Thanks Chris, for another opportunity to compare the models.
Again, MODALITY is a described grammatical system, at clause rank in English, but the same term is used below for a semantic ‘domain’. And again, the account in IFG 1/2 differed from the account in IFG 3/4. In IFG1/2, MAKH described the implicit/explicit: subjective/objective orientations topologically, as interpersonal metaphors of modality. But in IFG 3/4 they are presented instead as features in the MODALITY system, within the MOOD system (Fig 4-13, Fig 4-23). The entry condition for this system is [clause], but the metaphorical realisations of subjective and objective orientations are projections and embedding (I think.../it is likely that...), blurring the line between grammar and semantics.
The described discourse semantic system is APPRAISAL: ENGAGEMENT: heterogloss, for which MODALITY is one resource to introduce additional voices into a discourse, alongside PROJECTION and CONCESSION.
The reason this area of the semantic system is so highly elaborated metaphorically is to be found in the nature of modality itself … Modality refers to the area of meaning that lies between yes and no – the intermediate ground between positive and negative polarity.
[3] This is misleading, because MODALITY is presented as a system network in IFG1/2 as well as IFG3/4. Halliday (1994: 358, 360):
- On The Heteroglossic Function Of Usuality
- On The Heteroglossic Function Of Usuality, Obligation, Inclination And Ability
- On The Heteroglossic Function Of Obligation
- On The Heteroglossic Function Of "Projections", "Polarity" And "Modality"
- On The Heteroglossic Function Of "Concessive But"
- On The Heteroglossic Function Of "Concession"
- On The Heteroglossic Function Of "Concessive Conjunctions"