A Systemic Functional Analysis of Modal

A Systemic Functional Analysis of
Modal Verbs and Other Related Expressions in English:

Towards Semantic System Networks for Modality
Hiroshi Funamoto
(1999 No. 3201)
Interviewed and approved by
Date:
Department of English
Graduate School
Doshisha University
博士学位論文要旨
氏名船本弘史
学位論文題目 ‘A Systemic Functional Analysis of Modal Verbs and Other Related Expressions in
English: Towards Semantic System Networks for Modality’
（英語法助動詞およびその関連表現の選択体系機能的分析：モダリティー
の意味的選択体系網をめざして）
本論文は、選択体系機能言語学の枠組みによる英語法助動詞とこれに意味的に関連する諸表現の文
法体系に関する研究である。
英語のいわゆる「法助動詞」は、従来の研究によれば「モダリティー」に基づく解釈にしたがって
意味体系を論ずるのが一般的であると思われる。「モダリティー」は、「認識様態的（epistemic）」と「根
元的（root）」の二つの構成要素に大別され、これにより法助動詞の多義性が分析可能とされるのであ
る。しかし、「モダリティー」の観点から法助動詞の意味・機能を分析する従来の研究では、次のよう
な問題点を指摘することができる。
(1) 「モダリティー」とは、様相論理学において、命題の真理値に関する論理体系を扱う概念であり、
英語を含むある特定言語の実勢的な特性に基づくものではない。
(2) 従来の言語研究においては、「モダリティー」研究の分析対象として法助動詞に焦点が当てられる
ことが多いが、意味論的解釈からすれば、法助動詞以外の形式も分析対象とするべきである。
(3) 法助動詞の意味解釈は、「モダリティー」を構成する二つの要素の他に、別の異なる機能からも分
析可能である。
(1)は、本論文第二章において、英語の法助動詞の解釈に関し、様相論理学から言語研究への適用が
いかになされたかについて論及する。(2)に関しては、具体的にはいわゆる法副詞や be forced to などの
動詞句的表現、さらに I think のような心理状態を表す動詞を含む節などが含まれる。また(3)では、法
助動詞が「時（TIME）」および「叙法（MOOD）」で扱われる意味を具現する点を指摘する。
以上の点に鑑み、本論文ではまず、英語の法助動詞やこれに関連する諸表現に関し、先行研究で扱
われてきた分析法について考察する。特に、法助動詞の意味解釈に関する記述では、一方で法助動詞
が表すとされる諸機能を「モダリティー」表現として包括的に扱おうとしながらも、他方において法
助動詞とそれ以外の表現との意味的な関連性が明示されていない点を指摘する。
本論文では、理論的枠組としてハリデー（M.A.K. Halliday）の研究に代表される選択体系機能言語
学（Systemic Functional Linguistics）を用いる。この言語理論は、言語研究における機能的アプローチ
の一つとされるが、現在ではこの中でもいくつかの研究グループにより異なる分析法が提案されてい
る。本論文では、ハリデーを中心とする研究グループにより提唱されている文法を、その研究拠点に
ちなみ「シドニー・グラマー」と呼ぶ。一方、フォーセット（R.P. Fawcett）をはじめとする研究グル
ープが、コンピュータを用いた自然言語処理を基に提唱する枠組みを「カーディフ・グラマー（the
Cardiff Grammar）
」と呼ぶ。本研究では、これら二つの「選択体系機能アプローチ」における法助動詞
等の表現に関する記述を比較し、両モデルでの分析法の違いについて具体的に論じる。ハリデーに代
表される「シドニー・グラマー」は、一般的に選択体系機能的アプローチの中で主流をなすとされる
が、モダリティーの意味的記述という観点からは、カーディフ・グラマーの枠組みによる分析法がよ
り多様な表現形式の分析が可能となることを主張する。
選択体系機能言語学は、先述のごとく広い研究領域において応用されるが、我々の日常的言語運用
を記述する場合、大きく分けて三つの「レベル」から見ることができる。この三つのレベルとは、状
況の脈絡（context）、語彙文法（lexicogrammar）、書記・音韻体系（graphology / phonology）であり、本
- ii -
論文が扱うのは、この中で特に語彙・文法層での記述となる。この語彙文法層では、言語を意味の創
造資源として捉え、これにより言語使用の中で得られる表現構造を説明する。具体的には、選択体系
網（system network）の構築と表現形式の構造記述が中心的な課題となる。選択体系網とは、例えば過
程構成（TRANSITIVITY）や叙法（MOOD）などといった機能的範疇を構成する意味素性の集合であ
るが、それぞれの選択体系網に含まれる意味素性は互いに排他的な関係によって捉えられる。
上述の如く、二つの選択体系的アプローチを比較し、言語の機能的記述という点において「カー
ディフ・グラマー」で提唱される分析法を支持するが、とりわけ、本論文では以下の三点において選
択体系機能言語学の発展に貢献することを目的とする。
(i) 法助動詞を含む諸表現を包括的に扱うことのできる選択体系網の構築を行う。
(ii) カーディフ・グラマーで扱われる語彙文法部門は、意味と形式の二つの「レベル」が明確に
区別され、それぞれのレベルから見た分析を具体的に示す。
(iii) 本研究では、コンピュータによる言語処理に関わる理論的側面ではなく、テクストの記述的
側面に主眼を置き、選択体系機能言語学における英語記述体系の発展に寄与する。
本論文は、九章より構成され、各章の内容は以下のとおりである。
第一章「序論」では、法助動詞の意味研究で扱われる「モダリティー」に関し、先行研究に見られ
る問題点を指摘し、本研究をおこなう背景にある筆者の動機を概説する。さらに、分析のための理論
的枠組みを概観した上で、各章で論じられる内容を素描する。
第二章「モダリティー研究のアプローチ」では、「モダリティー」に関する主要な概念を概観し、さ
らに英語の「モダリティー表現」とされる諸形式の、先行研究における扱いについて、以下のような
アプローチにしたがって論じる。
(i) 哲学的アプローチ
(ii) 単機能説（法助動詞の多義性を認めず、核となる意味素性から「モダリティー」体系を構築
しようとするアプローチ）
(iii) ファジー理論（法助動詞の解釈において、意味的曖昧性を認めながらも、基本的に多義性を
認めるアプローチ）
(iv) ハリデーの選択体系機能的アプローチ
(v) コーパスを用いたデータ分析に基づくアプローチ
第三章「選択体系網機能言語学概論」では、ハリデーが提唱する選択体系機能言語学の理論的枠組
みを概観し、「レベル」、「メタ機能」、
「選択体系網」などの主要概念について論じる。
第四章「ハリデー文法における二つのモダリティー研究」では、ハリデーの「モダリティー」研究
に関し、歴史的な流れに則して具体的に論じる。ハリデーの「モダリティー」選択体系網に関する初
期の記述は、1970 年に刊行された論文、「Functional diversity in language, as seen from a consideration of
modality and mood in English」であると思われる。この論文では「モダリティー」は「モデュレーショ
ン（MODULATION）」と明確に区別される。この二つの範疇は、ともに法助動詞の解釈に関わるとさ
れるが、前者が対人的機能に位置づけられるのに対し、後者は観念構成的機能として扱われる。しか
し、1980 年代以降、ハリデーは上述の二つの範疇を統合し、「モダリティー」を一般的な範疇として
扱うようになる。しかし、より一般化された「モダリティー」選択体系網は、「過剰生成」と「過少生
成」という相反する弊害を同時に生み出すことになる。すなわち、ハリデーの「モダリティー」選択
体系網は、上述の二つの型に関する分類に加え、「主観性」や「明示性」を含む複数の要素から構成さ
れ、ある要素の組み合わせに対する具現形式が存在しないという問題点を指摘する。
第五章「カーディフ・モデル概説」では、フォーセットが提唱するカーディフ・グラマーの理論的
モデルについて、とりわけ言語研究における「理論と記述」という二つの側面から概観する。
第六章「法助動詞の叙法と時に関する意味機能」では、法助動詞が、いわゆるモダリティー表現と
してではなく、特定の叙法（MOOD）や時（TIME）を表す要素として分析される例について論じる。
「カーディフ・グラマー」では、「叙法（MOOD）」を話し手が聞き手に対して発する情報をいかに伝
- iii -
達するかに関する意味範疇であると捉え、「モダリティー」と明確に区別される。例えば、Can you pass
me the salt?は、この節の形式的観点から「疑問文（interrogative）
」と解釈するのではなく、Can you と
いう二つの語彙が、話し手が聞き手に対して「塩をとる」という行為の「依頼」を表すために用いら
れていると解釈される。したがって、この can が表す意味は、「モダリティー」の解釈で扱われる「可
能性」や「能力」などではなく、特定の「叙法」に具現する要素として分析されるのである。
第七章「妥当性」では、法助動詞に限らず、いわゆる「認識様態的（epistemic）モダリティー」と
して分類される表現形式について、カーディフ・グラマーの枠組みで分析する。多くの「モダリティ
ー」に関する研究が専ら法助動詞の解釈に終始するのに対し、ここでは形容詞、副詞、名詞、さらに
は動詞までもが、「妥当性（VALIDITY）
」選択体系網で記述されることを示す。
第八章「事態制御と意向性」では、いわゆる「根元的（root）モダリティー」として分類される表
現形式について、カーディフ・グラマーの枠組みで分析する。「事態制御と意向性（CONTROL AND
DISPOSITION）」選択体系網は、ハリデーの「モデュレーション」に相当する範疇であるが、ここで
は、この範疇を「観念構成的機能」の一つとして捉え、前章で見た「妥当性」とは独立した選択体系
網として構築されると主張する。したがって、この意味ではむしろハリデーが 1970 年に著した論文で
提案されている分析法に近いといえるが、ここではより精密な意味的選択体系網の構築を試みる。
第九章「結論」では、モダリティーに関する研究が、形式的レベルにおいて法助動詞の意味解釈の
みに主眼をおく分析法であることの問題点を整理する。また、ハリデーのモダリティー分析では、「モ
ダリティー選択体系網」が意味的な観点から充分に論じられていない点を指摘する。さらに、まとめ
として、法助動詞を含むあらゆる表現形式は、従来扱われてきた「モダリティー」を四つの意味的選
択体系網に分け、より広範な意味領域の観点からこれら諸形式を「モダリティー表現」として分析対
象に含めることにより、一般的な意味解釈が可能となる点に論及する。
- iv -
A Systemic Functional Analysis of
Modal Verbs and Other Related Expressions in English:
Towards Semantic System Networks for Modality
A Thesis Submitted to
The Faculty of Letters
Graduate School
Doshisha University
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
by
Hiroshi Funamoto
(1999 No. 3201)
(Supervisor: Professor Masa-aki Tatsuki)
March 2004
Table of Contents
Front Page i
Abstract in Japanese ii
Title Page v
Table of Contents vi
List of Figures xiii
List of Tables xviii
Acknowledgement xix
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Problems of ‘a study of modality’ 1
1.2 Motivation behind this thesis 3
1.3 Scope of this study 5
1.4 The theoretical framework for this study 6
CHAPTER TWO: AN OVERVIEW OF APPROACHES TO ‘MODALITY’ 8

2.1 Introduction 8
2.2 Basic concepts 8
2.2.1 ‘Epistemic modality’ 10
2.2.2 ‘Deontic’ modality 11
2.2.3 Mood and modality 13
2.2.4 Evidentiality 14
2.3 Syntactic properties of the expressions of ‘modality’ 15
2.3.1 Modal verbs 16
2.3.2 Other classes of items expressing ‘modality’ 18
2.4 Review of the literature: descriptive and theoretical approaches 20
2.4.1 Philosophical approaches to ‘modality’ 20
2.4.1.1 Modal logic 21
2.4.1.2 Types of modality and negation in modal logic 22
- vi -
2.4.1.3 Lyons (1977) 24
2.4.2 Descriptive and theoretical approaches 27
2.4.2.1 Corpus-based approaches 27
2.4.2.2 Quirk et al.’s A Comprehensive Grammar of the English
Language (1985) 28
2.4.3 Perkins’ ‘core meaning’ approach (1983) 30
2.4.4 Coates’ ‘fuzzy set theory’ approach (1983) 31
2.4.5 Halliday’s systemic functional approach (1994) 32
2.4.6 Biber et al.’s Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English (1999) 35
2.4.7 Traugott and Dasher’s Regularity in Semantic Change (2002) 38
2.5 Conclusion / summary 40
Notes 43
CHAPTER THREE: AN OVERVIEW OF SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL

LINGUISTICS 44
3.1 Introduction 44
3.2 Levels of language 45
3.3 Metafunctions 46
3.4 System networks 49
3.5 Other basic assumptions 51
Notes 57
CHAPTER FOUR: HALLIDAY’S TWO APPROACHES TO MODALITY 58

4.1 Introduction 58
4.2 ‘Scale and Category Grammar’ 59
4.3 Halliday (1969) ‘Options and functions of the English clause’ 60
4.4 Halliday (1970b) ‘Functional diversity in language, as seen from a
consideration of modality and mood in English’ 63
- vii -
4.4.1 Polarity, modality and modulation 65
4.4.2 Tense, modality and modulation 68
4.4.3 Reduction of modality and modulation to a single network 69
4.5 Halliday (1977) ‘Text as Semantic Choice in Social Contexts’ 70
4.6 How to use Halliday and Matthiessen’s network for ‘modality’: with special
reference to Halliday’s IFG (1994) and Matthiessen’s Lexicogrammatical
Cartography (1995) 74
4.6.1 An overview of the functional components in the IFG model of
grammar for English 74
4.6.2 The system network for ‘modality’ in IFG (Halliday 1994) 77
4.6.3 The problem of overgeneration and undergeneration 79
4.6.4 Congruence and incongruence 81
Notes 89
CHAPTER FIVE: AN OVERVIEW OF THE CARDIFF MODEL OF A

COMMUNICATING MIND 90
5.1 Introduction 90
5.2 The COMMUNAL project and a ‘communicating mind’ 92
5.3 The ‘theoretical-generative’ oriented and the ‘text-descriptive’ oriented
approaches in Systemic Functional Linguistics 95
5.3.1 Theoretical-generative model 96
5.3.1.1 System networks for the ‘meaning potential’ 97
5.3.1.2 ‘Probabilities’ of the options in system networks 98
5.3.1.3 Realizations 101
5.3.1.4 Higher planner 103
5.3.2 Text-descriptive model 105
5.3.2.1 Categories 106
5.3.2.2 Major types of the strand of meaning 107
Notes 111
- viii -
CHAPTER SIX: SOME MOOD AND TIME MEANINGS IN THE MODAL
VERBS 112
6.1 Introduction 112
6.2 The treatment of modal verbs in the Cardiff Grammar 113
6.3 Generating modal verbs from four system networks: an overview 114
6.3.1 ‘Modal verbs’ expressing MOOD meanings 115
6.3.2 Modal verbs realizing TIME meanings 120
Notes 126
CHAPTER SEVEN: VALIDITY ASSESSMENT 127

7.2 A treatment of major forms expressing ‘validity assessment’ in English 128
7.2.1 The Operator realizing ‘validity’ meanings 128
7.2.2 Auxiliary Verbs 130
7.2.2.1 ‘Validity Auxiliary’ 130
7.2.2.2 The Extension of Validity Auxiliary 131
7.2.3 Adjectives 132
7.2.4 Adverbs 133
7.2.5 Nouns 135
7.2.6 Lexical verbs 136
7.3 Entering the system networks for validity assessment 136
7.3.1 ‘Basic validity’ 140
7.3.1.1 ‘Conclusion’ 141
7.3.1.1.1 ‘Clear conclusion’ 141
7.3.1.1.2 ‘Tentative conclusion’ 145
7.3.1.2 ‘Possibility’ 146
7.3.1.2.1 ‘Clear possibility’ 147
7.3.1.2.2 ‘Tentative possibility’ 147
- ix -
7.3.1.3 ‘Prediction’ 149
7.3.2 ‘As pseudo-quality of subject theme’ 150
7.3.3 ‘As perception’ 152
7.3.3.1 ‘Unmarked’ 153
7.3.3.2 ‘Foregrounding appearance’ 154
7.3.3.3 ‘From report’ 155
7.3.4 ‘As report’ 156
7.4 Adjunctival validity 157
7.5 The major ‘superordinated’ options for validity assessment 159
7.5.1 ‘As quality of attribute’ 160
7.5.2 ‘As quality of abstract thing’ 161
7.5.3 ‘As report’ 162
7.5.4 ‘As pseudo-process’ 164
Notes 167
CHAPTER EIGHT: CONTROL AND DISPOSITION 168

