Misrepresenting (The Unpacking Of) Interpersonal Metaphor

Martin (1992: 412, 414):

Text [6:30] has been written by a sitting member to a new constituent in his electorate and makes use of interpersonal metaphor to focus modal responsibility on the member himself.  Subject and Finite functions in ranking non-dependent clauses appear in bold face in [6:30] to foreground this pattern, which is explicitly announced in [6:30g] — my responsibility is….

As can be seen from the Mood and clause complex analysis provided, the new constituent appears as the sole Subject in only one ranking independent clause (the imperative please do not hesitate to do so), and as joint Subject in f: we are privileged…  — in the contexts of opportunity and flattery respectively.  The effect can be highlighted by stripping the text of its interpersonal metaphors as in [6:31] below; adjusted and now congruent realisations of interpersonal meaning are in bold face.

[6:30] — ‘I am modally responsible’			[6:31] — ‘You are modally responsible’
a.	a	I have been advised	a		Apparently you have recently become one of the constituents in the electorate of Mitchell.
b.	‘b	that you have recently become one of the constituents in the electorate of Mitchell.
c.	xb1	Whether you have recently moved,	b	1	You may have recently moved,
d.	+2	or whether you have reached the age that gives you full voting rights,	c	+2	or you may have reached the age that gives you full voting rights —
e.	a	may I as your Federal Member of Parliament welcome you as a new constituent.	d		whichever the case, my new constituent, welcome.
f.		We are privileged to live in such a pleasant part of Australia.	e	a	We are fortunate
			f	‘b	that we can live in such a pleasant part of Australia.
g.		My responsibility is to make sure that the life style we enjoy is maintained and improved.	g	a	I must work
			h	xb	so that the lifestyle we can (only) enjoy be maintained and improved.
h.	xb	Should you wish to contact me on any matter which is concerning you, either day-to-day or national importance,	i		You may want to contact me on any matter which is concerning you, either day-to-day or national importance —
i.	a	please do not hesitate to do so.	j		You can certainly do so.
j.	xb	If you are uncertain whether your problem is one affected by Commonwealth, State or Local Government,	k		Your problem may be one affected by Commonwealth, State or Local Government.
k.	a	we should be able to advise you promptly.	l	a	We should be able to advise you promptly
			m	“b	which it is affected by.

Blogger Comments:

[1] The speaker does not make use of interpersonal metaphor to present himself as the carrier of modal responsibility (i.e Subject).  Examples of using interpersonal metaphor to do so would be I think (metaphor of modality: probability; explicit subjective orientation) and I urge you (metaphor of mood: command as proposition).

[2] To focus modal responsibility on an element is to give textual prominence to the Subject.

[3] This also serves to exclude the 5 clauses where the addressee (you) is assigned modal responsibility, compared to only 2 where the speaker assigns himself alone modal responsibility, which if included, would falsify the characterisation of the text as 'I am modally responsible'.

[4] This confuses the metalinguistic category of modal responsibility, an interpersonal function carried by the Subject of a clause, with a linguistic instance of 'responsibility' in the text.

[5] Text [6:31] does not strip text [6:30] of its interpersonal metaphors, because text [6:30] does not make use of interpersonal metaphor.  Some of the changes made in the latter text include:

• replacing a projecting clause with a Comment Adjunct (Apparently),
• changing the logical relations in clause complexes,
• adding a Vocative  (my new constituent),
• changing lexis (privileged to fortunate)
• adding a projected clause (which it is affected by).

[6] This is not a mental projection nexus, but an Attributive clause simplex with an embedded fact, and as such, an instance of ideational metaphor, since it realises a sequence of figures of being–&–having related by cause: reason.

