THE INTERPERSONAL METAFUNCTION OF CLAUSES: POLARITY

AND MODALITY

Madalina Cerban
University of Craiova

Abstract
According to systemic functional framework, language can have three metafunctions:
experiential, interpersonal, and textual. The first one is used in order to talk about our experience of
the world, to describe events or states and the components that help us express ourselves. The
interpersonal metafunction allows us to interact with people, to create relations with people around
us, to express our opinions about states or events. The third metafunction refers to the way we
organize our messages in order to integrate them in other messages we say or receive, in larger
contexts.
In this paper we are concerned with the interpersonal metafunction which analyses the
communicative exchange. We have to mention that we follow Halliday’s systemic model, using the
meta-language set up by him. The most fundamental purposes in any exchange are giving and
demanding “commodities”. These commodities will be either information or good and services.
Information implies the use of language while goods and services can be exchanged without
accompanying language. The usual labels for these functions are the traditional speech functional
categories of statement, question, offer and command. Statements and questions involve exchanges
of information and are called propositions while offers and commands are exchanges of goods and
services called proposals.
These semantic categories are realized by grammatical MOOD options. The MOOD
element makes the clause negotiable and consists of Finite, Subject and sometimes Modal Adjuncts.
The Finite makes the clause negotiable by coding it as positive or negative or by grounding it in
terms of modality. Any Finite is inherently positive or negative in polarity. The negative forms
have an additional element (n’t or not). Polarity may also be expressed through Mood Adjuncts
such as hardly or never.
In order to understand the types of modality we have to mention that the exchange of
information implies the use of probability or usuality. The exchange of goods-and-services
expresses the speaker’s confidence in how successful the exchange may be. In commands this
confidence is concerned with the degree of obligation the other person has in order to carry out the
command. In offers this confidence is concerned with the degree of willingness or inclination of the
speaker to fulfill the order. The first type of modality is called modalization, while the second one
is called modulation.
Modality involves degrees and scales. It is possible to formalize this to some extend and to
establish three basic values: high, median and low. We must pay attention to the fact that this
scheme doesn’t work in all cases. However, they are useful labels which help us understand the
speaker’s degree of commitment.
Another problem is represented by how far the speaker overtly accepts responsibility for
the attitude being expressed. The speakers may express their points of view objectively or
subjectively by using separate clauses.
We propose in this paper a brief overview of different possibilities for expressing polarity
and modality, of types of modality, values and degrees of commitment and responsibility.

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2768579

Key words: polarity, modality, commodities, values, degrees

I. General considerations
According to systemic functional framework, language can have three
metafunctions: experiential, interpersonal, and textual. The first one is used in order to
talk about our experience of the world, to describe events or states and the components
that help us express ourselves. The interpersonal metafunction allows us to interact with
people, to create relations with people around us, to express our opinions about states or
events. The third metafunction refers to the way we organize our messages in order to
integrate them in other messages we say or receive, in larger contexts.
In this paper we are concerned with the interpersonal metafunction which
analyses the communicative exchange. We have to mention that we follow Halliday’s
systemic model, using the meta-language set up by him. The most fundamental purposes
in any exchange are, of course, giving (and taking) or demanding (or being given) a
“commodity”. We have two types of exchanges: a verbal exchange and a non-verbal one.
(i). In verbal exchange, the commodity the speaker may be giving or demanding is
information. When giving information the speaker makes statements, when asking for
information the speaker asks questions.
(ii). In non-verbal exchange the commodity that is being given or demanded is
good-and-services. When giving goods-and-services, we make an offer, and when
demanding goods-and-services we make a command:

Commodity Giving Demanding

exchanged
Goods-and-services Offer Command
I’ll help you with your Help me with my luggage.
luggage.
Information Statement Question
This is the house we are Is this the house we are looking
looking for. for?

As we can notice, the usual labels for these functions are the traditional speech
functional categories of statement, question, offer and command. They are also associated
with particular grammatical structures: statements are expressed by declarative clauses,
questions by interrogative clauses, and commands by imperative clauses. “From this
perspective, offers are special because they are not associated with a specific mood choice
(though they are strongly associated with modality). This is because “language is
functioning simply as a means towards achieving what are essentially non-linguistics
ends” (Halliday and Matthiessen, 2004:110). We have to emphasize that commands need
to be verbalized, while for offers we do not need to use language; for example when we
hand a book to someone.

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2768579

 Statements and questions which involve exchanges of information are called
propositions while offers and commands which involve exchanges of goods-and-services
called proposals. These semantic categories are realized by grammatical mood options.
The basic distinction within the grammatical system of mood is between imperative and
indicative mood types, with the indicative type having the further distinction between
declarative and interrogative types. Each of the three mood types – interrogative,
declarative and imperative – can be further sub-classified. For example, interrogatives
may be of yes/no type or wh- type, declaratives may be exclamative or non-exclamative,
and there are several types of imperatives (e.g. Stay still!, Let me turn on the TV!).

