MOOD

The mood system belongs to the interpersonal metafunction of

language. Here, we are interested in the clause as exchange;
specifically, we are interested in the grammatical resource that
realises different interactional moves in a discourse.
Although there may be some connection, Halliday's mood system
has very little to do with your emotional state right now, normal
or otherwise.

Basic stuf
Right from the start, it would be a good idea to separate the
traditional notion of mood from the technical sense in which
Halliday uses it. Traditionally, mood refers to the verb forms that
express a fact or action (a.k.a. indicative = declarative,
interrogative), command (imperative), or doubt(subjunctive).
Note, though, that subjunctives are not discussed in the
Hallidayan framework.
In the Hallidayan framework, mood, unless otherwise specified,
refers technically to the mood block, which comprises the
following components:

Subject (S)

Finite element (F)

Modal adjunct
[To disambiguate the terms, we shall use "clausal mood" to refer
to the traditional notion of mood (declarative, interrogative,
etc.), and "mood" to refer simply to how it is used in the
Hallidayan framework.]
Moving on. The S, F, and modal adjuncts all come under the
mood block. All other elements come under residue, except the
following which are to be omitted from your analysis:

Conjunctions and conjunctive adjuncts

Vocatives and expletives

You may wonder, quite rightly, why vocatives and expletives are
to be omitted since they are clearly interpersonal in function.
Well, the answer is that they are peripheral [incidental, if you
like] to the act of giving and receiving of information or
goods/services. So for mood analysis, you can leave them out.
So far so good? Now the next big thing you need to do is to chop
up the clause into the mood and residue blocks. Before that,
however, please refresh your memory about SVOCA that you
learned in your first-year grammar course (when dinosaurs once
roamed the earth).
... refreshing, refreshing, refreshing, ...
Done? Okay ... you'll
adjustments, as follows:
SVOCA
S
V
O
C
A

now

need

to

make

some

slight

Halliday
No change
Change to F (finite), P
(predicator)
Change to C (complement)
Retain as C (complement)
Change to AR or AM

What's the difference between complement and adjunct? Halliday

& Matthiessen (2004: 122-124) say:
"A complement is an element within the Residue that has the
potential of being Subject but is not ... It is typically realized
by a nominal group."
"An Adjunct is an element that has not got the potential of
being Subject ... An Adjunct is typically realized by an
adverbial group or a prepositional phrase (rather than by a
nominal group)."
So that's quite clear, isn't it? Now comes the easy bit. When you
analyse the clause using Halliday's SFPCA, it becomes a breeze
to locate the mood block -- group the S and F under MOOD, and
the P and C under RESIDUE.

What about adjuncts then? Aha ... you need to be a little careful
here. There are two types of adjuncts you need to worry about -modal adjuncts and the residue adjuncts. For ease of reference,
let's refer to the latter as ARs (short for "residue adjuncts"). ARs
provide circumstantial information (things to do with time, place,
manner, etc.), including the by agents of passive clauses, such
as "the cake was eaten by him". All ARs form part of the residue.
Modal adjuncts (let's call them AM), on the other hand, form part
of the mood block. They provide additional information on
likelihood, usuality, etc. (mood adjuncts), or the speaker's
opinion, comment, etc. (comment adjuncts). Please note that
AMs include both mood and comment adjuncts.
To give you a feel of what is involved in mood and comment
adjuncts, have a look at the table below. Please note that the
table is merely for your reference; you do not need to memorise
the wretched thing. From the table, hopefully, you should get a
sense of what an AM is, and how you can identify it:
Type
Mood
Probability
adjuncts Usuality
Obligation

Examples
probably, possibly, certainly, perhaps, maybe
always, ever, seldom, rarely, usually
definitely, absolutely, at all costs, by all means

Obviousness obviously, positively, of course, surely, clearly

Intensity
Polarity

just, simply, even, merely, really, actually, in fact,

quite, almost, nearly, scarcely
not, n't (as in didn't, etc.)

Comment Admissive
frankly, to be honest, to tell you the truth
adjuncts Desiderative (un)fortunately, to my delight, luckily, regrettably,
hopefully
Entreaty
please, kindly
Evaluative
Opinion
Persuasive
Predictive

understandably, by mistake, curiously enough,

mistakenly, unwisely
in my opinion, from my point of view, personally,
to my mind
honestly, really, seriously

to my surprise, surprisingly, as expected,

amazingly, by chance
Presumption evidently, apparently, no doubt, presumably

Here are a few examples of mood and comment adjuncts:

Mood adjuncts

Maybe the durian fell on Newton's head. (probability)

Newton seldom thinks straight these days. (usuality)

Newton could hardly walk after the incident. (degree)

Comment adjuncts

Frankly, Newton should have taken shelter under an apple

tree. (opinion)
He, regrettably, did not. (desiderative)
Newton has, no doubt, developed a dislike for the fruit since
then. (presumption)
In summary, then:

S, F, AM: mood

P, C, AR: residue
Beam me up, Scottie!

So what about S & F?

