The Stylistic Significance of the Analysis of Modal Adjuncts  

As was mentioned in a previous lecture,

• an adjunct can be
  • circumstantial,
  • conjunctive, or
  • modal,
• and that these adjuncts are respectively related to the
  • ideational,
  • textual, and
  • interpersonal metafunctions of language.

• mood and
• comment adjuncts.

As modal adjuncts involve the judgment of the relevance of a message, they are clearly important for stylistic analysis. One can, for example, note the modal adjuncts in a passage, and ask oneself whether, or to what extent, they express or colour the opinions or perspectives (whether purely subjective or to an extent based on external evidence) of the author, narrator, or character in a narrative, or of the persona in a poem.

Some Problems with Halliday's Table of Modal Adjuncts

However, although the broad distinction between the modal adjuncts and the other types of adjuncts may not be problematic, some problems may be encountered in Halliday's division of modal adjuncts into mood and comment adjuncts. Halliday has given a list of modal adjuncts in Table 3(3) of the first two editions of his Introduction (pp. 50; 49) or Table 3(5) in the third edition (p. 82). According to information given later in the first edition of the book (see pp. 82 and 83 of the first edition), the mood adjuncts in Table 3(3) are listed under 'I', whilst the comment adjuncts are listed under 'II'. However, there are discrepancies between information given in the two places. In Halliday's listing of mood adjuncts on p. 82 of the first edition, the modal adjuncts indicating presumption are categorised as mood adjuncts there, but are listed under 'II' in the table, where the comment adjuncts should be. There is also the problem of categorising modal adjuncts indicating opinion under mood adjuncts in the table, when they should have been more appropriately listed within the category of comment adjuncts (this has been corrected in the second and third editions).

The discrepancies between the list and the earlier table are not found in subsequent editions, as the list found on p. 82 of the first edition is no longer found, although the mood adjuncts in Table 3(3) of the second edition (p. 49) or Table 3(5) of the third (p.82) , appear to be similarly listed under 'I', whilst the comment adjuncts appear to be listed under 'II'. Furthermore, the second edition does seem to have improved matters by usefully dividing the mood adjuncts up into a) adjuncts of polarity and modality, b) adjuncts of temporality and c) adjuncts of mood (pp. 82-3). There is a further advance in the third edition, where mood adjuncts are divided into adjuncts of a) temporality, (b) modality and (c) intensity (pp. 126-9), and there is also a separate discussion of polarity, which can also function as mood adjuncts . In this connection, the newer editions clearly indicates that words such as 'not', 'yes', 'no' and 'so' (which in the past, posed problems in some students' analyses), can be classified as modal adjuncts: there is further clarification on this in the third edition. Thus the function word 'not' which one would have a tendency to describe as a negative polar element in response to the first edition, can now be more conveniently described as a modal adjunct. However, one has to be warned that the other words in the list (i.e. 'yes', 'no' and 'so') may also function as discourse signallers or continuatives (see pp. 54; 53-4; 81, 145) in which case they are part of the textual metafunction of language, and hence cannot be regarded as modal adjuncts. In functional grammar, one looks at how these words are used in the text, and one should not automatically classify a word according to how it has been classified in a part of Halliday's book.

Due to the problems that may arise from one's reading of the first edition, it would thus be helpful if we could make some amendments to Halliday's table of modal adjuncts. But before doing that, one should firstly clear the ground by attempting to define the terms mood and comment adjuncts more clearly. In my view, a comment adjunct could be defined as a modal adjunct which is more dependent on the speaker's subjective opinion, whereas a mood adjunct is relatively less subjective and more reliant on crude statistical evidence.

With this definition, one can reconstruct Halliday's Table 3(2) of the second edition, or Table 3(5) of the third, which I have done below. However, my revised table of the modal adjuncts in English, in spite of having taken into consideration the three editions of Halliday's Introduction, and including a few more examples than those given in Halliday's table, is not complete, as the mood and comment adjuncts of the English language do not belong to 'closed' linguistic categories. You can, I am sure, add further examples of mood and comment adjuncts of your own. Moreover, the classification of the adjuncts depends on context, and some of the examples given here can be classified as circumstantial or conjunctive adjuncts depending on the context in which they appear. The revised table should therefore be used as a guide, and not as the ultimate arbitrator on modal adjuncts and on their further classification into mood and comment adjuncts, as there are, in addition to the context of usage, exceptions, overlaps and 'grey areas' in language in actual use.