II. Modality and Polarity

Functionally, the mood structure is made up of Finite, Residue and, optionally, an
Adjunct. The Finite expresses not only tense, but also polarity and modality. Any Finite
can be only positive or negative. The negative form can be easily identified due to the
negative elements not or n’t. We have to notice that, in the same time, polarity is the basic
part of meaning. This is the case of yes/no interrogative clauses, which the first and most
important function is precisely to enquire about the polarity of the message.
Polarity may be also expressed by mood Adjuncts, such as never, hardly, scarcely;
in these cases the Finite must be positive.
e.g. She has never been to America.
Hardly had he arrived home when the phone rang.

In some particular cases, the polarity may be expressed by the Complement:

e.g. He did nothing to solve the problem.
He didn’t do anything to solve the problem.

We can notice from the examples above that the interpersonal meanings are not
tied to specific constituents, but it influences the whole clause. This observation confirms
Halliday’s theory that a language shouldn’t be analyzed in terms of constituents, i.e.
breaking the clause into groups of words and then into words, and assigning an
identifiable meaning to each word.
In most cases polarity can be treated as an absolute concept; sometimes this is true:
a message is either positive or negative. The Finite can be either positive or negative. But
there are some cases in which polarity is not so strong. There are some intermediate stages
between positive and negative which are expressed by modality.

e.g. She might be leaving the country. (perhaps)

She usually plays tennis. (sometimes yes, sometimes no)

III. Types of Modality: Modalization and Modulation

(i). In order to comment on the types of modality, we have to go back to the table
above and identify what modality each type of clause can express. If the commodity being
exchanged is information, the modality of these clauses expresses likelihood, how true this
information is, and usuality, how frequently the information is true. As we mentioned
above, there are some intermediate points for likelihood, such as possible, probable,
certain, and for usuality, such as always, sometimes, usually, never. If the commodity
exchanged is goods-and-services, the modality of these clauses expresses the speaker’s
trust in how successful the exchange will be. In commands, the modality of these clauses
expresses obligation the other person have to perform the command. In offers, the
modality of these clauses expresses the speaker’s willingness to fulfill the offer.

Commodity Type of Modality Modality related to commodity

Exchanged exchanged
Goods-and-services Command (obligation) Modalization
Help me with my luggage!
Offer (inclination)
I’ll help you with your
luggage.
Information Likelihood Modulation
He might be late.
Usuality
He never admits his mistakes.

The modality related to information is called modalization, and the modality

related to goods-and-services is called modulation.

e.g. Modalization: probability: The team may win the game.

usuality: Helen usually goes to work by bus.
Modulation: obligation: You should go now.
inclination: I’ll help you if you want me to.

As we can notice from the examples above, modality can be expressed in several
ways; of course the most common one is by using modal verbs as Finites. This is why we
consider modal verbs as part of the Mood. The Finite expresses modality, the speaker’s
attitude as well as tense, the moment when the action takes place. In reality these two
features are not completely separated since modals expresses speaker’s attitude in the
present. The difference between present tense and past tense is realized with the second
verb after the modal.

e.g. He must go. (present)

He must have gone. (past)

In the second example must refers to the speaker’s present obligation; have is the
mark of the past obligation. ”This neutralization of tense express why forms such as might
and could, which historically are past tense forms (of may and can), typically do not
function as past tense signals in modern English” (Thompson, 2004: 68).
In the following example may can be replaced with might with little difference in meaning:
e.g. He may / might be late.

In reported speech the Finite expresses modality as well as past tense:

e.g. He said he might be late.

Modality can be expressed with the help of the Finite, but it can also be expressed by
Mood Adjuncts. They generally signal usuality and probability:
e.g. Did he decide to resign perhaps?
They usually travel by plane.

There are also some special constructions in which probability, as well as modulation, can
also be signaled by a combination between a Finite and a Mood Adjunct, both elements
having interpersonal meanings:
e.g. They surely must go tomorrow.
You really need to finish your work on time.

(ii). Commitment and responsibility. As we have previously mentioned, modality

involves several degrees and scales. The speaker may express a higher or lower degree of
certainty concerning the truth of a statement, e.g. He will/ may/ could be late, or
concerning the pressure on the listener to carry out a command, e.g. You must/ need to/
should/ have to go. “Modalized clauses are thus in principle ambiguous as between
proposition and proposal: this is shown up when the experiential meaning of the clause
points strongly in one direction or the other” (Halliday and Matthiessen, 2004: 148)
The examples below illustrate the points on the scale: high, median, and low for
likelihood and obligation.
e.g. Likelihood: High: I shall never agree on the matter.
Median: He should agree on the matter.
Low: He may agree on the matter.
Obligation: High: You must be on time at the meeting.
Median: You ought to be on time at the meeting.
Low: You can be on time at the meeting.

