Misunderstanding Modality In Responses To WH- Interrogatives [New]

Martin (1992: 39):

The one clause type to which the notion of negotiation through grading does not transparently apply is the wh interrogative. One might argue that in an adjacency pair like the following, the response simply supplies the missing experiential meaning; grading is not an issue:

What do you reckon would be good for a five-year-old kid?

— Fairy tales.

Note however that the elliptical response does take over the degree of probability coded in the wh interrogative; it's [sic] full form is She would like fairy tales, with modality probable, as opposed to possible or certain. The actual answer to this question is taken up in 2.8 below (text 2) and demonstrates that interlocutors are prepared to negotiate modality in the context of wh interrogatives where they feel uncomfortable with what an elliptical response might imply: — She'll like fairy tales, does she? The nonellipitical reply enables its speaker to adjust modality in the tag.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this is all utter nonsense. The grading of modality in responses to WH- interrogatives is not at all problematical, as demonstrated by

What do you reckon would be good for a five-year-old kid?

— Fairy tales, possibly/probably/certainly. (elliptical)

— She'd possibly/probably/certainly like fairy tales. (non-elliptical)

[2] To be clear, because the Mood tag reprises the Finite element, the only way to "adjust modality in the tag" is to first "adjust" it in the Finite:

What do you reckon would be good for a five-year-old kid?

— She could like fairy tales, couldn't she? (low)

— She would like fairy tales, wouldn't she? (median)

— She must like fairy tales, mustn't she? (high)

Cf

What do you reckon would be good for a five-year-old kid?

— She'll possibly like fairy tales, won't she? (low)

— She'll probably like fairy tales, won't she? (median)

— She'll certainly like fairy tales, won't she? (high)

Using Modality To "Determine" Speech Function [New]

Martin (1992: 38-9, 91n):

A second set of evidence relevant to determining speech function is evidence from the co-text, either through the presence of one of the indexical markers noted above in an adjacent interact, or through the expression of gradations within probablity, usuality, inclination and obligation. Halliday (1985a:335) associates degrees of MODALISATION (probability and usuality) with propositions and degrees of MODULATION (inclination and obligation) with proposals; and within proposals, inclination is associated with Offers and Response Offers to Commands and obligation with Commands and Acknowledge Offers.

Examples of this grading in the context of the adjacency pairs considered to this point are provided below.

OFFER ^ ACKNOWLEDGE OFFER (obligation)
Shall I mark them then?
— You're required/supposed/allowed to.

COMMAND ^ RESPONSE OFFER TO COMMAND (inclination)
Get me a drink, would you?
— I'm willing/keen/determined to.

QUESTION ^ RESPONSE STATEMENT TO QUESTION (probability)
Will she win then?
— Possibly/probably/certainly she will.

STATEMENT ^ ACKNOWLEDGE STATEMENT (usuality)
She wins then.

— Sometimes/usually/always¹ she does.

The presence of realisations along these scales (with positive and negative polarity as outer poles), including their metaphorical variants (see Halliday 1985a:336), provides additional evidence for assigning speech function to grammatical classes. The metaphorical realisation of inclination I'd love to in the following pair, clearly associates it with exchanging goods and services, not information:

Why don't you get us a beer?

— I'd love to.

Similarly the scale of usuality associates the first pair below with the negotiation of propositions, while that of inclination implies the negotiation of a service.

Can you open this window?
— Sometimes/usually/always.

Can you open this window?

— I'm willing/keen/determined to.

¹ Always would of course be realised between Subject and Finite (i.e. she always does).

 
Blogger Comments:

[1] This is very misleading indeed. To be clear, here Martin is continuing the fiction that he is establishing SPEECH FUNCTION as a semantic system, despite the fact that Halliday's SPEECH FUNCTION is already a semantic system, as part of the more general fiction that he is in the process of stratifying the content plane into semantics and lexicogrammar, despite the fact that this stratification was proposed in his chief source, Halliday & Hasan (1976: 5):

[2] To be clear, here Martin is trying to establish SPEECH FUNCTION as a semantic system by arguing 'from below': how it is expressed. This is opposite to SFL methodology, which takes the view 'from above': the meaning that is expressed.

[3] To be clear, this misrepresents Halliday (1985: 335), who actually wrote:

[4] This is misleading, because it is not true. Expressions of MODALITY do not "provide evidence for assigning speech function to grammatical classes". On the contrary, Halliday (1985: 335) uses an already "determined" SPEECH FUNCTION to differentiate MODALITY into MODALISATION and MODULATION.

[5] This is misleading, because positive and negative polarity are not the outer poles of modality. Modality lies between these poles, but excludes them.

[6] To be clear, what can associate expressions of inclination with the exchange of goods-&-services, not information, is their being responses to demands for goods-&-services, not information. Such expressions are no identifier of the commodity being exchanged because the same expressions can be used in responses to demands for information, not goods-&-services:

Would you like to be a millionaire?

— I'd love to.

— I'm willing/keen/determined to.