8.2 An overview of the major forms expressing ‘control and disposition’ 169
8.3 Entering the system network for ‘CONTROL AND DISPOSITION’ 177
8.4 An overview of the system network for MODULATION (i.e. ‘CONTROL
AND DISPOSITION’) 181
8.5 ‘Control by authority’ 183
8.5.1 ‘Obligation’ in ‘modulated present’ 184
8.5.1.1 ‘Basic obligation’ 186
8.5.1.1.1 Need (to) 188
8.5.1.1.2 Have (got) to 189
8.5.1.3 ‘As state’ 190
8.5.1.4 ‘Via directive’ 191
8.5.1.5 ‘From arrangement’ 191
-x-
8.5.1.6 Variants of forms realizing ‘basic obligations’ in present
modulation 192
8.5.2 ‘Obligation’ in ‘modulated future’ 193
8.5.2.1 ‘Basic obligation’ 194
8.5.2.1.1 Options dependent on the feature of ‘general’ 195
8.5.2.1.2 ‘With formal authority’ 196
8.5.2.1.3 ‘With tentative authority’ 197
8.5.2.1.4 ‘Strongly advisable’ 198
8.5.2.1.5 ‘from plan’ 200
8.5.2.2 Variants of ‘basic obligation’ in modulated future 202
8.5.3 ‘Obligation’ in ‘modulated past’ 203
8.5.3.1 ‘Basic obligation’ in ‘modulated past’ 203
8.5.3.2 Variants of ‘basic obligation’ in modulated past 204
8.6 ‘Permission’ 204
8.7 An overview of ‘disposition of subject theme’ 206
8.7.1 ‘Ability’ 207
8.7.1.1 ‘Basic ability’ 208
8.7.1.2 ‘Ability as quality of subject theme’ 209
8.7.1.3 ‘Ability as quality of thing’ 214
8.7.2 ‘Willingness’ 217
8.7.2.1 ‘Basic willingness’ 219
8.7.2.2 ‘Willingness as quality of subject theme’ 219
8.7.2.2.1 ‘Affective willingness’ 220
8.7.3 ‘Preference’ 222
8.7.4 ‘Insistence’ 225
8.8 ‘Inherent nature’ 226
8.9 ‘Superordinated modulation’ 227
8.10 Secondary modulation 228
Notes 233
- xi -
CHAPTER NINE: CONCLUSION 234
BIBLIOGRAPHY 238
- xii -
List of Figures
CHAPTER TWO
2.1: Mood structure in the English clause 13
2.2: The auxiliary verb - main verb scale (Quirk et al, 1985: 137) 18
2.3: A Fuzzy Set (Coates 1983: 12) 32
2.4: Modality system (Halliday 1994: 360) 35
CHAPTER THREE
3.1: The relationship between levels of language (based on Halliday 1979: 58) 45
3.2: The ‘meaning space’ defined by stratification and metafunction
(Halliday 1998: 189) 48
3.3: A multi-layered analysis of an English clause 48
3.4: A simple system 49
3.5: The dependence of two systems 50
3.6: System networks with simultaneous systems 50
3.7: Martin’s model of stratification of language and context 53
3.8: ‘Dialects’ of Systemic Functional Linguistics 55
CHAPTER FOUR
4.1: The system for ‘Mood’ (Halliday 1969:84) 62
4.2: System network for ‘MODULATION’ (Halliday 1977:212) 72
4.3: System network for ‘MODALITY’ (Halliday 1977:216) 73
4.4: Modality system (Halliday 1994: 360) 78
4.5: Matthiessen’s system network for MOOD (based on Matthiessen 1995:383) 82
4.6: Matthiessen’s modified version of the system network for MODALITY 84
4.7: Hallidayan analysis of the ‘Mood’ structure of the clause,
shall I open the window? 85
- xiii -
CHAPTER FIVE
5.1: The major components in the COMMUNAL computer model of a
communicating mind 94
5.2: The main components of a systemic functional grammar (Fawcett 2000a: 36) 97
5.3: A simplified system network of the meaning potential of MOOD in English
(an adapted and fairly simplified version of Fawcett n.d.) 100
5.4: The MOOD 108
5.5: The full analysis of TRANSITIVITY and MOOD 110
CHAPTER SIX
6.1: The Operator as a direct element of the clause 113
6.2: Functional components of language 115
6.3: A simplified version of the fully semanticized MOOD network in the Cardiff
Grammar (based on Fawcett n.d.) 117
6.4: The system network for future trp dependent on TIME REFERENCE POSITION 123
CHAPTER SEVEN
7.1: The Operator as an element of the clause 129
7.2: Analysis of have to as the conflation of the Operator and Auxiliary 131
7.3: The initial choice for entering the VALIDITY network 137
7.4: A simplified TIME network as entry to the VALIDITY network 139
7.5: The first options in ‘validity assessed’ 140
7.6: Major options in the system network for ‘basic validity’ 140
7.7: The system network for ‘conclusion’ 141
7.8: The system network for ‘clear conclusion’ 142
7.9: Clauses with a strong validity 143
7.10: The system network for ‘tentative conclusion’ 146
7.11: The system network for ‘possibility’ 146
7.12: The system network for ‘tentative possibility’ 148
7.13: The system network for ‘basic validity’ 150
- xiv -
7.14: A functional syntax of the structure of ‘pseudo-quality of subject theme’ 151
7.15: The system network for ‘validity as perception’ 153
7.16: Seem as the Validity Auxiliary 153
7.17: appear as the Validity Auxiliary 155
7.18: The analysis of sound as the exponent of the Validity Auxiliary 156
7.19: The system network for ‘validity as report’ 156
7.20: The system network for ADJUNCTIVAL VALIDITY ASSESSMENT 158
7.21: The major options for ‘superordinated’ clause 160
7.22: An analysis of a clause with an embedded clause 161
7.23: An analysis of a clause with a ‘qualifier of abstract thing’ 162
7.24: The distinction of [personalized] vs. [depersonalized] 162
7.25: A clause expressing ‘personalized’ report 163
7.26: The structure of a ‘depersonalized’ clause 164
7.27: A clause with a Main Verb and its Extension expressing a validity meaning 165
CHAPTER EIGHT
8.1: A clause with a modal verb expressing a type of modulation 170
8.2: A clause with a MODULATION meaning expressed in the C&D Auxiliary (CX)
and its Extension (XEx) 172
8.3: A clause with a nominal group expressing ‘obligation’ as an ‘enhanced theme’ 173
8.4: An analysis of a clause with a relational process 174
8.5: An analysis of the quality group which fills the C/At as an enhanced theme 176
8.6: The simplified system network for TIME REFERECE POSITION as entry to
MODULATION 180
8.7: A generalized system network for MODULATION 182
8.8: The first choices in ‘modulated’ meaning with their typical examples 183
8.9: The options in [control by authority] 184
8.10: An analysis of clauses with Auxiliary Verbs and their Extension 185
8.11: The features dependent on [obligation] 186
8.12: Options dependent on the ‘basic’ meaning 187
- xv -
8.13: An overview of the system network dependent on ‘obligation’ meaning in
‘modulated future’ 194
8.14: Options dependent on ‘basic’ meaning in ‘modulated future’ 195
8.15: Options dependent on the ‘basic’ meaning in ‘modulated future’ 195
8.16: The choice in the ‘basic obligation with tentative authority’ 198
8.17: An analysis of a clause with had better 200
8.18: An analysis of be to in comparison with be destined to 201
8.19: An overview of the system network for ‘obligation’ in modulated past 203
8.20: Options dependent on the ‘permission’ meaning 204
8.21: The options dependent on ‘disposition of subject theme’ 207
8.22: The system network for the major types of ‘ability’ meaning 208
8.23: The options in the ‘ability as quality of subject theme’ 210
8.24: A functional analysis of the syntactic pattern realizing options regarding ‘ability
as quality of subject theme’ 214
8.25: The system network for ‘ability as quality of thing’ that can be re-entered from
the feature [coordinated] 216
8.26: Adjectives expressing ‘ability’ meaning as the elements of the quality group
filling the modifier of the head in a nominal group 217
8.27: The system network for ‘willingness’ 218
8.28: The system network for ‘willingness as quality of subject theme’ 219
8.29: The simultaneous systems for ‘preference’ 222
8.30: The analyses of (106) and (107) 223
8.31: The internal structure of XEx expressing a ‘preference’ meaning 224
8.32: The discontinuity of the quality group filling XEx which realizes the ‘preference’
meaning 225
8.33: The extended system network for ‘preference’ 225
8.34: The options in the ‘inherent nature’ meaning 226
8.35: The system network for MODULATION re-entered from the feature [plus
secondary modulation] 230
- xvi -
8.36: The sequence of elements realizing ‘validity’, ‘modulation’, ‘polarity’ and ‘time’
meanings lumped together in a clause 231
- xvii -
List of Tables
CHAPTER TWO
2.1: Applications of modal logic 23
CHAPTER FOUR
4.1: Functional components of the semantic system (Halliday 1977: 180) 71
4.2: The newly established remapping of the functional components in the IFG model
of language (Matthiessen 1995: 88) 75
CHAPTER SEVEN
7.1: ‘Clear conclusion’ and its realizations in modal verbs 145
CHAPTER EIGHT
8.1: Modern and fading usages of need as the Main Verb or the Operator (Fawcett
in press: Chapter 4) 188
8.2: Variants of forms realizing ‘basic’ meanings in modulated present 193
8.3: Variants of forms realizing ‘basic’ meanings in modulated future 202
8.4: Variants of forms realizing ‘basic’ meanings in modulated past 204
8.5: Variants of items realizing the ‘basic permission’ meaning 206
- xviii -
Acknowledgment
First and foremost I owe a great debt of gratitude to my supervisor, Professor Masa-aki
Tatsuki, for his generous encouragement, support, advice, direction, wisdom and his sharp
judgment; and for giving me an unequaled opportunity to study at Cardiff University, Cardiff,
Wales. He has introduced me to linguistics of unfailing interest, and given me his unending
support for ten years since my entrance to Department of English of Doshisha University. His
enduring insights into language and communication have influenced my thinking in plentiful
ways.
I should also like to take this opportunity to thank people in Computational Linguistics Unit
at Cardiff University. In particular, my huge thanks go to Professor Robin P. Fawcett for
accepting me as a postgraduate visiting student at Cardiff University for a year form 2001 to
2002. He showed me the significance of a critical view in linguistic studies, and helped me to
plan my thesis, the theoretical background of which is his systemic functional framework.
I also wish to express my appreciation to Dr. Gordon Tucker for his warm support during
my stay at Cardiff University. He helped me in numerous ways so that I was able to attend
courses at Centre for Language and Communication, Cardiff University.
Many thanks also go to Professor Leo Loveday for taking the precious time off to
proof-read my thesis. I would like to acknowledge here that he has helped me to make my
thesis more effective and readable.
Finally, I would like to thank everyone, my good friends, both academic and non-academic,
and my family for everything that I have received from them.
- xix -
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Problems of ‘a study of modality’
The purpose of this thesis is to present a thorough description of a range of

linguistic expressions in English which are, in one way or another, related to ‘modal
verbs’: can, could, may, might, must, ought to shall, should, will, would, and perhaps
dare and need. This thesis is text-descriptive, rather than theoretical-generative; it
highlights a specific issue of describing both the set of a small number of items, i.e.,
‘modal verbs’, and a large number of the semantically related forms of expression in
English from a functional viewpoint, so as to propose an explicit model of analyzing
the patterns of structure involving these expressions in a clause.
In a considerable number of previous studies on certain aspects of this issue, quite
a lot of scholars seem to have assumed that the study of ‘modal verbs’ (and perhaps
some other forms including ‘marginal ones’ such as have to, be to, seem to, be able to)
is investigated in terms of the concept of ‘modality’ as a general term for the relevant
area of study (e.g., Lyons 1977; Hermerén 1978; Coates 1983; Perkins 1983; Quirk et
al. 1985; Palmer 1990; Matthews 1991; Bybee et al.; 1994, Stubbs 1996; Hoye 1997;
Biber et al. 1999; Papafragou 2000). However, if the concept of ‘modality’ is
regarded as a general category in which ANY meanings of modal verbs and some other
forms are classified as types of ‘modality’, it is not the one under which the present
study is intended for describing the linguistic expressions as the major focus of
description. It seems that such a view of ‘modality’ derives, on the one hand, from
the fact that the ‘modal verbs’ are essentially polysemic, and, on the other hand, from
the attempt to apply the distinction between ‘epistemic’ and ‘deontic’ in modal logic to
the interpretation of modal verbs. As a consequence of applying the philosophical
treatment of ‘modality’ to linguistic descriptions, it is not surprising that some scholars
will desire to treat consistently the complex set of meanings of ‘modal verbs’ in terms
-1-
of ‘modality’, from which all interpretations of these items can be obtained.
In the model of language, i.e., Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), which I
will adopt as the theoretical foundation in general for this study, M.A.K. Halliday
recognizes at least three primary functions of language, which is precisely referred to
as ‘METAFUNCTIONS’, i.e., the ‘IDEATIONAL’, the ‘INTERPERSONAL’, and the ‘TEXTUAL’.
The question arises here: if we recognize the concept of ‘modality’ as the relevant
category in the description of semantics of both ‘modal verbs’ and some ‘marginal’
modals mentioned above, how is it possible to reasonably incorporate ‘modality’ into
the whole system of the English language? As we will see in Chapter 4, according to
Halliday (1994), the unified system for ‘modality’ should be regarded as a major type
of ‘interpersonal metafunction’ of language, together with the system for MOOD.
At the starting point of this study, however, I do not discuss what the system for
‘modality’ should be like in English in order to describe the meanings of ‘modal verbs’,
because such an approach assumes, in the first place, that ‘modality’ is recognized as
the relevant category to describing modal verbs. As Hoye (1997:1) quite rightly
states, however, that the concept of ‘modality’ is in fact so elusive and so susceptible
to the orientation of the approach adopted that it is extremely hard to get an adequately
agreeable answer to the question: what is modality? Consequently. my proposal in
this thesis is to re-examine the functions which are served by the lexical and
grammatical items including ‘modal verbs’ and various other forms in a clause. I will
provide a re-mapping of the relevant areas of meaning associated with these ‘modal
expressions’ in English in the framework of SFL.
For the main part of this thesis, Chapters 6, 7 and 8 in particular, I will adopt R.P.
Fawcett’s Systemic Functional approach to the lexicogrammar of the English language,
which is recently known as the Cardiff Grammar, as an alternative model to Hallidayan
SF approach. By drawing on the concepts of the ‘Fawcettian’ SF approach, I will
first consider what kind(s) of meaning a certain form of expression, such as may,
conveys in a given structure in a certain unit where it occurs, and then describe how it
should be treated in terms of the functions it realizes in an overall self-consistent
model of language. Therefore, in this study I am exploring the description of
-2-
aspects of English at two levels of the language; one at the level of MEANING and the
other at the level of FORM, both of which collectively form the component of the
LEXICOGRAMMAR of English. At the level of meaning, I will attempt to develop the
‘system networks’ for the areas of meaning which are introduced to the description of
the features which are realized by various ‘modal forms’ in English, and at the level of
form, I will show an analysis of the syntactic structures in explicitly functional terms.
1.2 Motivation behind this thesis
This thesis is motivated quite directly by Halliday’s two treatments of ‘modality’

