Misconstruing Modal Adjuncts As Interpersonal Metaphor

Martin (1992: 412, 413):

Interpersonal metaphors were introduced in Chapter 2 in connection with congruent and metaphorical realisations of SPEECH FUNCTION in MOOD.  Assessments of probability, usuality, inclination and obligation also display a range of diversified realisation.  Some examples of interpersonal grammatical metaphors are reviewed in Table 6.19…

Table 6.19. Congruent and metaphorical realisations of interpersonal meanings [1]
modalisation		probability	usuality
congruent	Modal verb	may	will
metaphorical	Modal Adjunct	possibly	usually
	Epithet	possible	usual
	Thing	possibility	tendency
	relational Process	(suggest)	(predict)
	projecting Process	(I) reckon	(I) predict
	conjunction	if	provided that

Blogger Comments:

[1] See relevant critique here.

[2] The congruent realisations of modalisation are those of implicit manifestation: the subjective orientation being realised as a finite modal operator (e.g. will) and the objective orientation as a modal Adjunct (e.g. probably, usually).  In Table 6.19, the latter are misconstrued as metaphorical instead of congruent.

The metaphorical realisations of modalisation are those of explicit manifestation: the subjective orientation being realised as a projecting cognitive mental clause (e.g. I think…) and the objective orientation as an attributive clause with a factual Carrier (e.g. it's probable…, it's usual…).  See Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 613ff).

[3] As Epithet, these serve as Attribute in metaphorical realisations of objective orientation (e.g. it's possible…, it's usual…).  In congruent realisations, they can function as Post-Deictic in a nominal group (Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 612).

[4] Some nominalised forms can serve as an objective orientation of modalisation, such as in all probability, but they are intermediate between explicit and implicit manifestation, and so intermediate between metaphorical and congruent.  See Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 615-6).

[5] The verbs suggest and predict, serving as relational processes, are not metaphorical realisations of probability and usuality.

[6] There is no usuality counterpart for the probability metaphor I think. Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 619):

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 …'.

[7] The conjunction groups if and provided that — both of which express the expansion relation of positive condition — are not metaphorical realisations of probability and usuality.

Misrepresenting The Unpacking Of Metaphor

Martin (1992: 411-2, 491n):

This means that abstract text, especially that textured by ideational metaphor, is often best unpacked in steps, up to the point where the analysis is sufficient for the deconstruction in which the analyst is engaged.  One such unpacking strategy involves first unpacking logical metaphors and any experiential metaphors necessary to render them, then moving on [to] unpack the remaining experiential metaphors and finally turning to any interpersonal ones.  This strategy is illustrated below for [6:23k].

[6:23k]

The enlargement of Australia’s steel-making capacity, and of chemicals, rubber, metal goods and motor vehicles all owed something to the demands of war.

(i) UNPACKING IDEATIONAL METAPHOR

(rendering logical metaphors as conjunctions and unpacking any experiential metaphors necessary to accomplish this) 

alpha	Australia’s steel-making capacity enlarged, alongside that of chemicals, rubber, metal goods and motor vehicles
beta	partly because war demanded it.

(ii) UNPACKING REMAINING EXPERIENTIAL METAPHORS

alpha	Australia’s capacity to make steel got bigger, alongside that of chemicals, rubber, metal goods and motor vehicles
beta	partly because war demanded it.

 (iii) UNPACKING INTERPERSONAL METAPHORS

alpha	Australia could make more steel, chemicals, rubber, metal goods and motor vehicles
beta	partly because people said
gamma	“Give us materials
delta	so that3 we can fight the war”

3 The conjunction so that has been selected here since it codes the meaning of inclination; see Chapter 4 above.

Blogger Comments:

[1] In terms of SFL theory, this is a semantic sequence of at least three figures incongruently realised as a single clause at the level of grammar:

The enlargement of Australia’s steel-making capacity, and of chemicals, rubber, metal goods and motor vehicles all	owed	something	to the demands of war
Token/Identifier	Process: possession	Value/Identified	Beneficiary

A more congruent grammatical realisation might be something like the following complex of three clauses:

Australia	ended up being able to produce	more steel, chemicals, rubber, metal goods and motor vehicles	to some extent	because	it	had needed to be able to produce	them	in order to	fight	the war
a				x b cause: reason
				a				x b cause: purpose
Actor	Process: material	Goal	Manner: degree		Actor	Process: material	Goal		Process: material	Scope: process

[2] This is not unpacking interpersonal metaphor.  Interpersonal metaphor involves modality or speech function being construed as a proposition, as when realised grammatically by a projecting clause, or involves incongruent (grammatical) realisations of (semantic) speech functions, as when a command is realised by indicative mood.  See Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 626-35) and the following critiques.

[3] The conjunction group so that realises a logico-semantic relation of cause: purpose between the two clauses in the nexus.  It does not function interpersonally to "code the meaning of inclination". See previous critiques, e.g. here and here.