[7] Similarly, expressions of usuality are no identifier of the commodity being exchanged because they can be used with goods-&-services as well as information:

Obey the rules, whatever your personal ethics!

— sometimes/usually/always

[8] To be clear, always can occur in any position, depending on textual considerations:

She always does (least marked: interpersonal Theme)
She does always (focus of New information)
Always she does (most marked: focused interpersonal Theme)

Misrepresenting Hasan's Work On Speech Function [New]

Martin (1992: 37-8):

Beyond this, the most significant work in the area has been undertaken by Hasan (forthcoming), working on the category of Offer. Her strategy is to extend the SPEECH FUNCTION network in delicacy to the point where it makes more categorical predictions about the realisation of discourse semantics in lexicogrammar. As a first step Hasan adds the system [conclusive/nonconclusive] to the SPEECH FUNCTION systems noted above. This allows her to distinguish between Offers which accompany the handing over of goods or performance of a service (proffers) and Offers which foreshadow such {pre-offers). …

But it is clear that the realisation relationship between discourse semantics and lexicogrammar has been considerably clarified simply by taking one step — subclassifying [giving/goods & services] exchanges as [conclusive/nonconclusive]. …

It provides a mechanism for systematically relating SPEECH FUNCTION to MOOD, and at the same time establishes a set of SPEECH FUNCTION classes that is clearly limited, and at the same time indefinitely extendable (through the scale of delicacy).

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading. The term 'discourse semantics' here gives the false impression that Hasan is using Martin's model — and so: endorsing it — whereas, in fact, she is using Halliday's previously devised model of semantics.

This attempted deception is aided by Martin's citing of Hasan's paper as (forthcoming), despite the fact that it has been variously dated to 1985 and 1987 — 5-7 years before Martin's publication. 

Together, these two misrepresentations conspire to conceal the fact that the content plane was stratified into lexicogrammar and semantics before Martin came along to try and take credit for it.

[2] This is misleading. Hasan's work is concerned with extending the delicacy of an already established SPEECH FUNCTION system on the already established stratum of semantics, not with "systematically relating SPEECH FUNCTION to MOOD". The implication here is that the content plane is only now being carried out, here in this work, by Martin, in drawing on the work of others.

[3] Here once again Martin mistakes systemic features for classes.

Trying To Classify Speech Function 'From Below' [New]

Martin (1992: 36):

As far as determining speech function is concerned, there are a number of factors to take into account. First of all, there are several indexical markers which clearly distinguish proposals from propositions. These include please, kindly, allright, okay and thank-you. Please and kindly are found in Commands, allright and okay in Response Offers to Commands and thank-you in responses to Offers or Commands.

Could I have a midi [middy] of Coopers, please?

— Okay.

— Thanks.

Beyond this, it is difficult to find unique grammatical criteria for recognising very general categories such as Offer, Command, Statement and so on.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, here Martin is trying to argue semantic distinctions 'from below' — in terms of grammatical expressions. This is the direct opposite of the methodology of SFL Theory, which gives priority to the view 'from above' — the meanings that are expressed. See the previous post.

[2] This is misleading. To be clear, three of the four primary speech functions can be recognised by their congruent grammatical realisations:

• commands realised in imperative mood,
• statements realised in declarative mood, and
• questions realised in interrogative mood.

Misrepresenting The Realisation Of Speech Function In Mood [Revised]

Martin (1992: 36):

To this point a model has been outlined in which SPEECH FUNCTION (discourse semantics) has been stratified with respect to MOOD (lexicogrammar) on the content plane.  This immediately raises two questions: (i) the determination of speech function in the absence of a one to one correlation between general SPEECH FUNCTION categories and those of MOOD; and (ii) the nature of the units to which speech function is assigned.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is very misleading indeed. On the one hand, it gives the false impression that Halliday's system of SPEECH FUNCTION was not already a semantic system, and not already "stratified with respect to MOOD (lexicogrammar) on the content plane" before Martin came along to try and take the credit.

On the other hand, it gives the false impression that Martin has provided argument that SPEECH FUNCTION is specifically a discourse semantic system, whereas, in fact, no such argument has been made. Moreover, as previously demonstrated, the "argument" that has been made confuses the non-structural textual system of ELLIPSIS-&-SUBSTITUTION with the structural interpersonal system of MOOD.

[2] To be clear, the absence (or presence) of a "one to one correlation between general SPEECH FUNCTION categories and those of MOOD" has no bearing on the determination of speech function. Each of the four categories realises the feature bundle that specifies it:

• 'statement' realises [give, information];
• question' realises [demand, information];
• 'offer' realises [give, goods-&-services];
• 'command' realises [demand, goods-&-services].

In other words, if the meaning is 'give information' etc., then the speech function is 'statement' etc.

[3] To be clear, Halliday (1981) identifies the semantic unit "to which speech function is assigned" as a move in an exchange. Halliday (2002 [1981]: 240):

Each clause is in this sense a kind of gift, one move in an exchange, symbolised by the change of perspective from me to you.