Notice that the use of can as a low-value obligation can be interpreted as the lowest
degree of obligation, permitting the hearer to perform the action or not. Nevertheless, we
have to bear in mind that these degrees of modulation and modalization are ideal, and in
real language they can not be identified so easily. However, this system is very useful in
investigating the speaker’s commitment, namely the degree to which the speaker commits
himself to what he is saying.
We have already seen that one type of interpersonal meaning, the polarity, can
have different places in a clause, and this is also true for modality which is construed with
the help of Finite operator, mood Adjunct or both.
e.g He is late. He may be late. He might be late. He could be late.
 Maybe he is late. He is quite possibly late.
There is a possibility he is late.
I expect him to be late.
I suppose he may be late.
It is rather possible that he will be late.

These examples express the speaker’s some different degrees of accepting the
content of the statement. The speaker expresses a subjective point of view, and this aspect
can be observed especially in separate clauses: It is rather possible that he will be late.
The second clause represents the speaker’s basic proposition. “This proposition is thus
being treated as a definable chunk of meaning, almost as if it were a kind of ‘think’ in the
world that have qualities attributed to it” (Thompson, 2004: 70). This statement is an
objective one. On the other hand, statements such as I expect that he will be late have a
subjective meaning which is emphasized also by the second part of the sentence. Although
the subjective character of the statement is expressed by the verb expect, in functional
terms the main clause is he is late. This can be noticed by adding a question tag: I expect
he is late, isn’t he? This question tag practically invites the hearer to agree with the main
proposition he is late.
Another fact which proves that the main clause does not express the main
proposition is represented by the negative counterpart: I don’t expect he is late.
Between these two extremes, emphasizing subjectivity and creating objectivity,
there are intermediate ways of expressing modality. As we have stated before, modality is
expressed with the help of modal verbs (modal verbal operators), and Mood Adjuncts.
Modal verbs take the place of Finites, having a strong subjective, explicit meaning:
e.g. You mustn’t go on smoking.
He might have phoned me.
Mood Adjuncts are typically used to express objective features of an event:
e.g. We probably won’t go abroad.
The building is supposed to be very old.

Halliday and Matthiessen (2004: 147) call Mood Adjuncts “expansion of the Predicator”.
We also have to mention that there are several degrees of responsibility and commitment
which can be implicit or explicit. By ‘implicit’ we mean that the modality is in the same
clause as main proposition, while by ‘explicit’ we mean that the modality is in a separate
clause.
e.g. Explicit subjective: I’m sure he will finish his work in time.
Implicit subjective: I mustn’t insist.
Explicit objective: It is unlikely that I’ll be able to arrive there.
Implicit objective: The President is obliged to pass the law.

Conclusions
Polarity and modality can be expressed in various ways in text. There are two
types of modality according to Halliday’s model of functional linguistics: modalization
and modulation. Modalization appears in commands which are concerned with various
degrees of obligation. Modulation appears in offers which are concerned with listener’s
wish to fulfill this obligation. These types of modality have several degrees: high, median,
and low, and can be construed with the help of the Finite and the Mood Adjuncts.
Another problem is represented by how far the speaker accepts responsibility for
the attitude being expressed. The speakers may express their points of view objectively, in
the same clause, or subjectively by using separate clauses.

References
Bloor, Thomas, Bloor, Meriel. (2004). The Functional Analysis of English. A Hallidayan
Approach. Second edition. London: Arnold.
Eggins, S. (1996). An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Pinter.
Eggins, S., Slade D. (1997). Analyzing casual conversation. London: Cassell.
Halliday, M.A.K., Martin J.R. (1993). Writing science: literacy and discoursive power.
London: The Falmer Press.
Halliday, M.A.K., Matthiessen, C. (2004). Introduction to Functional Linguistics. London:
Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. (2003). On Grammar, eds. Jonathan Webster, London & New York:
Continuum.
Hasan, R. (1996). Ways of Saying: ways of meaning. London & New York: Cassell
Martin, J.R., Matthiessen, C., Painter, Claire. Working with Functional Grammar, London:
Arnold, 1997
Palmer, F.R. (1979). Modality and English Modals. London: Longman
Palmer, F.R. (1986). Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Thompson, G. (2004). Introducing Functional Grammar (second edition). London:
Arnold
Young, D.J. (1980). The Structure of English Clauses. London: Hutchinson.