You might have guessed by now that S and F are pretty
important components of the mood block. What's so special
about them? Let's begin with the F element.
What the F element does is that it enables something to be
argued about. Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 115) note that "a
good way to make something arguable is to give it a point of
reference in the here and now; and this is what the Finite does."
Something may be made arguable by being presented in terms
of time (John belched; past time), modality (John might have
belched; probability), or polarity (John did belch; positive
polarity). (See below for the modality in finite verbs.)
The S element, on the other hand, enables a proposition to be
affirmed or denied. The subject is that element that is

responsible for the functioning of the clause as an interactive

event.
The sequential arrangement of S and F also realises
different clausal moods. The typical patterns are as follows:

Declarative
-The tutorials made him hypertensive.

S^F

Wh-interrogative
(wh-word
What made him hypertensive?

Wh-interrogative
(others)
When did he become hypertensive?

Polar
interrogative
Did the tutorials make him hypertensive?

Imperative
(exclusive)
Complete the tutorial worksheet!

Imperative
(inclusive)
Let's complete the tutorial worksheet.

S)

---

--

S^F
F^S
F^S

--

none
--

Beam me up, Scottie!

Bothersome stuf
1. Marrying and divorcing F and P
In a finite clause, if the VG consists of only one verb, F is
conflated with P -- you therefore label the verb as F/P. (Of
course, if the clause is NF, there is no F element to worry about.)
Hence:
1. The durian

fell (F/P)

on Newton's head, didn't it?

The easiest way to pick out the F element is to insert a mood

tag, which picks out the F and S elements of the main clause. In
(1), the mood tag -- didn't it -- raises a puzzle since the main
clause doesn't contain the verb did. Eggins (1994: 158) clarifies:
"Where does the did in the tag come from? What happens is that
with verbs in the simple present or simple past declarative, the
Finite element gets fused with another element, known as

Predicator. In earlier forms of English, and still in emphatic forms

of contemporary English, the did used to be present in the main
part of the clause as well as in the tag [...] I did learn the
English language from the guy, didn't I? [...] In unemphatic
modern English, the did Finite has become fused in with the
content part of the verb. But technically it is still there in the
clause, as we see when we add the tag."
Moving on, if the VG in a finite clause consists of more than one
verb, it is always the first verb that gets labelled F. Everything
else in the VG is P:
2. Newton

won't (F, AM)

be eating (P)

durians for a while.

What about multi-word verbs (such as phrasal or prepositional

verbs)? Mainstream systemicists would treat them as comprising
a fused element of finite/predicator followed by an adjunct -- for
example, switch (F/P) on (A). I feel, however, that it would be a
lot neater to simply regard the particles in such multi-word verbs
as an extension of the verb and, therefore, part of the predicator.
Hence:
3. The boy

switched (F/P-)

on (-P)

the radio.

2. What's the deal with modality in finite verbs?

Finite verbs are verbs that are marked for tense and/or modality.
Modality here refers to degrees of indeterminacy. It does not
refer only to modal verbs such as "can/could", "may/might",
"shall/should", "will/would", "must", or marginal modals such as
"used to", "had to", etc. Indeed, the notion of modality can be
extended to any lexical verb, not just modal verbs.
In the case of verbs, modality is manifested in two ways:

Modalisation -- concerning probability (including certainty) or

usuality.
He may have put on my briefs by mistake. (probability)
He sings in the shower every Friday evening. (usuality)

Modulation -- concerning obligation (including permission) or

inclination.
You ought
to keep
awake
during
the
grammar
lecture. (obligation)

He can sleep
all
he
wants! (obligation)
He desperately tried to stay awake. (inclination)
Do note that the labels above are for verbs only, not for AMs.
(The AM labels are more complex -- as you must have realised
by now unless you scrolled down this page too quickly.)
When analysing verbs, it might be helpful to consider how they
are used from this modality angle (... "might" here is an example
of modalisation:probability). At an introductory level, you should
perhaps keep it simple by restricting your choices to just
modalisation (probability, usuality) and modulation (obligation,
inclination).
Do we need to analyse every single finite verb for modality?
Well, nope. You should think of modality only in terms of
modalisation and modulation. There is no modality, for instance,
in the finite verbs below -- at least, the pea in my head can't
detect any:
4. Alvin realised, to his horror, that he had put on someone
else's briefs by mistake.
3. Schizophrenic S
In English, there are constructions where the anticipatory it is
used.
In
such
constructions
(a.k.a.extraposed-subject
constructions), the content of the anticipatory subject is placed
at the end:
5. It is a shame to see a bruise on Newton's
(= To see a bruise on Newton's head is a shame.)

head.

What happens in such a situation is that S is regarded as being

discontinuous, as in:
6. It

is

a shame to see a bruise on Newton's head.

Sub- F/P C

-ject

Which now leads me to the next point.

4. Must the mood block always be a single block?

No -- a clause like "Newton kicked the durian, unfortunately"

should give you some idea of the discontinuity that the mood
block tolerates.
5. Is the imperative always moodless?
The answer is no. The exclusive imperative is typically moodless,
but this need not be the case for all imperatives. The following
imperatives, for example, have a mood block:
7.

8.

9.

You

come

here!

AR

MOOD

RESIDUE

Let's

go

home!

AR

MOOD

RESIDUE

Do

n't

go

home!

AM

AR

MOOD

RESIDUE