in English. In 1970, Halliday published a paper, entitled ‘functional diversity of
language as seen from a consideration of modality and mood in English’, where he
claims that, from a functional point of view, there are two separate areas of meaning;
‘modal verbs’ realize meanings of either a type of ‘experiential’ function, which is
referred to as ‘modulation’ (relating to ‘obligation’ and ‘inclination’), or a type of
‘interpersonal’ function, which is termed ‘modality’ (relating to ‘probability’ and
‘certainty’).
In recent years, however, Halliday drastically changed his view on the treatment
of ‘modality’. The typical illustration of his second position about the treatment of
‘modality’ can be seen in Halliday’s book An Introduction to Functional Grammar
(1994) (= IFG), which arguably has had a great influence on the development of SFL.
In this book, he integrates the two categories of ‘modalization’ (i.e., the former
‘modality’) and ‘modulation’ into the single superordinate category of ‘modality’,
which is in turn placed in the more general component of the ‘interpersonal’ function
of the language.
In SFL, the resource for ‘meaning-making’ in a linguistic activity is referred to as
the ‘meaning potential’. The development of the systems of the ‘meaning potential’
is prioritized, because the utterance of a particular linguistic form is considered to be
an instantiation of sets of the relevant features which form the systems of ‘meaning
-3-
potential’ of the language. The recognition of a semantic category in terms of the
three ‘metafunctions’ should not be done on an ad hoc basis. It defines the basic
formulation of the meanings of language so that the speaker can make meaning
appropriately in a certain context. If we unquestioningly follow Halliday’s shift
towards the integration of ‘modalization’ and ‘modulation’ into a single general
category of ‘modality’, then we are to say that the essentially same category of
‘modulation’ serves different functions in his two approaches, i.e., one for the
‘experiential’ meaning (as in Halliday 1970b) and the other for the ‘interpersonal’
meaning as a category dependent on ‘modality’ (as in Halliday 1994).
Therefore, it is a surprising fact that there have been few studies which discuss
Halliday’s two approaches to the treatment of ‘modality’ in SFL, despite a problem
which crucially affects the basis of SF theory. Moreover, there exists little attempt to
explore in full detail the linguistic phenomena involving the use of modal verbs and/or
other semantically related forms of expression in English (or perhaps in any other
languages) in the framework of SFL. My main motivation in undertaking this thesis
is to contribute to developing the system networks for the relevant areas of meaning
which cover a range of linguistic forms including ‘modal verbs’ in English. However,
it is worth noting here that this research is not aimed at assessing Halliday’s treatments
of ‘modality’ so as to give my judgment about which of his descriptions should be
adopted to the analysis that I will propose. Rather, I will propose an alternative
description to both of Halliday’s two approaches to ‘modality’.
1.3 Scope of this study
This research is focused on the areas of meaning which cover a range of linguistic
forms including ‘modal verbs’ in English. There are four major areas of meaning
which are particularly considered in this thesis: some TIME meanings, some MOOD
meanings, VALIDITY ASSESSMENT and CONTROL AND DISPOSITION. Note
that these four areas of meaning do not confine their scope to the description of ‘modal
-4-
verbs’, but rather they include various forms which are dealt with in these areas of
meaning. As we will see in later chapters, the modal verb will, for example, can be
generated from any of these four areas of meaning, yet, if it conveys the meaning of
‘prediction’ in the VALIDITY system network, as in He will know the truth, the similar
meaning can be realized by another form, such as an adjective certain, in a certain
environment in the clause, as in He is certain to know the truth.
In SFL, semantic features which are associated with expressions are regarded as
sets of options which comprise ‘system networks’. Options are classified into certain
types so that options with similar characteristics are in the same group. For example,
VALIDITY ASSESSMENT forms a system network as a general area of meaning, in
which options regarding ‘validity’ meanings are classified into several types. In
Chapter 3, I will introduce the concept of a system network in SFL.
I have drawn upon a large corpus, the COBUILD corpus, which has been
developed by scholars in Birmingham school of linguistics, in order to collect
numerous data. However, the present research does not provide an account of the
statistical findings in a corpus-based approach. My purpose here is to provide a
qualitative description of the analysis of examples collected from the numerous corpus
data so that system networks for the relevant areas of meaning can be developed.
Therefore, this thesis is an attempt to provide a descriptive model for analyzing
various linguistic forms which are obtained from the four major areas of meaning
mentioned above. I will particularly consider the items of modal verbs and other
related forms within the structure of a clause. A clause is the basic unit for the
grammatical description of English. For this reason, I will not discuss how they are
interpreted in terms of the organization of discourse, nor consider how these
expressions are related to context. For example, it is possible to observe the use of a
modal verb as the marker of ‘hedging’ in the rhetorical structure of discourse, yet it
should be investigated under another topic which is worth book-length study and it is
thus beyond the scope of the present study.
-5-
1.4 The theoretical framework for this study
As I have mentioned, the theoretical framework adopted for this study is Systemic
Functional Linguistics (SFL), which is directly rooted in M.A.K. Halliday’s ‘Scale and
Category Grammar’ (Halliday 1961), and it has been developed into the current theory
of language by scholars, such as Berry (1975, 1977), Fawcett (1980), Butler (1985),
Martin (1992a), Matthiessen (1995) as well as Halliday himself, the ‘father’ of SFL.
However, it will in fact be more appropriate to mention that SFL provides a general
foundation for the analysis of language, and within SFL there are different approaches
which have been branching out through the history of the development of SF theory.
The approach which will be the basis of this study is specifically Cardiff
Grammar, as developed by Fawcett, Tucker, and colleagues (see Fawcett 2000a and
Tucker 1998 in particular). The principal reason for choosing the Cardiff Grammar
approach as the theoretical basis for this study is that it provides a fully explicit model
of language, so that the description of English in the framework of the Cardiff
Grammar can be implemented in a large computer model of language, as developed in
the COMMUNAL project under the direction of Fawcett.
The major characteristic of the Cardiff Grammar, which accordingly will become
a major difference from the main branch of SF approach by Halliday and Matthiessen,
is that it does not recognize the notion of three ‘metafunctions’, i.e., the ideational, the
interpersonal and the textual at the heart of the theory. However, this does not imply
that the Cardiff Grammar is less systemic and less functional, but in fact it allows us to
analyze a language in terms of more than three functional components, and each
functional component contains richly elaborated system networks (Fawcett
forthcoming). See Chapter 3 for Hallidayan ‘mainstream’ approach in SFL, and
Chapter 5 for Fawcett’s alternative model of the Cardiff Grammar.
In the next chapter, I will present an overview of approaches from different
perspectives to the description of ‘modality’ or the equivalent meaning in the previous
studies. I will first look at some basic concepts which are considered by some
scholars to define the essential nature of ‘modality’. I will then go on to describe
-6-
various linguistic expressions, especially ‘modal verbs’, which are said to express
‘modality’, and consider what are the syntactic properties which identify the ‘modal’
forms in English at the level of form. In this chapter, I will also discuss some
selected approaches to ‘modality’ ranging from philosophical, corpus-based, historical,
to certain theoretically-oriented descriptions.
-7-
CHAPTER TWO
AN OVERVIEW OF APPROACHES TO ‘MODALITY’
2.1 Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a brief overview of some approaches

which are found in previous studies on ‘modality’ or the equivalent areas of meaning
in English. The approaches that will be examined in this chapter are those which
have been proposed specifically for the analysis of modal verbs in English. This
reveals the fact that the approaches widely recognized in the study of ‘modality’ are
dedicated to the semantic description of modal verbs only. That is, as we will see, the
study of ‘modality’ is, by and large, characterized as an interpretive account of the
meanings of the modal verbs. The semantic interpretations of modal verbs are often
accounted for by means of the paraphrases of these items. However, I maintain that
the paraphrases of modal verbs in fact have unique features which themselves are
worth considering, and that the relationship between modal verbs and various other
forms can be explicitly described at the level of meaning. As we will see, the
treatment of the paraphrases is a common problem which can be found in the
approaches to the description of modal verbs in terms of ‘modality’ in the previous
studies. This chapter is primarily concerned with the previous studies on the modal
verbs in English in terms of the concept of ‘modality’.
2.2 Basic concepts
As Perkins (1983:25) points out, studies on what is widely known as ‘modality’

and its expressions have almost entirely been devoted to an analysis of the modals in
English. This seems to be partly because the meanings which can be expressed in
modal verbs in English are considered to correspond to the notions that are recognized
in different types of ‘modality’ in modal logic, such as ‘possibility’, ‘necessity’,
-8-
‘obligation’, ‘permission’ and so on. (There is another reason for the exclusive
treatment of modals in terms of the syntactic properties in English, as shown in Section
2.3 of this chapter.) At the starting point, ‘most linguistic studies’ begin with
considering the meanings of a modal verb, as in the underlined portions in the
following examples:
(1) Her parents must be under fifty.

(2) Parents must be under fifty.
The underlined part, must, in (1), on the one hand, is interpreted as expressing a
speaker’s assessment of a certain degree of likelihood of the proposition (i.e., the state
of ‘her parents’ being under fifty’) to be true, while must in (2), on the other hand,
conveys a meaning of ‘necessity’ or ‘obligation’ which is imposed upon someone (in
this case parents), who is typically expressed in the subject of the clause, to get the
thing done. By looking at those simple examples, then, we can allege that must may
express more than one meaning, and the meaning of must in Example (1) is referred to
as ‘epistemic modality’ and that in Example (2) as ‘deontic modality’, to use
traditional terms.
The distinction of ‘modality’ into two broad types of meaning, the ‘epistemic’ and
the ‘deontic’, is the most widely accepted view among grammarians so as to describe
the ambiguity of the modal verbs in English, while different authors use different
terminology; Halliday (1970b, 1994) refers to them as ‘modality’ (which is later
replaced by ‘modalization’) versus ‘modulation’; Coates (1983) uses ‘epistemic’
versus ‘root’ modality, and in Quirk et al. (1985) and in Biber et al. (1999) the
distinction is termed ‘extrinsic’ versus ‘intrinsic’ modality. In the following two
chapters, I will briefly consider these two broad types of ‘modality’.1
-9-
2.2.1 ‘Epistemic modality’
‘Epistemic modality’, which is derived from ‘epistēmē’ meaning “knowing” in

Greek, is concerned with the speaker’s assessment of validity of the proposition in
terms of ‘possibility’ and ‘necessity’, which is roughly equivalent to the system of
‘modalization’ in Halliday (1994). Since the assessment of validity is ultimately
derived from the speaker’s commitment to the proposition in the act of communication,
it can be said that ‘epistemic modality’ is subjective by nature. The typical example
is:
(3) Joe may be swimming in the pool.
The meaning that is conveyed by the modal verb may in (3) is a certain degree of
‘likelihood’ or ‘possibility’ of the truth of the proposition (‘Joe’s being swimming in
the pool’). The ‘likelihood’, however, is not necessarily expressed by the modal
verb:
(4) Perhaps Joe is swimming in the pool.

(5) It is possible that Joe is swimming in the pool.
(6) It may be that Joe was swimming in the pool.
The underlined portions in (4) to (6) are very often used as mere ‘paraphrases’ of
each other to illuminate the meaning of the ‘modal verb’ in terms of the degree of
‘likelihood’, as if they themselves have no unique feature. However, the underlined
expressions in Examples (4) to (6) in fact should be analyzed by its own terms.
However, we will find, throughout the discussion in this thesis, that every different
expression which is regarded as the one associated with the concept of ‘modality’ at
some level of abstraction (e.g., at the level of meaning or the higher level where the
speaker’s decision of assessing the validity is made in planning the utterance for
achieving the goal of communication) should be analyzed in its own right, as a
- 10 -
particular form does serve its inherent function, which is chosen from the relevant
system network at the level of meaning. It should be noted that I will discuss the
description of the lexicogrammar of the modal verbs and other related forms of
expression in English by comparing two sets of system networks which may generate
these expressions; (i) those of works developed by Halliday and others and (ii) those of
grammar proposed by Fawcett and his colleagues. As we will see, both of the two
approaches are recognized as the variants which are derived from Systemic Functional
Theory of language, and yet the present study will show explicitly that they reveal
significantly different perspectives on language.
2.2.2 ‘Deontic’ modality
‘Deontic modality’, which is roughly equivalent to Halliday’s ‘modulation’

(1994), is traditionally considered to be an area of meaning that is concerned with
‘obligation’ and ‘permission’. Again, the ‘deontic’ type of ‘modality’ can be realized
by a modal verb:
(7) You may go now.
‘Deontic modality’ has typically to do with the quality of the subject of the clause.
That is, there is a strong constraint that the subject should refer to a human being or, at
least, an animate object that has a certain property to carry out the action at hand.
Therefore, the interpretation of may in the following example can hardly be the deontic
type, i.e., ‘permission’ in this case:
(8) The time may come when people will have used up all natural resources.
- 11 -
There are also different ways of expressing ‘permission’ or ‘obligation’ in English,
as shown in (9) to (11) below.
(9) You are permitted to go now.

(10) I allow you to go now.
(11) I give you permission to go now.
If we compare the lexical and/or grammatical patterns of the semantically related

expressions in (9) to (11) with those for ‘epistemic’ types, we can find a clear
difference in their possible realizations into the relevant linguistic forms, depending on
whether the type of meaning chosen is ‘epistemic’ or ‘deontic’.
The correlation between the distinction between the two types of meaning of
‘modality’ and the distinct realizations of them into different forms has already been
pointed out by logicians. In modal logic, for instance, the ‘epistemic’ type is also
referred to as modality de dicto, since it inherently refers to the necessity or the
possibility of proposition. This is typically expressed by the form of ‘it is necessary
that’. The deontic type, on the other hand, is referred to as modality de re according
to the property which is ascribed to the object, and this is essentially expressed by ‘it is
necessary for’, as Hughes and Cresswell (1968:183) state that:
in a modality de dicto necessity (or possibility) is attributed to a

proposition (or dictum), but that in a modality de re it is attributed to the
possession of a property by a thing (res); thus in asserting a modality de
dicto we are saying that a certain proposition is bound to be (or may be)
true, while in asserting a modality de re we are saying that a certain
object is bound to have (or may have) a certain property.
The major two types of ‘modality’ are widely recognized by logicians as well as
linguists in terms of the different lexicogrammatical patterns both at the level of
meaning and at the level of form in English. These two types will correspond
roughly to what I will term VALIDITY ASSESSMENT and CONTROL AND
DISPOSITION types of meaning in the Cardiff Grammar, while they provide richer
- 12 -
and finer classifications of the meanings relevant to those areas in the system network,
as discussed in Chapters 7 and 8.
2.2.3 Mood and modality
Halliday (1994) makes a distinction between ‘Mood’ and ‘modality’, while both
of which are considered to be the components of the interpersonal metafunction, as I
will consider in Chapter 4.
MOOD is a lexicogrammatical system which realizes ‘primary speech functions’
(i.e., ‘statement’, ‘question’, ‘offer’ and ‘command’) which are the major component
of the resource for the interpersonal metafunction at the semantic stratum. At the
lexicogrammatical stratum, then, it is expressed by the configurations of the ‘Subject’
and the ‘Finite’ in English.
Rena will come home tomorrow.
Subject Finite
Figure 2.1: Mood structure in the English clause
The Subject is an element of a clause which typically consists of a nominal group that
refers to an entity of the proposition. The Finite is defined as what ‘brings that
proposition down to earth, so that it is something that can be argued about’ (Halliday
1994:75), and it expresses ‘the primary tense’ or ‘modality’. For example, if one
chooses to give information to the addressee in an act of communication, the utterance
will serve the function of a ‘statement’. The ‘statement’ typically presupposes a
‘declarative’ clause in the MOOD system network, and this is realized by the
configuration of the Subject followed by the Finite in the clause.
- 13 -
On the other hand, Halliday treats ‘Modality’ as an area of meaning that comes in
between positive and negative polarity (Halliday 1994:88). As the negative polarity
can be explicitly realized by a morpheme -n’t attached to the Finite, so ‘modality’ can
also be realized by the Finite, that is, the modal verbs in English. Thus it can be said
that modality may be involved in the element that contributes to the realization of
MOOD, while modality itself has no function to realize the feature of MOOD.
Rather, modality is considered to be a system which is dependent on the choice of
MOOD. That is, modality is dependent on the choice of ‘indicative’ in the MOOD
system, and the choice of ‘imperative’ prevents the speaker from entering the system
of ‘modality’:
(12) You may go now.