Amended Versions of Halliday's Tables of Modal Adjuncts

A) MOOD ADJUNCTS

		Type	Meaning	Examples
1)	adjuncts of polarity & modality	polarity	is or isn't	not, yes, no, so
		probability	how likely?	probably, possibly, certainly, perhaps, maybe
		usuality	how regularly?	sometimes, often, always, never, ever, seldom, rarely, usually
		readiness	how willing?	willingly, readily, gladly, certainly, easily
		obligation	how committed?	definitely, absolutely, possibly, at all costs, by all means
2)	adjuncts of temporality	time	at what phase?	yet, still, already, just, soon
			how often?	once
		typicality	how typical?	occasionally, generally, regularly, mainly, for the most part
3)	adjuncts of mood	obviousness	how obvious?	obviously, positively, of course, surely, clearly
		intensity	to what extent?	just, simply, even, merely, only
			how genuinely?	really, actually, in fact
		degree	how closely?	quite, almost, nearly, scarcely, hardly, literally
			how completely?	totally, entirely, utterly, completely, absolutely

B) COMMENT ADJUNCTS

Type	Meaning	Examples
admissive	I admit	frankly, to be honest, to tell you the truth
desiderative	how desirable?	(un)fortunately, to my delight, luckily, regrettably, hopefully, to my distress
entreaty	I request you	please, kindly
evaluative	how sensible?	wisely, understandably, foolishly, by mistake, curiously enough, mistakenly, unwisely
opinion	I think	in my opinion, from my point of view, personally, to my mind
persuasive	I assure you	honestly, really, believe me, seriously
predictive	how expected?	to my surprise, surprisingly, as expected, amazingly, by chance
presumption	how presumable?	evidently, apparently, no doubt, presumably
reservation	how reliable?	initially, at first, tentatively, looking back on it, provisionally
validative	how valid?	broadly speaking, in general (terms), on the whole, objectively, strictly speaking, in principle

The S{-f}-P-C-A structure of the declarative sentence per se is not really part of mood and modality. The arrangement of the constituents of the clause can be viewed as part of the textual metafunction of language rather than the interpersonal metafunction. However, there are at least two aspects of the S{-f}-P-C-A structure which has a connection to mood and modality: the section of the clause consisting of the subject and finite, which is part of mood, and the ordering of the constituents of the clause according to its clausal mood (i.e. whether it is declarative, interrogative or imperative), which will be discussed shortly.

Although the consistent use of the S{-f}-P-C-A clause pattern in Halliday's grammar may in itself be of stylistic significance, we will be considering the breaking of this pattern here.

Mood

• If the S{-f}-P-C-A structure is broken in a particular clause, it may be because the clause is not in the declarative mood. Clauses which belong to moods which are not declarative, such as those that belong to the interrogative, imperative or exclamative moods, are usually quite easily identifiable through intuition, or through obvious punctuation marks, like the question and exclamation marks. However, one has to be careful here, as questions or exclamations (even when they terminate with the appropriate punctuation marks) are not necessarily in the interrogative or exclamative moods. More important than just intuition or punctuation marks is the grammatical structure of the clause (see pp. 74, 83-5; 74, 85-8; 114-15, 134-40 of Halliday's Introduction): one may note, for example, that most clausal moods need a finite verb (and these are described as indicative moods, except, arguably, for the imperative mood in English, which is can thus be described as non-indicative), and that the interrogative mood either needs a wh-element, or (for polar interrogatives and most wh-interrogatives), a finite auxiliary verb followed by the subject. The analysis of clausal mood may reveal features of the text which may be of stylistic relevance, as it may (or should?) tell you if a clause is a statement (declarative), a question (interrogative), a command or request (imperative), or an expression of surprise (exclamative).^[2]

Thematisation

• There may be other reasons for breaking the basic S{-f}-P-C-A structure. An important reason is the thematization of the C or A element in the declarative clause, which we have briefly touched on in the previous lecture.
  • One way to look at the stylistic significance of the thematised element, is to ask oneself about its relationship to given information, a factor which will be discussed in the lectures on theme-rheme later this semester.
  • Another important consideration we may want to keep in mind before we go on to the theme-rheme lectures proper, is the thematic fronting of elements in clauses whose moods are not declarative.
  • We may also want to consider the shuffling of elements in the rheme, which may be of stylistic significance, especially in the analysis of poetry, although this is not a factor discussed in Halliday's grammar.

