Martin (1992: 415):
The interpersonal metaphors which have been unpacked in [6:31] are itemised in Table 6.21.
Blogger Comments:
[1] Not one of the items listed exemplifies the purported contrast in the table between metaphorical and congruent grammatical realisations of interpersonal meaning, as the following points will demonstrate.
[2] Modalisation is a system of the interpersonal metafunction that concerned with probability and usuality. Its metaphorical realisations are those of explicit orientation, whether subjective (I think) or objective (it is probable that…, it is usual that). Condition, on the other hand, is a type of expansion: enhancement, and as such, is not a metaphorical realisation of interpersonal meaning.
[3] The word uncertain in this instance is not a metaphorical realisation of modalisation because it does not express 'probability'; instead if you are uncertain whether… is agnate with if you do not know whether…. A genuine example of its use as a metaphor of modality is the explicit objective form it is uncertain that….
[4] The Mood element my responsibility is is not a metaphorical realisation of modulation. The metaphorical counterpart of the implicit subjective orientation (I must) realisation is the explicit subjective form I am required to….
[5] The hypotactic verbal group complex — not event complex — hesitate to do is not a metaphorical realisation of both modulation and modalisation. The metaphorical counterpart of the modulated you can is the explicit you are allowed, and the metaphorical counterpart of certainly is the explicit it is certain…. However, Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 504) do include hesitate to do as a possible example of the feature manner: quality in the verbal group complex system of modulation — whose entry conditions are 'hypotactic' and 'enhancing' (op. cit.: 520) — though they hesitate to do so:
The doubtful one here is hesitate, which perhaps belongs to the 'projection' type as a mental process.
[6] The projecting verbal clause I have been advised is not a metaphorical realisation of modality because it does not realise either probability, usuality, obligation or inclination — nor even 'presumption'. The adverb apparently serves as a comment Adjunct of presumption: hearsay, rather than a mood Adjunct. As Halliday & Matthiessen explain of comment Adjuncts:
There is no very clear line between these and the mood Adjuncts; for example, the 'comment' categories of prediction, presumption and desirability overlap semantically with the mood categories shown under modality. The difference is that comment Adjuncts are less closely tied to the grammar of mood; they are restricted to 'indicative' clauses (those functioning as propositions), and express the speaker's attitude either to the proposition as a whole or to the particular speech function. In other words, the burden of the comment may be either ideational or interpersonal.
[7] This is not a greeting metaphorically realised as an offer. This is an offer realised as a modulated polar interrogative clause. Moreover, it is an offer — the giving of goods–&–services — where the service being given is, atypically, the performance of a linguistic mode of action: a greeting.