(13) *May go now!
In Chapter 6, however, we will see examples in which modal verbs are used to
realize certain types of MOOD in a clause, which Halliday regards as a ‘grammatical
metaphor’ of ‘modality’.
2.2.4 Evidentiality
Another concept which is often considered in connection with or as an essential

nature of ‘modality’ is what is termed ‘evidentiality’. ‘Evidentiality’ may be defined
as a source or a basis of the speaker’s judgment about the validity of the proposition.
The source may be a logical inference which derives from another statement or belief
based on his hypothesis, or may be hearsay in witness of the truthfulness or
doubtfulness of the proposition.
Some languages other than English have affixes to convey the types of meaning,
such as ‘inference’ and ‘hearsay’. For example, Aksu-Koç (1988) examines the
suffixes in Turkish of which primary function is to convey the meaning of
- 14 -
‘evidentiality’. According to Aksu-Koç, there is an obligatory choice in Turkish
between one of two verb suffixes (i) the morpheme -dI, which conveys ‘direct
experience’ and (ii) the morpheme -mIş [-mIš], which expresses the meaning of
‘indirect exprerience’.
In English, there is no such a suffix which can be attached to the verb to express
inference, hearsay, or sensory evidence, which will be a source of the speaker’s
confidence or doubt about the validity of the proposition. However, this does not
mean that there is no way of expressing some evidence explicitly in English. In fact,
as Chafe (1986) mentions, “English has a rich repertoire of evidential devices”.
Consider the following examples:
(14) It is raining.
(15) According to the weather forecast, it will rain.
(16) It seems to be raining (because the road is wet outside).
(17) It is said that Japan is rainy in June.
Instead of using a categorical statement in (14), the speaker can explicitly show
some evidence of his judgment about the validity of the proposition as the underlined
part in each example in (15), (16) and (17) indicates. The systemic functional
analysis of these kinds of ‘devices’ in English will be discussed in detail in Chapter 7.
2.3 Syntactic properties of the expressions of ‘modality’
In this section, I will discuss the syntactic properties primarily of the modal verbs
in English.
- 15 -
2.3.1 Modal verbs
One of the major reasons for the linguist’s particular concern about the modal
verbs in English is that they can express the meanings which roughly correspond to
what philosophers refer to as ‘modality’ in modal logic, such as ‘possibility’,
‘necessity’, ‘permission’, ‘obligation’, ‘volition’, ‘ability’ and so on. (I will review
modal logic in general and Lyons’ logic-based approach to ‘modality’ in Section
2.4.1.) Another reason for their prioritizing of the modals in English may be that
when linguists study ‘modality’ in English by looking at the forms of the language,
modal verbs are generally thought to constitute “the only formally coherent class of
modal expressions in English” (Perkins 1983:19).
Huddleston (1976:333) presents four properties for identifying the auxiliary verbs
in English, which include the ‘primary’ auxiliaries of be, have, and do as well as the
‘central’ modals, to use Quirk et al.’s (1985) term, and those criteria are referred to as
the ‘NICE’ properties, an acronym of ‘Negation’, ‘Inversion’, ‘Code’ and ‘Emphatic
affirmation’, respectively. According to these properties, we have:
(a) Negation: Jo can’t come.

(b) Inversion: Can Jo come?
(c) Code: Jo comes, so can I.
(d) Emphatic affirmation: Jo CAN come.
Quirk et al. (1985:127ff) provide further criteria in order to isolate the modal
auxiliaries from other ‘auxiliary’ verbs in terms of four morphological and syntactic
properties:
(e) Construction with bare infinitive, except used and (usually) ought, e.g.,:
You will be asked questions. BUT: You ought to comb your hair.
They might have stolen it. BUT: He used to read for hours.
- 16 -
(f) Finite functions only:
MODAL VERB PRIMARY VERB FULL VERB
*to may to have to eat

*(is) maying (is) being (is) eating
*(has) mayed (has) been (has) eaten
(g) No 3rd person inflection
You must You like

write. BUT: to write.
She must She likes
(h) Abnormal time reference

(i.e., not only present forms, but the past tense forms of the modal auxiliaries are
used to refer to present and future time – often with hypothetical or tentative
meaning):
I think he may / might retire next May.

Will / would you phone him tomorrow?
Contrast:
*I think he retired next May.
*Did you phone him tomorrow?
Based on these formal criteria, verbs in English are classified into six groups, and
nine modal auxiliaries are identified as ‘central’, which include, can, could, may,
might, shall, should, will / ’ll, would / ’d, and must (Quirk et al. 1985:137). As Figure
2.2 shows, six groups are ranged in order on the scale between modal auxiliaries at one
end and ‘full’ verbs at the other.
- 17 -
(one (a) central modals can, could, may, might, shall
verb should, will/'ll, would/'d, must
phrase)
(b) marginal modals dare, need, ought to, used to
(c) modal idioms had better, would rather/sooner,

be to, have got to, etc.
(d) semi-auxiliaries have to, about to, be able to,

be bound to, be going to, be
obliged to, be supposed to,
be willing to, etc.
(e) catenatives appear to, happen to, seem to,

get + -ed participle, keep, + -ing
participle, etc.
(two
verb (f) main verb + hope + to-infinitive,
phrases) nonfinite clause begin + -ing participle, etc.
Figure 2.2: The auxiliary verb - main verb scale (Quirk et al. 1985: 137)
Figure 2.2 shows that, the items which belong to these categories are confined to
those which convey meanings which are to some extent related to types of ‘modality’.
However, ‘auxiliary verbs’ which do not express the meanings of ‘modality’ are
excluded from this scale.
2.3.2 Other classes of items expressing ‘modality’
As we observed in Section 2.2.1 and 2.2.2, the meanings that are discussed in
relation to the concept of ‘modality’ are not necessarily expressed by modal verbs in
English. If we take into consideration both types of ‘modality’, the ‘epistemic’ and
the ‘deontic’, we in fact use almost all major classes of items (i.e., adverbs, adjectives,
nouns, verbs, so-called participles, and prepositions as an extension of certain types of
auxiliary verbs) and almost all layers of structures (i.e., clauses, nominal, adjectival,
and prepositional groups, and words that directly expound the element of the clause)
that are available in English. In this section, I will simply show some typical patterns
of each type of ‘modality’, and the analyses of these structures will be discussed in
- 18 -
later chapters (especially in Chapter 7 and Chapter 8).
The typical examples for the ‘epistemic’ type are shown in (a), (b) and (c):
(a) adverbs (as the direct element of the clause)

e.g., Perhaps Joe is in London.
(b) adjectives (with the basic frame of ‘it is … that’)
e.g., It is possible that Joe is in London.
(c) nouns (with the ‘existential’ frame of ‘there is … that’)
e.g., There is a possibility that Joe is in London.
Each instance in (a) to (c) can be modified further in various ways to enable the
speaker to create slight ‘nuances’ that are relevant for a certain context of situation.
For example, the position of perhaps in (a) can be changed in the clause as in Joe is
perhaps in London. The adjective possible in (b) can be strengthened or exaggerated
by quite, even, entirely, perfectly, just, and so on, and the nominal group that includes
the noun possibility as the ‘head’ can be used as the Subject of the clause which is
attributed to the Complement that is filled by another embedded clause where the
proposition is involved, as in The possibility [Subject] is [Main Verb] that Joe is in
London [Complement].
The ‘deontic’ type, on the other hand, also has different ways of expression, some
of which are presented below:
(d) be plus so-called ‘participle’ and a preposition as an extension of it

e.g., Joe is allowed to leave.
(e) so-called ‘performative verb’
e.g., I allow you to leave.
(f) adjectives (with the basic frame of ‘it is … for’)
e.g., It is necessary for Joe to leave.
(g) nouns (as an extension of give)
e.g., I give you permission to leave.
- 19 -
The fact that, unlike the modal verbs, these forms in (a) to (g) cannot be classified
in terms of the small number of syntactic and morphological properties may lead some
grammarians to conclude that modality is one of the most untidy areas of language.
As we will see in later chapters (especially in Chapters 6 to 8), we can, in fact,
find fairly complex and yet systematic patterns of various kinds of expressions that can
be described in terms of the relevant areas of meaning which are roughly equivalent to
‘modality’, and they are coherently related with each other at the level of meaning and
at the even higher level of ‘microplanner’, which is proposed and developed by
Fawcett and his colleagues in the Cardiff Grammar in English (this is the
lexicogrammar, composed of a whole model of a ‘communicating mind’, as being
developed in the COMMUNAL Project).
2.4 Review of the literature: descriptive and theoretical approaches
For the rest of this chapter I will review the previous studies on ‘modality’, some
of which take, in principle, an eclectic or theoretically-neutral position and provide a
descriptive account of relevant phenomena, and others are more theoretically-oriented
approaches to ‘modality’.
2.4.1 Philosophical approaches to ‘modality’
This sub-section gives a brief survey of logical approaches to ‘modality’, and I

will consider how an account of ‘modality’ from a non-linguistic viewpoint is applied
to linguistic semantics.
- 20 -
2.4.1.1 Modal logic
Among various sub-fields of philosophy, ‘modality’ is discussed in terms of logic,

or specifically modal logic (Hintikka 1972; Girle 2000; Allwood et al. 1977). Logic
is the study of consistent sets of ‘beliefs’ or those of valid ‘arguments’. Here the
‘argument’ can be defined as what is produced when one makes a statement and gives
reasons for believing the statement. For example, in order for the argument to be true,
it has to be true in a certain situation. Consider the following example:
(18) The President of Japan is bald.
(18) is a straightforward statement, but the proposition itself is not in fact true in the
present state of affairs, since there is a referential failure, i.e., Japan has no President.
The question of the truth or falsity of the argument therefore arises if it is related to a
certain situation, and the condition that allows the argument to be true is referred to as
the ‘truth condition’. In Hodges’ words (Hodges 2001:13), “one and the same
sentence can be used to make a true statement in one situation and untrue in another
situation”.
In such simple truth-conditional logic, the ‘truth value’ is always a clear-cut,
binary system; either true or false, but not both. There are arguments, however, that
cannot be shown to be valid in terms of such simple truth-conditional logic. Consider
the following example:
(19) If the room is to be let next year, then contracts must be exchanged before
April. If contracts are to be exchanged before April, then the room must be
cleaned by March. A cleaner must be employed if the room is to be
cleaned. Since it is not possible to employ a cleaner, it follows that it is not
possible to let the room next year.
- 21 -
In Example (19), none of the sentences are a categorical assertion, and so the
validity of the proposition cannot be assessed in terms of either true or false, but in
terms of degree, i.e., ‘possible / impossible’ or ‘necessary / unnecessary’. In order to
give a proper account of the validity of the arguments in (19), then, we have to show
what the expressions such as is to, must and it is (not) possible exactly mean, and this
is where ‘modality’ comes into play.
While investigations into the ‘truth value’ of a proposition go back to the
Aristotelian period, it was not until in the 1950s that a solution to the problem of the
treatment of the ‘third possibility’ was proposed by Saul Kripke (1972). Kripke’s
solution was quite simple. This is that the notions of ‘possibility’ and ‘necessity’ can
be understood in terms of ‘possible worlds’. There are possible worlds, and one of
which is an ‘actual world’ where we live. The sentence ‘it is possible that the
President of Japan is bald’ can be true just in case there is at least one possible world in
which there is the President of Japan who is bald. If, on the other hand, the sentence
‘it is necessary that the President of Japan is bald’ is true, it is true in all possible
worlds.
2.4.1.2 Types of modality and negation in modal logic
Although we saw in Section 2.2 that two types of modality (‘epistemic’ and
‘deontic’) are generally distinguished for the meanings of modal verbs in English,
there are in fact at least five ‘modes’ of ‘modalities’ in modern modal logic, and these
include ‘alethic’, ‘epistemic’, ‘temporal’, ‘dynamic’ and ‘deontic’. Table 1
summarizes the types of ‘modalities’ and the notions that each modality gives account
of.
- 22 -
alethic modality logic for ‘possibility’ and ‘necessity’
epistemic modality logic for ‘knowledge’
temporal modality logic for ‘time’
dynamic modality logic for ‘the change of states from one to the next by
means of processes’
deontic modality logic for ‘obligation’
Table 2.1: Applications of modal logic
To take an example of ‘alethic’ modality, statements with ‘possibility’ and

‘necessity’, which are the ‘central notions of traditional modal logic’ (Lyons 1977:
188), are represented by symbols as follows:
(i) Mp (stands for ‘it is possible that p’ or ‘possibly p’ or ‘p might be true’)

(ii) Lp (stands for ‘it is necessary that p’ or ‘necessarily p’, or ‘p must be true’)
In the possible worlds approach, ‘possibility’ and ‘necessity’ are related with each
other in terms of negation (which is translated into the symbol ¬ in modal logic). In
other words, ‘possibility’ can be defined in terms of ‘necessity’, together with negation,
and vice versa. For example, Girle (2000: 3) shows four relationships of them:2
(i) ¬Mp ≡ L¬p (it is not possible that p is the case iff it is necessary that
p is not the case)
(ii) M¬p ≡ ¬Lp (it is possible that p is not the case iff it is not necessarily
the case that p)
(iii) Lp ≡ ¬M¬p (it is necessary that p is the case iff it is impossible that p
is not the case)
(iv) Mp ≡ ¬L¬p (it is possible that p is the case iff it is not necessarily the
case that p is not the case)
- 23 -
These four relationships are referred to as the ‘modal negation equivalences’, in
which Lyons (1977) achieved recognition for his logic-based descriptive semantics of
‘modality’ of language. The next section, then, will be concerned with Lyons’
attempt to apply modal logic to linguistic semantics.
2.4.1.3 Lyons (1977)
Lyons’ (1977) major concern is the logic-based characterization of ‘modality’

with special reference to English for illustrations. Lyons (1977:789) supports the
applicability of concepts in modal logic to descriptive semantics of language on the
assumption that the ability of drawing a logical inference is dependent upon “our
intuitive understanding of the operation” of logic.
However, Lyons goes along with the traditional linguistic view on ‘modality’
which is discussed in Section 2.2 of this chapter, rather than the typical logician’s view.
He also recognizes two broad types of ‘modality’ of the ‘epistemic’ and the ‘deontic’.
Lyons (1977:788-793) makes a distinction between the typically linguistic and
typically logical view on epistemic modality by using the following example, which is
obtained by inference from the statement ‘Alfred is a bachelor’.
(20) Alfred must be unmarried.
This sentence can be glossed either as:
(21) “I (confidently) infer that Alfred is unmarried”.
or as:
(22) “In the light of what is known, it is necessarily the case that Alfred is unmarried”.
- 24 -
According to Lyons, (21) is a typically linguistic gloss, while (22) is a typically
logical one. The difference between them comes from the recognition or
non-recognition of the ‘speaker’ who draws the inference from the antecedent (i.e.,
‘Alfred is a bachelor’); it is recognized in (21), while it is not in (22). In other words,
(21) involves the expression of the speaker’s subjective attitude towards the validity of
the proposition, while (22) simply shows the logical deduction which is made by
reference to the knowledge of a prerequisite condition. ‘Subjectivity’ is, therefore, a
crucial factor that distinguishes linguist’s view on epistemic modality from the
logician’s. Note that the recognition of ‘subjectivity’ does not, of course, exclude
objective epistemic modality from a linguistic description of ‘modality’, since
‘objective epistemic modality’ is also expressible in a language, in English at least, as
demonstrated in (22) itself in contrast with (21). The point to be made is, therefore,
that in the everyday use of language, ‘objective’ modality is considered to be derived
from the ‘subjective’ one by the process of what Lyons (1977:806) terms
‘objectification’, while such a process is not assumed in modal logic.
“Deontic” modality, which Lyons (1977: 823) characterizes as one “concerned
with the necessity or possibility of acts performed by morally responsible agents”.
Moreover, Lyons (1977: 791-793) suggests that deontic modality has a distinction
between ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’ modality, and this distinction allows us to
interpret Example (20) above as expressing either objective or subjective modality, in
the sense of ‘deontic’ modality here, as in:
(23) Alfred is obliged to be unmarried. (objective)

(24) I hereby oblige Alfred to be unmarried. (subjective)
However, he argues that ‘deontic’ modality is distinguished from logical and

epistemic modality in three ways.
Firstly, according to Lyons (1977:823), when we lay an obligation upon someone
to do or not to do something, the utterance is not a mere description of his present or
future performance of that act itself, but the description of “the state-of-affairs that will
- 25 -
obtain if the act in question is performed”. Secondly, Lyons (1977:824) states that
‘deontic’ modality is intrinsically connected with ‘futurity’, in that “the truth value of
the deontically modalized proposition is determined relative to some state of the world
(wj) later than the world-state (wi) in which obligation holds”. The futurity relative to
the world in another time position is significant here, since we can convey a sentence
which involves an obligation that a particular act is supposed to be performed in the
future from the viewpoint of some moment in the past, as exemplified in the following
sentence (Ibid.):
(25) You should have gone to the meeting yesterday.
Thirdly, ‘deontic’ modality presupposes some source or cause which enables the
speaker to put the obligation. The source of authority may reside in the speaker
himself as in:
(26) If you want to see me, you must have an appointment beforehand.
Or it may be institutional, e.g.,:
(27) You must have permission to enter the park.
Lyons’ description of ‘modality’ is based on the formalizations of ‘possibility /

necessity’ in terms of the notion of ‘possible worlds’ which is contrived in modal logic.
As a consequence, his concern is mainly confined to the logical interpretations of the
modal verbs, and the major categories of ‘modality’, i.e., the ‘epistemic’ and the
‘deontic’, are regarded as precise, discrete categories. As we will see in the
following sections of this chapter, the ‘discreteness’ versus ‘indiscreteness’ between
the ‘epistemic’ and the ‘deontic’ meanings of the modal verbs in English has long been
discussed by a lot of linguists since the latter half of twentieth century.
- 26 -
2.4.2 Descriptive and theoretical approaches
Broadly speaking, we can approach language from two broad orientations in

linguistic studies; one is ‘descriptive’ linguistics and the other is ‘theoretical’
linguistics. Language can be viewed from different perspectives, and whichever one
it will be, the description of language cannot be totally free from the researcher’s view
on the essential nature of language. At the same time, however, the researcher’s view
itself cannot be established, in fact, without his empirical knowledge about the
language, which can be obtained by looking at some source of data which presents the
simple, accessible facts about language, i.e., a text. By observing a text, we can find
certain patterns in it, which will then contribute to building up a certain perspective on
language according to the researcher’s goals, and we can, in turn, give a theoretical
justification for the description of those patterns identified in the text. These two
orientations are, therefore, mutually dependent, and when we analyze a language, we
need to see it from both sides. This section gives an overview of the descriptive and
the theoretical approaches, which have been presented in the previous studies on
‘modality’, or on language in general.
2.4.2.1 Corpus-based approaches
A corpus-based study makes use of a large collection of spoken and written texts
in actual use, and it enables researchers to provide more realistic and reliable
illustrations of the language, in the sense that a statistical account of data can clearly
show the tendency and the probabilities of the occurrence or the co-occurrence of
particular patterns of the language. The subsequent sections will offer a brief
summary of two major works of a corpus-based description of English grammar.
- 27 -
2.4.2.2 Quirk et al.’s A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (1985)
The remarkable feature of Quirk et al.’s A Comprehensive Grammar of the