We	are	fortunate [[that we can live in such a pleasant part of Australia]]
Carrier	Process: relational	Attribute

We	are	fortunate	because of the fact [[that we can live in such a pleasant part of Australia]]
Carrier	Process: relational	Attribute	Cause: reason

We	are	fortunate	because	we	can live	in such a pleasant part of Australia
a			x b cause: reason
Carrier	Process: relational	Attribute		Carrier	Process: relational	Attribute: circumstantial

On The Ineffability Of Interpersonal Texturing

Martin (1992: 412):

Unlike ideational metaphors, interpersonal metaphors are not so much concerned with packaging information as Theme or New as with what Halliday has described as modal responsibility (1985: 76-8), 1984/1988: 39-45) — they arrange the Mood functions which are appropriate for particular interacts.  Because of its ineffability this interpersonal texturing needs to be explored in context.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Like ideational metaphors, interpersonal metaphors are also concerned with providing alternative groupings of quanta of information, as when modality and speech function are incongruently realised through interpersonal projection (I think, I urge); see Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 626-7).

[2] To be clear, modal responsibility is carried by the Subject.  As part of identifying the Subject from a trinocular perspective, Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 119) write:

From above, it is that which carries the modal responsibility; that is, responsibility for the validity of what is being predicated (stated, questioned, commanded or offered) in the clause.

The Mood element, on the other hand, functions as the nub of the proposition. Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 120):

Hence the Mood element has a clearly defined semantic function: it carries the burden of the clause as an interactive event. So it remains constant, as the nub of the proposition, unless some positive step is taken to change it…

[3] This is an uncomprehending reference to Halliday's 1984 paper On The Ineffability Of Grammatical Categories.  The word ineffable can also be used attitudinally:

“What ineffable twaddle!” I cried, slapping the magazine down on the table; “I never read such rubbish in my life.”

— Dr. John H. Watson to Sherlock Holmes in Arthur Conan Doyle's A Study In Scarlet

Misrepresenting Metaphors Of Mood

Martin (1992: 413):

Table 6.19. Congruent and metaphorical realisations of interpersonal meanings [4]
mood
proposal:
congruent	command	imperative	come here
	offer	Shall/can I.............	come over
metaphorical	command	obligation	you should…
	offer	inclination	I would…
	command	projection: desire	would you like…
	offer	modulated reaction	I’d love…

Blogger Comments:

[1] In terms of the realisation of speech function by mood choice, the congruent/metaphorical distinction does not obtain for offers, because offers are not grammaticalised in the mood system. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 115):

Offers, in English, are not grammaticalised in the mood system; that is, while the other categories, statements, questions and commands, have corresponding mood categories in the grammar (declarative, interrogative and imperative) offers do not. They may be realised by any of the mood categories; for example:

declarative: I can do the laundry.

interrogative: Shall I do the laundry?

imperative: Let me do the laundry!

Significantly, the indicative clauses realising offers are modulated; they select for an imperative modality of readiness or obligation.

[2] The potential metaphor of mood in each of these instances would be the incongruent realisation of a command (semantics: speech function) in the grammar as indicative mood — declarative and interrogative — instead of imperative mood.

Misconstruing Metaphors Of Mood

Martin (1992: 413):

Table 6.19. Congruent and metaphorical realisations of interpersonal meanings [3]
mood
proposition:
congruent	statement	declarative	He’s here
	question	interrogative	Is he here?
metaphorical	statement	probability	It may be that…
	question	usuality	It is usual that…
	statement	projection	I reckon…
	question	projection	Don’t you think…

Blogger Comments:

[1] Interpersonal metaphors of mood involve

• a speech function (semantics) being realised by a projecting clause (grammar), as in I urge you to… or 
• a speech function (semantics) being realised by an incongruent mood choice (grammar), as when a command is realised by indicative instead of imperative mood; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 626-35).

[2] Interpersonal metaphors involving probability and usuality are metaphors of modality, not metaphors of mood.

[3] This instance of modality combines the congruent grammatical realisation (implicit subjective may) with the metaphorical (explicit objective it's x that).

[4] This is a metaphorical grammatical realisation of modality (modalisation: usuality; explicit objective orientation).

[5] This is a metaphorical grammatical realisation of modality (modalisation: probability; explicit subjective orientation).