsets her, does it?; Nobody believes him, do they? (contrast with negative Complements: He believes nobody, doesn't he?)

The negative polarity has been 'transferred' to a mental projecting clause serving as a metaphorical modality: I don't believe this is the right move for us, is it? Here the clause this is . . looks positive, but it is not; the negative polarity is realized within the metaphorical modality I don't believe.

'Will' : Tense or Modality?

'Will' as a modal auxiliary may realize Primary Tense in some situations and Modality in others. For example, Dan will know the answer is ambiguous if it is out of context. Actually, it may be ambiguous even in context. Whether the 'will' is expressing future Primary Tense or Probability depends on whether it is related to Dan is going to know the truth (realizing tense) or Dan must know the truth (realizing probability).

Dan will know the truth:  future tense

Dan is going to know the truth (tomorrow when he reads the newspaper).

Dan will know the truth:  probability

Dan must know the truth (because he was there at the time).

I bet Dan knows the truth (because he was there at the time).

Similarly, whether 'will' expresses Primary Future Tense or Modality should be judged according to the most likely contextual clause:

I'll open the window.   future tense

I'm going to open the window (when I paint the room).

I'll open the window.   modality

I offer to open the window.

Conclusions

Locating MOOD

Mood is an interpersonal resource at clause rank for constructing the clause as a proposition or proposal for negotiation in dialogue. Mood is the grammaticalization of the semantic system of SPEECH FUNCTION associated with dialogue. Selection in Mood are, in turn, realized phonologically by selections in Tone. For example, a move giving information (a statement) is realized by a declarative clause, which is, in turn, realized by a tone group with a falling tone.

The options in the system of Mood gain their realization in structures of the clause and in selection in Tone.

Interpersonal Structure

We can now add to our consideration of any text an analysis of the interpersonal organization of the clause as a move in an exchange, as a contribution to the development of dialogue. This means that there is an element for enacting a speech function , the Mood element, potentially an element for eliciting a response to the speech function, the Moodtag, and an element that expresses the rest of the proposition or proposal being negotiated through the speech function, the Residue. The interpersonal structure of a clause is thus Mood + Residue (+ Moodtag).

The Moodtag grounds the proposition or the proposal by providing a 'modally responsible' element- the Subject- and by providing terms for negotiation in choices Tense/ Modality and Polarity carried by the Finite and/ or mood Adjuncts.

In addition, there may be interpersonal elements that fall outside this modal structure: the Vocative element which addresses to the listener, and the Expletive which expresses attitude towards the exchange itself or the information being exchanged.

Interpersonal structure and textual structure

The Mood ^ Residue structure is an interpersonal strand or layer alongside the textual Theme ^ Rheme structure discussed in the previous chapter. The two structures constitute different, complementary functional perspectives on the clause.

Madam, you' ll look like a flower.

Interpersonal Topical

Theme Rheme

Vocative Mood Residue

The difference between the two functional perspectives is shown in the different set of variants each displays. Textually, we find related variants such as:

Madam, you'll look like a flower : You'll look like a flower, Madam : Like a flower you'll look, Madam

Interpersonally, these are all declarative clauses, and thus do not contrast. Interpersonal variants differ in Mood; for example:

Madam, you'll look like a flower : Madam will you look like a flower? : Madam who will look like a flower? : Madam, look like a flower!

Textually, these clauses are all alike in having unmarked (topical) Theme. We can add one further set of examples to bring out the difference between textual and interpersonal variation: interpersonally, Madam you'll look like a flower, won't you? is related to Madam, you'll look like a flower, you will. In the first variant, the tag is concerned with eliciting an indication of the listener's state of agreement with the proposition in the interaction in a dialogue (e.g. No, I won't), while in the second sentence it serves to present a reminder of the Theme at the end of the clause (a strategy used in certain varieties of English).

In conclusion, we need to recognize different patterns of meaning relating to different metafunctions, but simultaneously present in any clause.

Evaluation Test

I. Practicing the tag questions. Construct a related clause with a tag and underline the Subject and Subject tag:

1. You heard me.

2. That's shocking.

3. No one said anything.

4. We could have done something about it.

5. There is no need to be getting snotty.

6. Jimmy's the one that should be getting snotty.

7. Linda is hitting me.

8. The hot shower refreshed them.

9. Don't start that.

10. Make us a cup of tea.

II. Identify Mood and Residue in the following sentences:

1. Can Tracy watch?

2. You do not care about that.

3. They looked for John.

4. She plugged in the kettle.

5. We watched over their baby.

6. Fortunately, they have already had lunch.

7. Finally, they all left.

8. They lost, surprisingly.

9. I didn't meet anyone though.

III. Identify modality type. Pick out the most plausible kind of modality realized in the following clauses (ability, inclination, obligation, probability, usuality).

1. That must be Jane.

2. You ought to get yourself in the car.

3. You might see them there.

4. He never arrives before six.

5. Am I allowed to go?

6. I should finish this work by tonight.

7. That is only fashion.

8. I promise I'll go.

9. Will you marry me?

10. She said she was pregnant.

IV. Classifying Mood Adjuncts:

1. Riddler was absolutely beside himself.

2. Obviously he was upset.

3. Robin had not even become his partner.

4. His parents were already dead.

5. By all means see it.

6. He readily agreed to join the firm.

7. In fact, he has just started it.

8. He mainly did it for fun, of course.

9. Possibly they just haven't yet arrived.

10. She was utterly shocked.