English Language (CGEL) is, first of all, its thorough description of English grammar,
as the title of the book suggests, and secondly, it is a work based on The Survey of
English Usage (SEU), which is the first major corpus-based study of English grammar,
since Randolph Quirk launched this project in 1959 at the University of Durham,
England.
Quirk et al. (1985: 219) define ‘modality’ as follows:
modality may be defined as the manner in which the meaning of a clause is

qualified so as to reflect the speaker’s judgment of the likelihood of the
proposition it expresses being true.
Following this definition, they divide ‘the manner’ of the speaker’s judgment into
two types, as mentioned in Section 2.2. That is, it includes (i) ‘intrinsic’ modality
which expresses ‘permission’, ‘obligation’, and ‘volition’, and (ii) ‘extrinsic’ modality
which conveys the meaning such as ‘possibility’, ‘necessity’, and ‘prediction’. The
former is so called because, according the Quirk et al. (1985: 219) those meanings
involve “some kind of intrinsic human control over events”, while the latter type of
modality, on the other hand, “typically involve human judgment of what is or is not
likely to happen” rather than referring to human control of events.
In addition, Quirk et al. (Ibid.) also mention that the distinction of these two types
of meaning are not always clear-cut, but “there are areas of overlap and neutrality
between the intrinsic and extrinsic senses of a modal”. Consider the following
example:
(28) I’ll see you tomorrow then.
- 28 -
According to Quirk et al., will in (28) conveys the combination of ‘volition’ and
‘prediction’. However, while they point out the fact that a modal auxiliary may
express both ‘extrinsic’ type and ‘intrinsic’ type of meanings simultaneously, there is
no theoretical justification why there is such an ‘overlap’ area of meanings in modal
verbs in English.
Furthermore to this, Quirk et al. also point out that there is another kind of
‘overlap’, which is not within the meanings of the identical modal auxiliary but
between different modal auxiliaries which share the same or similar meanings to the
extent that they can be interchangeably used under certain circumstances. For
instance, according to Quirk et al., if an appropriate context is given for the
interchangeability between the two modals, should and ought to are more or less
interchangeable with the meanings of ‘obligation’ and ‘tentative inference’, and can
and may can overlap when they are used in the sense of ‘permission’ and ‘possibility’.
Quirk et al.’s definition and semantic subcategorization of ‘modality’ does not
exclude the forms of expressions other than modal auxiliaries, and they maintain that
‘modality’ can be conveyed as one of the major semantic roles of ‘adverbials’.3 They
include three subtypes for this class of item: (i) ‘emphasis’ (e.g., ‘She has certainly
been passionate for love’), (ii) ‘approximation’ (e.g., ‘She has probably been
passionate for love’), (iii) ‘restriction’ (e.g., ‘She has been passionate only for LÒVE’)
However, their description of ‘adverbials’ does not clearly show to what extent
the two kinds of the ‘overlapping’ of meanings can be applied to the description of the
adverbials in English, or how these forms are related with modal verbs in terms of the
overall semantic system of ‘modality’ in general, although their semantic classification
suggests that those types of meaning for the ‘adverbials’ in fact have only to do with
the ‘extrinsic’ type of ‘modality’.
- 29 -
2.4.3 Perkins’ ‘core meaning’ approach (1983)
As we observed in Section 2.4.1.3, the extreme complexity of semantics of modal

verbs in English has raised a controversial issue among linguists about whether or not
the ‘deontic’ and the ‘epistemic’ types of ‘modality’ should be recognized as a discrete
categories in order to give a proper account of such phenomena in English and perhaps
in some other languages. The ‘discrete meanings’ or ‘polysemantic’ approach is, for
example, adopted by Leech (1969, 1987) and Palmer (1986, 1990), while Ehrman
(1966), Joos (1968), and Perkins (1983) embrace the ‘mono-semantic’ approach.
Perkins (1983) was also one of the first linguists who investigated the
‘non-verbal’ forms expressing ‘modality’ in English. Perkins’ major attempt is (i) to
recognize different forms of expression for ‘modality’ in English, which are referred to
as ‘modal expressions’, and (ii) to show that the difference in each modal expression is
in the amount and type of information it conveys about the four variables of the ‘core
meanings’.
In his description of ‘modal expressions’ in English, Perkins covers a wide range
of linguistic devices, which tend to have received less attention in previous studies on
‘modality’. In Perkins (1983), five broad types of different forms are identified: (i)
the ‘modal auxiliaries’ (can, may, must, will, and shall as ‘primary modals’, and could,
might, ought to, would, and should as ‘secondary modals’), (ii) the ‘quasi-auxiliaries’
(have [got] to, need to, had better), (iii) the ‘modal adverbs’ (e.g., allegedly,
apparently, arguably), (iv) the ‘modal adjectival, participial, and nominal expressions’
with (semi-)formulaic patterns (e.g., expressions incorporating the construction of a
‘be … to’ frame such as be going/about/bound to, or the verbally-derived participles
with the construction of a ‘be … that’ frame, such as be advertised/affirmed/alleged
that). In addition, (v) ‘nominal’ expressions include affirmation, call, compulsion,
assumption, ability, likelihood, and (vi) ‘modal lexical verbs’, which are often
discussed in terms of the concept of ‘performative verbs’ (cf. Austin 1962), which
include affirm, calculate, call, ask, advise, allow, guarantee.
- 30 -
What is worthwhile noting in Perkins’ approach is that an expression such as ‘It is
possible that …’ is not regarded as a mere ‘paraphrase’ of a particular modal verb, as is
very often the case in other studies, but as a unique expression which should be
analyzed in its own right. In spite of his strenuous efforts in this study, however, the
‘core meaning’ approach, as Perkins (1893:27) admits, is limited to some particular
items such as the modals or several prepositions which include to, from, at, but not of.
Moreover, the Perkins’ ‘core meaning’ approach to ‘modality’ has a crucial problem.
The SF descriptions of language allow us to describe meanings of a certain item in
terms of different functions, yet Perkins does not indicate how a ‘core’ meaning can be
related to the particular function of language. There is no need to generalize
interpretations of ‘modal expressions’ down to a single ‘core’ meaning. Thus, a
‘mono-semantic’ approach, as in Perkins’ ‘core meaning’ description, is not adopted in
this research. In the next section, Jennifer Coates’ ‘fuzzy set theory’ approach, where
‘modality’ is considered to be essentially ‘polysemantic’ rather than ‘mono-semantic’.
2.4.4 Jennifer Coates’ ‘fuzzy set theory’ approach (1983)
By focusing on the semantic system of modal verbs in English, Coates (1983)

adopts Zadeh’s ‘fuzzy set theory’ in favor of the eclectic position that neither a
monosemantic nor polysemantic approach is wholly satisfactory. On the one hand,
she makes a clear distinction between Root and Epistemic meanings, on the basis of (i)
the existence of ambiguous cases, (ii) the co-occurrence of the two categories, with
distinct syntactic and semantic features, and (iii) the possibility of distinct paraphrases
(1983: 10). On the other hand, she argues that there is a continuum from subjective
and objective meaning, which can be applied to both the Root and the Epistemic
category (Ibid.). The continuity of the subjective and the objective scale should be
interpreted as gradual or fuzzy areas of meaning, which derives from the ‘strength’ (for
‘ROOT’) or ‘confidence’ (for ‘ROOT’ and ‘EPISTEMIC’) of the speaker’s
commitment to the proposition. The fuzzy set of the modals in English consists of
- 31 -
three areas, ‘core’, ‘skirt’ and ‘periphery’, which is illustrated in Figure 2.3 below:
PERIPHERY
CORE
SKIRT
Figure 2.3: A Fuzzy Set (Coates 1983: 12)
Coates, like Perkins, attempts to identify for each modal verb the ‘core’ meaning,
though her criteria for identifying the ‘core’ meaning heavily rely on the native
speaker’s intuition. Coates (1983:13) characterizes the meaning as what can be
obtained by asking any native speaker of English to “give an example of MUST /
MAY / CAN …”. In her corpus-based study of modals, however, Coates gives a
statistical account of the relative infrequency of the use of modals with the
prototypical meaning, which is in fact learned by children earlier than the more
frequent ones, and she makes an explicit reference to the indeterminacy of modal
meanings, which eventually give rise to the fairly complex system of semantics of
modal verbs in English.
2.4.5 Halliday’s systemic functional approach (1994)
Halliday (1994:xiii) considers language as a goal-oriented behaviour of human

interaction, in the sense that the theory is “designed to account for how the language is
used”, and that every piece of text (ranging from a whole series of books to a simple
clause, or even a single lexical item) can realize several different kinds of meaning
- 32 -
simultaneously, so that each element of structure in a certain unit can be analyzed in
terms of its meaning or function in the total system of language. In this sense,
Halliday’s grammar is ‘functional’, and the major components in the total linguistic
system are referred to as ‘metafunctions’.
Halliday (1994:75) recognizes four ‘metafunctions’: the ‘experiential’, the
‘logical’, the ‘interpersonal’ and the ‘textual’. Halliday claims that ‘modality’ is
concerned with the “speaker’s judgment of the probabilities, or the obligations,
involved in what he is saying”, and it is one of the major areas of interpersonal
‘metafunction’ in cooperation with the underlying four primary ‘speech functions’, i.e.,
a ‘statement’, a ‘question’, an ‘offer’ and a ‘command’, which define the TYPE of
‘modality’, i.e., either the ‘modalization’ type or the ‘modulation’ type, with their finer
distinctions between [probability] and [usuality] for [modalization], and between
[obligation] and [inclination] for [modulation], respectively.4
In SFL, the semantic distinctions between these features in terms of the types of
modality are made to develop sets of options. The set of option is regarded as a
system in which one of the options must be chosen. As with the case of the
distinction between [modalization] and [modulation], each option leads in turn to other
system of options in which we can make more specific, or ‘delicate’ choices. The
relationship between a system and its sub-system can be described as the network of
systems, or technically, the ‘system networks’ of the language.5
In addition, Halliday (1994:356) also argues that ‘modality’ refers to “the area
between ‘yes’ and ‘no’ — the intermediate ground between positive and negative
polarity”. The ‘variable’ of modality in terms of the scale of polarity is referred to as
VALUE: [high], [median] and [low]. Echoing the formulation of ‘modal logical
equivalences’ in modal logic, Halliday (1994:358-359) argues that the ‘median’ is
distinguished from the other two values.6 That is, modality with [VALUE: high] plus
‘thesis negative’ indicates the same ‘value’ as the ‘transferred negative’ to modality of
[VALUE: low] plus ‘thesis positive’, while the median does not switch its value
according to whether the negation is applied to modality or to proposition, as
illustrated below:
- 33 -
(high) ‘it is certain that Mary doesn’t know’ equals to ‘it isn’t possible Mary knows’
(median) ‘it is likely Mary doesn’t know’ equals to ‘it isn’t likey Mary knows’
(low) ‘it is possible Mary doesn’t know’ equals to ‘it isn’t certain Mary knows’
If we follow Halliday’s system of VALUE, then, we first choose either [median] or

[outer], and if we choose the latter, there is a further choice to be made as to either
[high] or [low].
Depending on the simultaneous choices in the system of ORIENTATION, together
with the options available mentioned above, those options or ‘features’ can be realized
in different classes of items in different layers of structures. For example, the feature
[subjective] and [explicit] modality is typically realized by the clause ‘I think’ (if it
refers to a [probability] type), by which the source of the speaker’s judgment is overtly
expressed by the first person pronoun I, while the [objective] counterpart to this bundle
of options will generate an impersonalized form as in ‘it is possible’. Figure 2.4
illustrates the system network of the modality systems for English, which is proposed
by Halliday (1994: 360).
- 34 -
probability
modalization
usuality
TYPE
(4)
inclination
modulation
obligation
subjective
objective
ORIENTATION
(4) explicit
modality
implicit
median
VALUE high
(3)
outer
low
positive
POLARITY direct
(3)
negative
transferred
Figure 2.4: The Modality system (Halliday 1994: 360)
2.4.6 Biber et al.’s Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English (1999)
Biber et al.’s Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English (LGSWE) also
adopts a corpus-based approach. They make use of the corpus, the Longman Spoken
and Written English Corpus (the LSWE Corpus), which counts over forty million
words collected from texts in four major registers, i.e., conversation, fiction, news and
academic prose. They describe the grammar of English in terms of the
lexicogrammatical ‘patterns’ that actually occur in the large corpus of texts.
- 35 -
Using essentially the same categories as those in Quirk et al.’s CGEL, LGSWE
takes a further step towards introducing explicit statements of frequencies not only of
structural patterns in different registers, but also relative frequencies of particular
forms with certain meaning to another. For example, by comparing the frequencies
of nine modal verbs in American and British English (i.e., must, should, have to, better,
got to, will, would, shall, and going to) which are used in conversation and in fiction,
Biber et al. (1999: 489) state that modals with the meaning of ‘obligation / necessity’
are less frequent than other meanings carried in those modals, and they go on to take
into account the relative rarity of ‘obligation / necessity’ by pointing out that the result
in this statistical approach coincides with the general tendency of avoiding “face
threatening force of expression” with this meaning.
Biber et al. retain Quirk et al.’s distinction between the ‘intrinsic’ and the
‘extrinsic’ meanings of ‘modality’. However, their approach is different from Quirk
et al.’s in that only ‘extrinsic’ type of ‘modality’ is integrated into the broader area of
meaning, which is referred to as ‘stance’, together with other various kinds of
expressions of the speaker’s/writer’s attitude or assessment with respect to a
proposition expressed in the clause. ‘Stance’ is a semantic category which is
concerned with the expressions of “personal feelings, attitudes, value judgments, or
assessments”. Biber et al. (1999: 966) claim that these meanings are marked by the
use of different classes of items which include some ‘adverbs’, ‘lexical verbs’, ‘modal
and semi-modal verbs’, ‘predicative adjectives’, and ‘nouns’. There are four major
grammatical devices used to mark ‘stance’, which include ‘stance adverbials’, ‘stance
complement clauses’, ‘modals and semi-modals’, ‘stance noun + prepositional phrase’
and ‘premodifying stance adverb (stance adverb + adjective or noun phrase)’.7
Furthermore, they also provide the description of what kinds of meaning are
available for those ‘grammatical devices’, and how one can show their ‘stance’ either
explicitly or implicitly in the clause. As for the question of ‘what’, they identify
three major areas of meaning, which are referred to as ‘epistemic stance’, ‘attitudinal
stance’ and ‘style of speaking stance’, and modal verbs in ‘extrinsic’ sense, for
instance, is considered to express ‘epistemic stance’, while the use of modals in the
- 36 -
‘intrinsic’ sense is to convey a kind of ‘attitudinal stance’.
The answer to the question of ‘how’ is given by reference to the notion of
‘attribution’, by which the speaker/writer can show where the authority or the source
of ‘stance’ derives from. That is, the speaker can ‘explicitly’ show the source of
judgment which comes from the speaker himself, as in I think, I am sure, it seems to
me and so on. The speaker, on the other hand, can also show ‘implicit’ attribution of
stance by using modal verbs, adverbials, or ‘impersonalized’ constructions, such as it
seems that …, it is perhaps more likely that ….
In summary, Biber et al. (1999: 483ff) recognize ‘modality’ by which the
ambiguity of modal verbs are handled in terms of two different types of meaning
which are referred to as ‘intrinsic’ and ‘extrinsic’ (as the equivalents to ‘epistemic’ and
‘deontic’ meanings). Of these two meanings, modal verbs in the sense of ‘extrinsic’
type are at the same time regarded as a way of expressing the broader notion of
‘stance’, which, they argue, can be marked by a wide range of grammatical devices,
such as some ‘adverbials’ (e.g., definitely, possibly, I think), ‘stance complement
clauses’ (e.g., I hope that …, It’s amazing that …), ‘stance nouns’ (e.g., the possibility
of …) as well as ‘modal and semi-modal auxiliary verbs’. Then, we must ask: is it
helpful for the description of English to recognize the two “similar but different”
concepts of ‘modality’ and ‘stance’ at all? By making use of the large corpus, Biber
et al. show that there are various grammatical and lexical devices which are related to
each other in terms of the concept of ‘stance’ at the semantic level. In other words,
the semantic area of ‘stance’ is, on the one hand, broader than that of ‘modality’ in that
the system for ‘stance’ can handle a wider range of linguistic forms of expression.
On the other hand, it is narrower than ‘modality’ in that it confines its scope to
meanings which are associated with some speaker’s evaluation of a proposition, but
not ‘intrinsic modality’. Consequently, I argue that the recognition of ‘stance’ will be
preferable to ‘modality’, because ‘stance’ at least holds semantic consistency to some
extent, and, in this sense, ‘modality’ is not required in the overall system of English at
all.
- 37 -
2.4.7 Traugott and Dasher’s Regularity in Semantic Change (2002)
Traugott and Dasher’s Regularity in Semantic Change (2002) is a cross-linguistic

study on diachronic patterns of semantic change, with special reference to the
historical semantics and pragmatics of English. The major purpose of their work is to
maintain that semantic changes (or change in code) that can happen in any language
are unidirectional rather than bi-directional, and this unidirectionality of semantic
changes is regulated by cognitive and communicative processes in which the
pragmatic meanings are conventionalized and reanalyzed as semantic polysemy.
As for the development of modals, two notions are important, both of which
support the unidirectional hypothesis by Traugott and Dasher. The first is what is
termed ‘grammaticalization’ (or ‘grammaticization’). ‘Grammaticalization’ is
typically the development from lexemes into grammatical items, as cited from Givón’s
generalization of this tendency:8
(32) discourse > syntax > morphology
According to Traugott and Dasher (2002:122), this developmental process of