Missing Complement

• The absence of the 'C' element, as I have said in the previous lecture, may be due to the use of an intransitive verb. The use of transitive or intransitive verbs may be of stylistic relevance. Halliday's famous analysis of The Inheritors for example, is based on the analysis of the intransitive verbs in the novel.^[3]

• Factors concerning the 'A' element may also be of stylistic relevance, such as
  • the presence or absence of the (optional) 'A' element,
  • its length,
  • the presence of more than one 'A' element,
  • the type of 'A' element involved (i.e. whether it is circumstantial, conjunctive, or modal [and if it is a modal adjunct, whether it is a mood or comment adjunct]).
  With regard to the last point above, we may note that the final position of the S{-f}-P-C-A structure usually refers to the circumstantial adjunct, as the two other types of adjuncts usually occur earlier in the clause. As you may know from your discourse analysis course last year,
  • the conjunctive adjuncts contribute to the cohesion of a given passage,
  • the modal adjuncts give an indication of the judgmental nature of what is being said, and
  • the circumstantial adjuncts are intimately tied to the level of description in a given passage, and their presence or absence may be related to the stylistic description of the passage as 'ornate', 'direct', 'opulent', 'dry', 'colourful', 'concrete' etc. Where relevant, you may also consider the type of circumstantial adjunct being used (see Halliday's Introduction, pp. 137-144; 149-161; 260-80 for more details).

Non-Standard English

• The S{-f}-P-C-A structure may also be disrupted because non-standard English or a non-native variety of English is used. In relation to this, you may ask yourself about the stylistic significance of the use of the variety of English through the disruption of the S{-f}-P-C-A pattern: for example,
  • whether the clausal patterning in the text is a faithful representation of the clausal patterns existing in the variety,
  • whether this deviation is only an imitation which aims at a stylistic approximation,
  • whether the writer -- in disrupting the clausal pattern -- thinks too much about his/her audience in making the variety of English 'palatable' to the reader, etc.

------------

[1.] This is phrased as 'the speaker or writer's judgment on or attitude to the content of the message' in the third edition, p. 81. Back to earlier position in the text.
[2.] This disjunction between form and function will be discussed later in the semester in relation to grammatical metaphor and speech acts. In addition to the categories of clausal mood mentioned by Halliday, you may also consider the subjunctive mood. Back to earlier position in the text.
[3.] The essay 'Linguistic Function and Literary Style: An Inquiry into the Language of William Golding's The Inheritors' can be found in Essays in Modern Stylistics ed. by Donald C. Freeman (London: Methuen, 1981), pp. 325-360, or in Literary Style: A Symposium ed. Seymour Chatman (New York: Oxford U P, 1971), pp. 330-365. Back to earlier position in the text.

Texts to Analyse

Passage from Henry Fielding's Tom Jones
Another passage which will be given during the lecture.

---

Click here for the notes for the next lecture.

Click here for the notes for the previous lecture.

---

Back to Homepages: EL3221, EL5221.

Other Literary Stylistics Pages 7. & 8. Notes: The Subjunctive EL3221 Programme EL5221 Programme EL5221 Blog Key Terms in Literature 1. Introduction 2. Nouns and Verbs 3. Adjectives, Adverbs & the Clause 4. Sounds of Poetry 1 5. Sounds of Poetry 2 6. The Clause 10. Transitivity and Meaning 2 11. Point of View in Narrative Fiction 12. Clause Complexing 1 13. Clause Complexing 2 14. Sound Features in Prose 15. Theme-Rheme and Given-New 16. Theme-Rheme and Given-New & Downranking 19. Speech and Thought Presentation 1 20. Speech and Thought Presentation 2 21. Metaphor 22. Pragmatic Analysis of Literature 1 23. Pragmatic Analysis of Literature 2 24. Pragmatic Analysis of Literature 3

EL5221 Quick Links Home Programme Discussion Handouts Project Term Paper List of Handouts EL5221 Blog

---

---

Last revised: 25 December 2010
© Ismail S. Talib 1996-2009.