‘grammaticalization’ is typically the case of the modals in English. In Modern
English (hereafter, ModE), for example, must is a syntactically and morphologically
restricted item which is distinct from the main verbs in terms of position, cooccurrence
and form, while, in Old English (hereafter OE) the original form of must, mot-,
meaning “be able, be permitted”, was used as a ‘preterite-present verb’, that is, ‘it
expressed completed action resulting in present state’.
The second concept that should be noted is ‘subjectivization’ (also often referred
to as ‘subjectification’ in more or less the same sense). Adopting Halliday’s three
metafunctions of the ‘ideational’, the ‘textual’ and the ‘interpersonal’ as the basic
functional domains of language, Traugott and Dasher argue that the direction from
- 38 -
propositional (Halliday’s ‘ideational’) meaning to expressive (Halliday’s
‘interpersonal’) via textual (Halliday’s ‘textual’) meaning is not reversible as indicated
in (33).
(33) propositional > (textual >) expressive
To take an example of must again, the OE form mot- belonged to a class of verbs
that express the states that come about as a result of an event. As the form developed,
it came to be used, especially in Middle English (ME) and in Early Modern English
(EModE), to express ‘deontic’ modality in the sense of ‘obligation’ and ‘compulsion’,
and it was not until the end of EModE that must in the ‘epistemic’ sense began to be
used in English to convey the speaker’s attitude or judgment about the likelihood of
the proposition. Similarly, will has developed from a main verb that meant ‘want’,
and can originally had the meaning of the knowledge or mental ability of its subject to
do something.
Granting the fact that the usage of certain expressions may change in their
meanings through the history of language, Traugott and Dasher’s hypothesis is mostly
concerned with the historical development of the modal verbs in English. However,
it fails to explain how and why we can find particular patterns of collocations between
the modals and various other related expressions. Furthermore, it is misleading to
apply Halliday’s ‘metafunctions’ to the hypothesis of the unidirectionality of semantic
change for theoretical justification, since each metafunction has no priority over one
another in terms of historical change of language, but they are considered to be the
major areas of the resource for meaning making that can be served simultaneously in
the lexicogrammar of the language.
- 39 -
2.5 Conclusion / summary
The purpose of this chapter was (i) to outline the basic concepts which
characterize ‘modality’ in the description of a language, and (ii) to provide an
overview of previous studies which are based on some descriptive and theoretical
perspectives.
However, the approaches considered in this chapter may not have given a clear
picture of ‘modality’ in describing the grammar of English. As Palmer (2001: 2)
points out, it will be the case that “there is no simple, clearly denfinable, semantic
category’ for ‘modality”. However, as we saw in this chapter, especially in Section 4,
it is also true that there seems, in fact, to be a general assumption that there is a single
area of meaning, i.e., so-called ‘modality’, in which the relevant linguistic phenomena
can be described for any language.
It seems that the problem in this type of contradiction resides particularly in the
methodology of description, which is often taken by scholars in the study of ‘modality’
in a particular language. When we describe a particular language, the reasonable way
of establishing a grammatical category, such as tense, aspect, mood, voice and so on, is,
first of all, to look at (i) how the syntactic structures are recognized as the meaningful
categories in the given language at the level of form, and (ii) what kinds of pattern they
reveal in terms of both lexis and grammar. On the grounds of the considerations of
these two aspects, we are able to describe what kind of meaning is involved in the
relevant structure in the text and how it is semantically related to other expressions.
When it comes to the consideration of ‘modality’, however, it seems to be believed
that a certain semantic category should be presented in advance, and then we can
derive a description of linguistic forms from the pre-established semantic notions. In
his corpus-based study of the English text, for example, Stubbs (1996: 196) explicitly
presents this position as follows:
- 40 -
Chapter 4 to 7 proceed from form to function: for example, they use
concordance lines to help identify in texts lexical and syntactic patterns,
whose meaning can then be discussed. … In this chapter, this direction
is reversed. … I start from an area of meaning (modality) and discuss
the different ways in which it can be expressed in English.
After characterizing the category for the modal verbs to be “the most difficult to
discuss among the six categories of the English finite verb”, Joos (1968: 147) also
takes a similar position to Stubbs.9 Joos gives two reasons for taking the opposite
directionality from that of ‘from form to function’ in describing the meaning of the
modal verbs in English, one essential and the other adventitious. The first and the
essential reason is that, in learning English as a native language, the modals are
learned extremely early to be “buried deep in the subconscious where they are
inaccessible to rational scrutiny by anyone but a ruthless professional analyst of
languages”.10 The second, adventitious reason comes from the “complete solidarity
and the symmetry of the English system of modal markers for relative assertion”.11
That is, the meanings of the modal verbs can be obtained from the relation of a
three-dimensional matrix model of mutually-exclusive meanings; either ‘adequate’ or
‘contingent’, either ‘casual’ or ‘stable’, and either ‘assurance’ and ‘potentiality’, by
which we can make a distinction between may as ‘contingent casual potentiality’ and
must as ‘adequate stable assurance’. Joos’ elegant ‘cubic’ model of the English
system of modal verbs gives no priority to any of these meanings, and as a
consequence “they offer no starting-point”.12
However, ‘modality’ has been discussed by a number of scholars as one of the
most intriguing and, at the same time, the most controversial areas of meaning,
because, on the one hand, it deals with the inherent nature of polysemy in the modal
verbs in English, and on the other hand, because the modal verbs are related to various
ways of expressing semantic categories that may generate these items. The
theoretical and descriptive approaches that have been examined in this chapter are,
therefore, only small parts of the previous studies on ‘modality’ or the equivalent areas
of meaning from different viewpoints of linguistic theories.
- 41 -
In the next chapter, I will offer an overview of current SF approach in general, in
terms of some basic theoretical concepts, such as ‘metafunction’, ‘system’ and ‘strata’,
which characterize SFL as one of the functional approaches to language.
- 42 -
Notes
1
Palmer (1986, 1990) suggests that there are three types of ‘modality’ for the modals
in English, which include ‘epistemic’, ‘deontic’ and ‘dynamic’ systems. Deontic for
‘obligation’ and ‘willingness’, dynamic for ‘ability’. In Palmer (2001), however, he
changes his position in his typological approach that there are two broad types of
modality which comprises ‘propositional’ and ‘event’ modality. Within these two
types of ‘modality’, ‘epistemic’ and ‘evidential’ are the major modal systems for
‘propositional’ modality, and ‘deontic’ and ‘dynamic’ are integrated into ‘event’
modality.
2
‘Iff’ is a notation which is read as ‘if and only if’ in modal logic.
3
Quirk et al. (1985: 485).
4
A term in square brackets, as in [modalization], indicates that it is a feature in a
system network. For a detailed illustration of the conventional uses of
representations of technical terms in SFL, see Chapter 3.
5
See Chapter 3, especially Section 3.4, for the treatment of a system network in SFL.
6
For the concept of ‘modal logical equivalences’, see Section 2.4.1.2 above.
7
Biber et al. (1999: 969-970).
8
Traugott and Dasher (2002: 81).
9
The six categories are: ‘tense’, ‘assertion’, ‘phase’, ‘aspect’, ‘voice’ and ‘function’,
each of which is marked by -D, -WILL, HAVE -N, BE -ING, BE -N, and SHOW, respectively.
For further details, see Joos (1968).
10
Joos (1968: 147).
11
Joos (1968:148).
12
Joos (1968: 148).
- 43 -
CHAPTER THREE
AN OVERVIEW OF SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL LINGUISTICS
3.1 Introduction
Since the publication of Halliday’s seminal paper, ‘Categories of the Theory of

Grammar’, in 1961, the Hallidayan approach to theorizing language, which was known
as Scale and Category Grammar after the paper, is developed by Halliday and other
scholars into the current theory of language, namely, Systemic Functional Linguistics
(SFL). The detailed descriptions about the SF theory can be seen in countless
publications: Halliday (1970a, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1984, 1993, 1998), Berry
(1977), Fawcett (1980, 2000a), Butler (1985), Martin (1992a), Matthiessen (1995),
Halliday and Matthiessen (1999). One of the remarkable features of SF theory is
application to a broad range sub-fields in linguistic studies, including computational
linguistics, educational linguistics, discourse analysis, translation studies (including
machine translation), literary stylistics, as well as the descriptions of a number of
languages in the world.1 The purpose of this chapter, however, is neither to cover a
broad range of topics of SFL in detail nor to discuss the validity of Hallidayan
approach in comparison with other theoretical paradigms for linguistic descriptions.2
In this chapter, I will briefly present an overview of the linguistic theory in general, in
terms of three basic concepts of SFL, i.e., (i) levels of language, (ii) three
‘metafunctions’ and (iii) system networks as a ‘meaning potential’ of a language. By
showing the basic concepts in SFL, I will make it clear why SFL is adopted as the
general framework in the study of an analysis of the lexicogrammar of so called
‘modal verbs’ and the semantically related forms of expression in English.
- 44 -
3.2 Levels of language
Let us assume that language is a system of signs, which consists of the level of
meaning and the level of form in very simple terms. Halliday suggests that, in
addition to these two levels of meaning and form, there is another level that encodes
the lexicogrammatical properties into either phonetic sounds or writing. The three
levels, i.e., meaning, form and sound/writing are referred to as semantics,
lexicogrammar and phonology/graphology (to use Halliday’s terms), respectively, and
the relationship between these levels is one of realization; meanings are realized as
forms, and forms are, in turn, realized as sound or writing. The stratified relationship
of the levels of language is illustrated in Figure 3.1.
SEMANTICS
'realized as'
LEXICOGRAMMAR
'realized as'
PHONOLOGY/GRAPHOLOGY
Figure 3.1: The relationship between levels of language (based on Halliday 1979: 58)
Halliday’s stratificational model of language, however, is not so clear-cut as it

appears to be as shown in Figure 3.1. As Halliday himself points out, ‘there is no
clear line between semantics and grammar, and a functional grammar is one that is
pushed in the direction of the semantics’. This leads to the fact that the
lexicogrammatical structures of English clauses are described as a configuration of
elements in semantic or functional terms. Therefore, in Halliday’s model of language,
- 45 -
the description in the lexicogrammar of English is ‘semanticized’ to some extent, and
there exist, at the stratum of lexicogrammar, both a structural representation of a clause
and a semantic representation of features — more specifically, a representation of
system networks of ‘meaning potential’, which will soon be shown below. 3
Consequently, we have two levels for a ‘semantic’ representation in the Hallidayan
model of language: one at the level of lexicogrammar which is ‘pushed in the direction
of semantics’, and the other at the higher level, i.e., semantics, as proposed by
Halliday.
As can be seen in Chapter 5, I will adopt the Cardiff model of language as the
theoretical framework for this study, where the level of meaning and the level of form
are explicitly distinguished, and there is no need to have two strata, i.e., semantics and
lexicogrammar, where the system networks of ‘meaning potential’ are described
(Fawcett 1997a:64n). In the Cardiff Grammar, there are only two levels of language,
i.e., ‘semantics’ and ‘syntax’, which comprise the lexicogrammar of language. It is at
the level of semantics that the system networks for different areas of meaning in
language are developed. The relationship between the two levels is described in
terms of the operations of ‘instantiation’ and ‘realization’, as illustrated in Figure 5.2
in Chapter 5.
3.3 Metafunctions
Language serves several different functions simultaneously. The

‘multifunctionality’ of language is one of the basic principles of the Systemic
Functional theory, which was first introduced by Halliday, and numerous subsequent
studies are made on the basis of this principle. Halliday proposes three major
functional components of language, i.e., the ideational, the interpersonal and the
textual, which are referred to as ‘metafunctions’.
- 46 -
The ideational metafunction is concerned with the construal of our experience of
phenomena in the world, including the ‘inner’ world of the consciousness in our own
mind. The major system in this metafunction is TRANSITIVITY, which organizes
our experience as a configuration of a process, participants inherently involved in it,
and circumstances as an option.
The interpersonal metafunction is a resource for establishing communication roles
acted by the individuals involved in the interaction. For example, the speaker may be
either a ‘giver’ or a ‘seeker’ of information, or he may also propose an action to be
done by the addressee, or even by himself. The system for this area of meaning is
MOOD. In English, the configuration of the Subject and the Operator is the major
linguistic device for realizing the different types of communication roles available in
the system for MOOD in English.
The textual metafunction serves the resource for constructing the ideational and
the interpersonal functions into a ‘text’, that establish cohesive relations between
clauses, instead of a random set of them. Therefore, without this metafunction,
meanings that emerge from different functional components cannot be united as a
meaningful unit. THEME and INFORMATION are the major resources which
belong to the textual metafunction. THEME, for instance, is concerned with the
meaning expressing what the message is about in a given clause, and, in English, the
initial element of the clause typically carries this function.
Each metafunction serves the ‘space’ for organizing the relevant areas of meaning
(at both the semantic and the lexicogrammatical strata) and a configuration of the
elements of structure at the relevant class of unit (at the lexicogrammatical stratum), as
illustrated in Figure 3.2, which is adopted from Halliday (1998: 189).
- 47 -
metafunctional
stratal
ideational interpersonal textual
semantic
lexicogrammatical
Figure 3.2: The ‘meaning space’ defined by stratification and metafunction

(Halliday 1998:189)
In the Hallidayan model of language, therefore, the grammatical structure of a

clause is analyzed as a combination of, at least, three layers of configurations of
grammatical functions in terms of three metafunctions. An example for this type of
analysis of an English clause is illustrated in Figure 3.3, which is referred to as a ‘box
analysis’.
metafunctional
stratal
semantic
lexicogrammatical
John will water the plant tomorrow.
THEME Theme Rheme
MOOD Subject Finite Predicator Complement Adjunct

Mood Residue
TRANSITIVITY Actor Process Goal Circumstance
Figure 3.3: A multi-layered analysis of an English clause
Despite the elegant representation of the multifunctionality of the English clause

in Figure 3.3, however, I do not adopt the box analysis in the description of the
syntactic structures in English. Alternatively, I will use a tree diagram, which
explicitly shows the relationship between the configuration of ‘elements of structure’
and a ‘class of unit’ to which those elements belong, as I will consider the description
of this type of analysis for further details in Chapter 5.
- 48 -
3.4 System networks
‘System network’ is the third basic concept that should be introduced in this
chapter. Halliday considers that semantic features of language are regarded as
options available for a speaker of the language, and the options are those that may be
chosen to generate a grammatical clause. A system is a set of options, which is
described in terms of paradigmatic relations. The example of a simple system is
shown in Figure 3.4. In this diagram, the feature a is a condition of entry to the
system ‘AAA’ (the name for the system is traditionally represented in capital letters in
SFL), and if it is entered, only one option must be chosen, i.e., either b or c, but not
both of them.
b
AAA
a
Figure 3.4: A simple system
In SFL, such options are regarded as one of ‘potential’ that may or may not be
instantiated as a linguistic form of expression, depending on which option is chosen in
the system. Note that an option can be an entry condition for another system, and the
relationship between the two systems is that of ‘dependence’; the dependent system
can be entered only if the relevant feature is chosen in another system. The
dependence of the two systems is illustrated in Figure 3.5.
- 49 -
b
AAA
a d
Figure 3.5: The dependence of two systems
The organic configuration of related systems then construct complexes of systems,

which is referred to as the ‘system networks’ of meaning potential. Moreover, there
is a system network, in which more than one system is entered simultaneously from
one entry condition, and the structure of a system network becomes more complex
than that of a simple system of a paradigmatic relation between options, as exemplified
in Figure 3.4 and 3.5 above. The complex systems with such simultaneous choices
are illustrated in Figure 3.6.
b
AAA
a d
e
n
y
w
VVV
v z
Figure 3.6: System networks with simultaneous systems
At the present stage of development of SFL, far more complicated system

networks are developed for many languages, particularly for English. According to
Halliday (1993:4505), about 800 system networks for English grammar are
- 50 -
implemented in a computer, and there exist two SF grammars that are developed into a
very large computer model of language; the ‘Sydney Grammar’, which is so called
because it is developed by scholars mainly based in Sydney, including Halliday and
Matthiessen, and the ‘Cardiff Grammar’, as developed in the COMMUNAL Project
under the direction of Robin Fawcett and other scholars. In Chapter 5, I will present
an overview of the Cardiff model of a communicating mind, on which the description
of ‘modal’ meanings in English is based in this thesis.
In this thesis, I follow the notational conventions, which are adopted in both the
Sydney and the Cardiff Grammar. Firstly, the name of a system network is
represented in capital letters, as in ‘VALIDITY ASSESSMENT’. It should be helpful
to note here that drawing a system network is regarded as the description of semantics
in a certain area of meaning. That is, the name of a system network can be the name
of the semantic category at the same time. Therefore, VALIDITY ASSESSMENT
network describes a semantic category of ‘validity assessment’, which is indicated by
small letters in single quotation marks. Moreover, if a term in the body text refers to
a feature in a sub-system in a particular system network, it is represented by square
brackets, as in [possibility], and it can also be related to the equivalent semantic
sub-category which is represented as the ‘possibility’ meaning.
3.5 Other basic assumptions
Under the direct influence of Firthian linguistics, Halliday views language as a

social process; language is a resource for making and expressing meanings to achieve
a goal in our social environments. A language may be used when we exchange
messages in an ongoing interaction between individuals, when we construe the word
that we experience, or when we create a meaning that may be shared by the member of
a community to which we belong. In SFL, the grammar of a language is regarded as a
resource for making meanings in human life, and the grammatical structures in any
given language are described in terms of functions rather than a set of syntactic rules
- 51 -
in orientation. In other words, a grammar is described in terms of how it is used in a
certain context.
In view of the functional approach to language as a social process, it should also
be noted that the object of our study is a ‘text’ that is produced and interpreted by
interlocutors in actual communication, rather than a ‘sentence’ that is an artificial
written example manipulated by grammarians. As defined by Halliday (1977:199),
the term ‘text’ is used as a technical term; he states that ‘text is the primary channel of
the transmission of culture’. A text is organized in the way that we produce it as a
meaningful unit to reflect and/or bring about our social interaction in order to achieve
a goal at hand. Thus, it is not defined in terms of the length nor the number of
sentences that it contains. It may be either spoken or written, but it may be that there
is no longer very clear boundaries between the two modes because of current
developments of new media, such as the internet. For example, people can exchange
messages by ‘e-mail’, where the message is written, or specifically ‘typed’, on an
application program of a computer, yet the style of the message tends to be like a
spoken language. We can find casual expressions in an email beginning with Hi!, and
it is closed with Cheers as a ‘farewell’ for the end of an email.
The notion of ‘context’ is essential for SFL. However, there are in fact different
views among systemic linguists on how far we define ‘context’ in its scope. Halliday
considers context as higher systems for different domains in situations than the
linguistic system, and pursues how a text is related to certain types of domains, which
is referred to as the ‘context of situation’. The context of situation is described in
terms of three domains: the field, the tenor and the mode, and the organization of these
three specifies the register of the text. Halliday (1978:110) characterizes these three
as follows:
- 52 -
Field is the social action in which the text is embedded; it includes the
subject-matter, as one special manifestation. The tenor is the set of role
relationships among the relevant participants; it includes levels of
formality as one particular instance. The mode is the channel or
wavelength selected, which is essentially the function that is assigned to
language in the total structure of the situation; it includes the medium
(spoken or written), which is explained as a functional variable.
In his ‘Genre and Register Theory’, Martin (1992a) goes even further to
theorizing context by classifying it into three levels: ‘ideology’ ‘genre’, and ‘register’.
He argues that the configuration of contextual and linguistic levels is stratified, and
that register and language are regarded as the expression form of the higher levels of
context, i.e., ‘ideology’ and ‘genre’. Martin’s stratification model of context and
language is shown in Figure 3.7.
CONTEXT
ideology
genre
field
register tenor
mode
(discourse-) semantics LANGUAGE
lexicogrammar
phonology/graphology
Figure 3.7: Martin’s model of stratification of language and context
- 53 -
Martin’s proposal for ‘Genre and Register Theory’ provides an approach to the
issues about how the configuration of field, tenor and mode is analyzed in terms of the
social system and social structures, and how it in turn is related to the operation of the
realization of the contextual features into the relevant expression at the level of
language.
I will not discuss further the issue about the description of the linguistic event as a
social process at the contextual level. In the next chapter, I will focus on the
description of the lexicogrammar of various linguistic forms including the modal verbs
at the level of both meaning and form.
In this chapter, we have observed an overview of SFL, by reference to some basic

concepts, such as ‘levels’, ‘metafunctions’ and ‘system networks’ as ‘meaning
potential’, which are crucial for describing languages from the viewpoint of SFL. It
should be noted, however, that the Hallidayan theory of language has been developed
under the influence of other linguistic theories, which can be traced back to the work
of Ferdinand de Saussure. However, amongst the function-oriented approaches to
language, including the work of Benjamin Lee Whorf, anthropological linguistics
developed by Malinowski, Kenneth Pike’s insight into language as ‘particle’, ‘wave’
and ‘field’, Sydney Lamb’s concept of ‘stratification’ of language, and others, the
primary source of the concepts which form the basis of SFL was the work of J.R. Firth
and his colleagues in the London school of linguistics.
Since the formulation of Halliday’s earliest model of language in the 1960s,
which was referred to as ‘Scale and Category Grammar’, Hallidayan linguistics has
been developed by scholars around the world into ‘modern’ Systemic Functional
Theory. However, the development of this theory did not undergo the procedure of
setting up hypotheses which are examined and tested by means of the scholars’
artificial examples in a particular language. Instead, Halliday (1993:4507) states, “a
- 54 -
feature of systemic work is that it has tended to expand by moving to new spheres of
activity, rather than by reworking earlier positions”. The divergence of systemic
theory has given rise to new approaches to systemically-inspired works. Figure 3.8
shows a divergence of systemic theory into different ‘variants’, which are named after
the places where the groups of scholars develop their new trends of linguistics.
Saussure
Whorf
Malinowski Pike
Firth others
Halliday (early 1970's)
Sydney others
Cardiff Madrid
Nottingham Leuven
Hyderabad
Macquarie Sydney Kyoto
Figure 3.8: ‘Dialects’ of Systemic Functional Linguistics
As I will outline in Chapter 5, I will present a lexicogrammatical description of

modal verbs and related forms of expression in the framework of the Cardiff Grammar.
An important characteristic of the Cardiff Grammar is that it develops a fully explicit
model of language which can be implemented in a computer program for both Natural
Language Generation and Natural Language Understanding. See Chapter 5 for the
details of Fawcett’s model of language.
For the rest of this thesis, I will compare the very different provision made in two
sets of system networks from which modal verbs may be generated; (i) those of
Michael Halliday’s An Introduction to Functional Grammar (second edition 1994,
- 55 -
henceforth IFG) and Christian Matthiessen’s Lexicogrammatical Cartography (1995),
which I will refer to as ‘Halliday and Matthiessen’ or the Sydney Grammar, for short,
and (ii) those of the Cardiff Grammar, as developed in the COMMUNAL project under
the direction of Robin Fawcett and other scholars. In this study, I will also consider
some of Halliday’s theoretical and descriptive concepts, and examine his two
significantly different approaches to the treatment of ‘modality’ in English.
- 56 -
Notes
1
According to Halliday (1993), the following languages have been studied other than
English: Chinese, Indonesian, Tagalog, Japanese, German, French, and Dutch. For
further details of the applications of SFL, see two volumes of New Developments of
Systemic Linguistics, Theory and Description (Volume 1) and Theory and Application
(Volume 2).
2
For detailed discussion about Halliday’s works on SFL, see Halliday (1993), Fawcett
(2000a), and Chapter 1 in Matthiessen (1995). Biographical notes on Halliday can be
found in Introduction in Hasan and Martin (1989) and in Epilogue in Yamaguchi and
Kakehi (2001).
3
Matthiessen’s Lexicogrammatical Cartography (1995) and Halliday’s An
Introduction to Functional Grammar (1985/94) demonstrate complementarily each of
the two representations of the lexicogrammar for English.
- 57 -
CHAPTER FOUR
HALLIDAY’S TWO APPROACHES TO MODALITY
4.1 Introduction
As I have mentioned in the previous chapter, the purpose of this thesis is to
describe the lexicogrammar of modal verbs and other related forms in the framework
of SFL.
This chapter provides historical views of the treatment of the areas of meaning
that are associated with the modal verbs and other linguistic forms in English, with
special reference to some previous studies by M.A.K. Halliday and other scholars
working in a systemic functional tradition. It also shows remarks about some
problems in the descriptions proposed in Hallidayan approaches.
As we will see throughout this chapter, in the historical development of SFL,
Halliday proposes two different approaches to the description of the system networks
which are associated with the modal verbs. The change of Halliday’s position about
the treatment of the modal verbs is significantly drastic, in that it also changes the
categorization of the general functions of language, namely the concept of three
metafunctions of language, which form the basis of SFL. Surprisingly, however,
quite a few scholars, including those working in the systemic tradition, seem to have
examined this drastic change of Halliday’s description of ‘modality’ and ‘modulation’
from a critical point of view.
In what follows, I will first describe an overview of Halliday’s two approaches to
‘modality’ briefly, and then critically look at them with a historical view to the
development, by reference to his previous works which are notably relevant for the
discussion about the treatment of the system networks from which the modal verbs and
other semantically related forms are generated.
- 58 -
4.2 ‘Scale and Category Grammar’
1961 was a year when Halliday’s paper ‘Categories of the Theory of Grammar’
was first published. In this paper, Halliday proposes that the theory of grammar
should consist of four fundamental categories and three distinct scales which relate
these categories to each other — i.e., the foundation of ‘Scale and Category Grammar’
(hereafter ‘S&C Grammar’). It is this paper that, amongst his works at this stage, has
a considerable influence on the development of his functional approach, which
eventually shapes the form of the current theory of language, namely SFL. Halliday
(1961:243) states that “relevant theory consists of a scheme of interrelated categories
which are set up to account for the data, and a set of scales of abstraction which relate
the categories to the data and to each other”.
Halliday considers that description of language should be done primarily by
observation of the data which are related to the relevant categories of the theory, and a
linguistic event should be described at a number of different levels. Here Halliday
sets out three primary levels of ‘form’, ‘substance’ and ‘context’, by which the
linguistic event is described at each level in the processes of abstraction. In
‘Categories’, the focus is particularly on the level of form, at which there are the two
related ‘levels’ of grammar and lexis.
Thus, in the framework of S&C Grammar, ‘grammar’ operates as one-half of the
component within the level of linguistic form, along with ‘lexis’ as the other half of it.
The relationship between grammar and lexis is one of complementarities in the way
that lexis deals with “any part of linguistic form which is not concerned with the
operation of closed systems”.1 That is, grammar should account for all linguistic
structures by means of the finite number of categories, which constitute ‘closed
systems’. The four categories and three scales are, then, the primary concepts that are
needed to account for all grammatical patterns of English clauses at the highest degree
of abstraction within the level of ‘form’.
- 59 -
In S&C Grammar, then, grammar and lexis are treated as two separate
components of linguistic form, and Halliday (1961:247) in practice argues that
“General Linguistic theory must […] provide both a theory of grammar and a theory of
lexis, and also a means of relating the two”. However, Halliday also indicates, at this
stage of the development of Hallidayan linguistics, that the theory of grammar should
ultimately incorporate lexis into a systemic description of a language, by saying that
“the grammarian’s dream is […] of constant territorial expansion”. Thus, Halliday
(1961:267) would like to turn all linguistic forms into grammar, hoping to show that
lexis can be defined as “the most delicate grammar”. Halliday’s statement here
clearly shows the directional movement of his linguistic description towards
‘lexicogrammar’.2
In Halliday (1961), he does not offer an explicit picture of the system network for
certain meanings which are associated with the modal verbs or other related forms of
expression, nor does he show a detailed analysis of the grammatical structure of the
clause which contains the modal verbs.
4.3 Halliday (1969) ‘Options and functions of the English clause’
In Halliday’s study in the late 1960’s, he recognized different kinds of generalized

options of the ‘components’ in the organization of the grammar of a language; the
‘experiential’, the ‘interpersonal’, the ‘intertextual’ (the ‘textual’ in a later model) and
the ‘logical’. The first three are particularly relevant for the grammatical description
of the clause, which is the point of origin entering into three sets of systems labeled
transitivity, mood and theme. These three systems are associated with the general
components of the experiential, the interpersonal and the intertextual, respectively.
The grammatical structure of the English clause, then, is described in terms of a
configuration of functions, and they are determined by sets of options which are
chosen from the relevant ‘systems’ of the three kinds.
- 60 -
Halliday (1969:83) defines a system as “a set of options together with an entry
condition, such that if the entry condition is satisfied one option from the set must be
selected”. It should be noted, however, that the system presented in this paper
defines the structural function of elements in the clause. In other words, if one option
contrasts with the other in a system which consists of two options, these options
specify two distinct grammatical functions in the structure of the clause. The
relationship between an option and the grammatical function is regarded as one of
‘realization’. For example, Halliday (1969:82) states that “the presence of the
function ‘subject’ in the clause realizes the option ‘indicative’ in the mood system”.
In this paper, Halliday shows his first glimpse of how some ‘modal’ forms are
generated from the system network for ‘modality’, although he does not elaborate on
how to distinguish the meaning of a modal verb from that of another. He illustrates
how a clause is generated through the traversal of the system network, which is
accompanied by a set of ‘realization statements’. Halliday (1969:82) provides the
following example:3
(1) //1 well then surely // 1 he must have made a fair amount of money //
According to Halliday, the two items of surely and must are treated as a complex
of two functions both of which are types of ‘modality’. At this point, then, let us
consider the system network for ‘Mood’, which leads to a dependent system for
‘Modality’ from which the items of surely and must are obtained.
- 61 -
declarative
interrogative
indicative
Mood non-modal verbal
imperative
modal adverbial
complex + modal theme
－ modal theme
Fig 4.1: The system for ‘Mood’ (Halliday 1969:84)
By reflecting upon the fact that the items surely and must occur in the
environment of an ‘indicative’ clause, Halliday suggests that the choice of the option
[modal] is dependent on [indicative], which is the initial choice in contrast with the
other option [imperative] in the ‘Mood’ system. Notice that once [indicative] is
selected, it leads to more than one system, — i.e., both of the element having the
feature of either [declarative] or [interrogative] and one having either [non-modal] or
[modal] — and as for the system regarding ‘modality’, the initial choice is whether or
not to express ‘modality’ at all. If [modal] is selected, it leads to a further system
which consists of three options of [verbal], [adverbial] and [complex]. The latter two
options, [adverbial] and [complex], lead in turn to even more delicate choices between
[+ modal] and [- modal]. With respect to the structure of (1), we firstly choose
[complex] because both ‘verbal’ (realized as must) and ‘adverbial’ (realized as surely)
are involved in the clause. Then the distinction between [+ modal theme] and [-
modal theme] is set out in order to have the ‘adverbial’ element thematized to the
position where it also functions as ‘theme’ in the clause. Therefore if [+ modal
theme] is selected, as it is in (1), the item, surely, carries the functions of both
‘modality’ and ‘theme’.
- 62 -
It should be noted that each option in the system network in Figure 4.1 specifies
the configuration of elements in the grammatical structure of the clause rather than the
‘meanings’ which they realize. For instance, the system in Figure 4.1 does not
distinguish the meaning of must from that of another modal verb such as may.
In this paper, however, Halliday (1969:87) points out that the modal verbs
including can, may, might, should, are generated from two distinct systems, one
experiential, the other interpersonal, by observing ‘only the latter having the full
non-finite tense range’. Halliday’s position here is further developed in Halliday
(1970), which is examined in detail in the next section. As we will see later, however,
Halliday’s treatment of modal verbs, or ‘modality’ in general, undergoes drastic
change from a multifunctional analysis of ‘modality’ and ‘modulation’, as in Halliday
(1969; 1970; 1977), into an integrated system for ‘modality’ as in Halliday (1994).
4.4 Halliday (1970b) ‘Functional diversity in language, as seen from a

consideration of modality and mood in English’
In retaining the multi-functional approach to language, Halliday takes up two

topics which are particularly of great significance for the present study: that of the
treatment of ‘modality’ and that of ‘modulation’ from a functional point of view. The
point that is made in his discussion is how the categorization of the grammatical
systems of English is possible, when Halliday considers a problem in treating the
modal verb must from a viewpoint of a functional description of language, as in:4
(2) You must be very careful
and
(3) You must be very careless.
- 63 -
According to Halliday, the possible interpretations of must in the two examples
above are different: (2) can be paraphrased by ‘you are required to be’, whereas (3)
means ‘it is obvious that you are’. The latter example represents, by and large, the
speaker’s assessment of probability, and the system which deals with this kind of
meaning is referred to as ‘modality’. ‘Modality’ is used when the speaker does not
take the role of a ‘declarer’ in conveying a proposition by a simple clause, such as:
(4) You are careless.
Then, Halliday argues that ‘modality’ is related to the general category of

‘speaker’s comment’, by which the speaker reveals his or her standpoint as to the
validity of the proposition in the speech event. For this reason, he treats ‘modality’ as
a type of interpersonal function of language. In Halliday’s words (1970b:335):
Through modality, the speaker associates with the thesis an indication of

its status and validity in his own judgment; he intrudes, and takes up a
position. Modality thus derives from what we call […] the
‘interpersonal’ function of language, language as expression of role.
The item must in Example (2), on the other hand, has nothing to do with a
speaker’s assessment of validity of a proposition in a speech event. Rather, it
expresses “factual conditions on the process expressed in the clause”.5 Thus it carries
the function of representing certain aspects of the world which are construed within the
domain of the experiential meaning.
At the level of form, both ‘modality’ and ‘modulation’ can be expressed in the
modal verbs, and this seems to be the major reason why they are regarded by some
scholars as the subtypes of a single broad category of ‘modality’. However, as
Halliday points out, this is not in fact the case. ‘Modality’, in Halliday’s term, may
be expressed in linguistic forms other than the modal verbs, and Halliday (1970b:331)
identifies at least five different ‘non-verbal’ forms of expression, which are
characterized as the use of lexical items instead of the grammatical items in the ‘verbal
- 64 -
group’:
(i) as adverb (‘modal adjunct’): perhaps, possibly, presumably, obviously, &c.

(ii) as adjective (predicative in impersonal matrix clause it is …that …): possible,
likely, obvious, conceivable, &c.
(iii) as adjective (predicative in interpersonal, speaker-hearer matrix clause I am …that
…, are you … that …?): sure, certain, &c.
(iv) as adjective (predicative in clauses such as he is sure to have known): sure,
certain, likely, &c.
(v) as noun (complement in impersonal matrix clause there is a …that …): possibility,
chance, likelihood, presumption, &c.
On the other hand, Halliday insists that ‘modulation’ is not expressed in a

‘non-verbal’ form; it is realized by ‘verbal structures consisting of be + adjective + to,
e.g. be able to, or be + passive participle + to; e.g. be obliged to’.6 It is true that there
is a tendency that the ‘verbal’ forms are likely to be used in conveying modulation
meanings. However, I will maintain, in Chapter 8, that modulation also contains rich
resources of meaning which are expressed through ‘non-verbal’ items of various
classes.
So far, I have observed Halliday’s treatment of the linguistic forms which are
associated with either ‘modality’ or ‘modulation’. In the subsequent sections, I will
look at how Halliday characterizes and categorizes these two distinct types of meaning
in relation to (i) polarity and (ii) tense.
4.4.1 Polarity, modality and modulation
According to Halliday, ‘modality’ and ‘modulation’ are distinguished in terms of

polarity; ‘modality’ is not subject to negation, whereas ‘modulation’ itself carries full
range of options in polarity. Consider the following example:
- 65 -
(5a) This gazebo will probably have been built by Wren.
In Halliday’s opinion, when the clause in Example (5) is negated, there are two
possible domains for the negative, yet both of which in fact make no difference in
terms of the degree of likelihood of the proposition, as in:
(5b) It is probable that this gazebo was not built by Wren.

(5c) It is not probable that this gazebo was built by Wren.
But if a clause that is negated contains modality which indicates a commitment

towards either ‘yes’ or ‘no’ — but not ‘in-between’ value in polarity as in (5a) to (5c),
it yields two different interpretations depending on the domain which is negated:
(6a) It is possible that this gazebo was not built by Wren. [thesis negative]
(6b) It is not possible that this gazebo was built by Wren. [modality negative]
The different interpretations of (6a) and (6b) are accounted for in terms of the
complementarity of ‘possible’ and ‘certain’; ‘possibility + thesis negative’, as in (6a),
is equivalent to ‘uncertainty + thesis’, whereas ‘impossibility + thesis’, as in (6b), is
equivalent to ‘certainty + thesis negative’. It is then possible to paraphrase (6a) and
(6b) with (6c) and (6d), respectively:
(6c = 6a) It is not certain that this gazebo was built by Wren.
(6d = 6b) It is certain that this gazebo was not built by Wren.
Consequently, Halliday (1970b:333) concludes that “there is no such thing […] as

a negative modality; all modalities are positive”. It is true that, at a conceptual level,
it may be useful to draw attention to the logical equivalences between two different
modalities in a negative clause. However, Halliday’s formulation of the interrelated
- 66 -
systems for modality and negation does not explain why a native speaker of English
chooses one form instead of the other. If the two are totally equivalent to each other,
is it necessary in the first place for the natural language to allow such redundancy for
no reason? Moreover, it is argued that for native speakers of English will in fact
conveys a very high degree of certainty, and it can hardly be interpreted as indicating
the ‘neutral’ value. Therefore, I claim that Halliday’s interpretation of ‘modality’ in
terms of the concept of ‘value’ is quite misleading.
Now let us turn our attention to the case in ‘modulation’. As is the case with
‘modality’, there are two divisions that may be negated in the modulated clause, which
yield different forms depending on the relevant interpretation applied to the clause.
Consider the following example:
(7a) You can smoke.
The negative form of (7a) is interpreted in two ways according to the portion of
either ‘process’ or ‘modulation’ which is negated. In the ‘process negative’,
corresponding to you can smoke is:
(7b) You needn’t smoke. (= you are allowed not to smoke)
whereas the ‘modulation negative’ of you can smoke is expressed as:
(7c) You can’t smoke. (= you are not allowed to smoke)
According to Halliday, however, it is possible to have both the ‘thesis negative’

and ‘modulation negative’ in the clause, which is illustrated in (8):
(8) He is not allowed not to tell.
- 67 -
This reveals, Halliday (1970b:341) suggests, that there are two distinct systems of
polarity, “one associated with the modulation and one with the process”. Unlike
‘modality’, therefore, ‘modulation’ is subject to the constraints of polarity.
4.4.2 Tense, modality and modulation
The second factor which, Halliday maintains, distinguishes the system for
‘modality’ from that for ‘modulation’ is tense. As we will see below, a modal verb
which expresses ‘modality’ does not change its form according to the event in any of
the time reference positions of past, present and future, yet it can freely combine with
any of these tenses of the verb which follows it. On the other hand, since
‘modulation’ is regarded as a type of experiential meaning in terms of ‘obligation’ and
‘permission’, which are conditions on an event to be carried out, it is subject to the
distinctions of tenses.
(9) He must have been in the hospital yesterday.

(10) He must be in the hospital now.
The two examples of (9) and (10) illustrate that the primary tense is expressed in
the clause. In both examples, the modal verb must designates the speaker’s
assessment of the certainty at the time when the speaker is uttering the clauses, and the
meaning of time is marked in the non-finite form of the verbs, such as have been in (9)
and be in (10). Thus Halliday (1970b: 338) states that “modality itself has no tense;
but it may combine with any of the tenses of the verb”.
On the other hand, ‘modulation’ has their own complete set of tenses, which will
be shown by the following examples:
- 68 -
(11) He had to look after his daughter yesterday.
(12) He must look after his daughter at present.
If we compare the set of examples of (9) and (10) for ‘modality’ with those of
(11) and (12) for ‘modulation’, it will be revealed that there is a clear contrast in the
structure of the ‘verbal elements’ in each; in Halliday’s words (1970b:338-339),
“whereas in modality the process may have any tense but the modality is outside it, in
these ‘quasi-modalities’ the modulation is subject to the full tense system, but the
process that is modulated is tenseless”.
4.4.3 Reduction of modality and modulation to a single network
To sum up, in his paper Halliday (1970b), he explicitly demonstrates an analysis

of the modal verbs, which is to serve two separate functions of ‘modality’ and
‘modulation’. The categorization of the two functions is made possible by looking at
the structural behaviour of modal verbs in relation to (i) polarity and (ii) tense;
‘modality’ is inherently ‘positive’ and has no tense whereas ‘modulation’ has the full
range of options in the system for tense and polarity. Ultimately, such distinctions
will be ascribed to the nature of the multifunctional organization of the linguistic
system. The system for ‘modality’ is a resource for meaning-making in terms of the
speaker’s commitment to the probabilities, by which the message is transmitted to the
addressee in a certain way in the linguistic interaction. Thus it derives from what he
terms the ‘interpersonal’ function of language. The system for ‘modulation’, on the
other hand, deals with an aspect regarding the outer world which the speaker has
access to in terms of ‘obligation’, the function of which relates the ‘process’ to the
‘participant’ in the way that there is a power over the participant to carry out the
experiential content expressed in the clause. Thus, ‘modulation’ is a type of the
ideational function in English.
- 69 -
However, Halliday also indicates a possibility that it is desirable to reduce the two
separate systems to a single system, so that the ambiguity of modal verbs should be
accounted for in generalized terms. As we will see later, Halliday discards his
position in (1970b) in order to integrate the system for ‘modulation’ into the single
broader category of ‘modality’ in the interpersonal function of language.
4.5 Halliday (1977) ‘Text as Semantic Choice in Social Contexts’
A sociological perspective on language is one of the quintessential features of

Hallidayan SF approach throughout the development of this theory. The paper to be
considered in this section presents his view on how a text is produced as a meaningful
unit occurring in social contexts.
In this paper, Halliday described the nature of ‘text’ in terms of the process of
meaning-making in a social context of ‘situation’. That is, a text is seen as the
instantiation of a goal-oriented interaction between the participants in a certain context,
and the organization of the text is determined by the ‘situation’. Grammar, then,
provides the resources for meaning-making in the use of a language. At the linguistic
level, this is described on the five theoretical assumptions, i.e. ‘stratification’,
‘metafunction’, ‘choice’, ‘realization’ and ‘rank’.
Firstly, the linguistic system is stratified into three ‘levels’ of ‘semantic’,
‘lexicogrammatical’ and ‘phonological’. Secondly, the semantic system of language
is multifunctional, and at this point, Halliday recognizes three major components,
‘ideational’ (comprising the subcomponents of ‘experiential’ and ‘logical’),
‘interpersonal’ and ‘textual’. Thirdly, the semantic system is described in terms of
the concept of ‘choice’ so that the features in the systems constitute a paradigmatic
relation. Fourthly, the choices made in the traversal of systems in these components
specifies certain structures. At the lexicogrammatical stratum, the components are
represented as a ‘single integrated structure’. 7 The fifth assumption is that the
organization of the lexicogrammatical systems is described in terms of ‘rank’,
- 70 -
IDEATIONAL TEXTUAL
INTERPERSONAL
LOGICAL EXPERIENTIAL (COHESION)
S T R U C T U R A L NON-STRUCTURAL
1 CLAUSE STRUCTURE
clause: clause: clause:

transitivity, mood, modality theme reference
expansion modulation; polarity
identity
verbal group: verbal group: verbal group: substitution /
projection types of process; tense person, polarity coice; contrast ellipsis
(paratactic
&
- 71 -
nominal group: nominal group: nominal group: conjunction
hypotactic) types of participant; person ('role') deixis
class, quality,
quantity etc.
Complexes at all ranks (clause complex etc.)

lexical cohesion:
reiteration,
adverbial group: adverbial group: adverbial group:
collocation
connotations of attitude etc.
prepositional group: prepositional group prepositional group

types of circumstance comment conjunction
2 INFORMATION STRUCTURE
information unit: information unit:

key information
Table 4.1: Functional components of the semantic system (Halliday 1977: 180)
distribution &
focus
which provides the unit, “the place where structures from the different components are
mapped on to each other”.8
Here let us consider the locus of the semantic systems for ‘modality’ and
‘modulation’ in the functional components in Table 4.1. As Table 4.1 illustrates,
‘modality’ is placed in the ‘interpersonal’ component to operate at the rank of the
clause, whereas ‘modulation’ is found in the ‘experiential’ component. In this paper,
therefore, Halliday follows the description in his previous study (i.e., Halliday 1970b),
and dissociate the meanings of modal verbs and other related forms into two separate
system networks.
willing (active) (adv. gp.: 'willingly';)

(vbl. gp. 'probable')
permitted
other obliged
MODULATION (passive)
clause:
necessitated
(+ Modulation)
compelled
neutral
oblique (hypothetical) (vbl. gp.: oblique)

Figure 4.2: System network for ‘MODULATION’ (Halliday 1977: 212)
The system network in Figure 4.2 includes simultaneous systems. One leads to
the system which distinguishes the ‘active’ type (i.e., ‘willingness’ of someone) from
the ‘passive’ type (i.e. ‘permission’ or ‘necessity’ laid to someone). The other system
provides the choice of either ‘neutral’ or ‘oblique’ to decide the relevant form of the
modal verb, such as will vs. would. In this figure, this system network may be
entered to generate the structure at the rank of the clause, and the element which
realizes the meaning in this system network is referred to as ‘Modulation’. Note that
a ‘Modulation’ is an element of structure in the clause, and it, Halliday argues, may
accompany the Process, which is obtained from the system network for
TRANSITIVITY. The system networks for MODULATION and TRANSITIVITY in
turn comprised the broader component of the experiential function in English.
- 72 -
For instance, Halliday gives the following example, in which would is analyzed
as ‘Modulation’ accompanying the Process (which is expounded by the item live):
(13) I would as soon live with a pair of unoiled garden shears.
According to Halliday (1977:212), the clause includes the ‘Modulation’, and the
systemic description of this clause is represented as:9
(14) clause: (relational / (modulated: (willing / oblique))
Let us turn to the system network for ‘MODALITY’, which is shown in Figure
4.3.
finite (+ Finite)
FINITENESS
non-finite
probable (Modal: will/would)
verbal possible
group other virtually
certain
modalized
(Finite absolutely
neutral
= Modal)
MODALITY
oblique (Modal: would/could/should/might)
non-modalized
(Finite = Tense)
Figure 4.3: System network for ‘MODALITY’ (Halliday 1977: 216)
Surprisingly, as the system network in Figure 4.3 indicates, the MODALITY

network is entered at the rank of a ‘verbal group’. However, if we look at Table 4.1,
which Halliday shows in the same paper, MODALITY is recognized as one of the
major interpersonal component which operates at the clause rank. Moreover, the
system network in Figure 4.3 allows to choose both [non-finite] from the
FINITENESS network and [modalized] from the MODALITY network simultaneously,
yet the combination of these features has no realization in the structure of the ‘verbal
group’. However, in this paper no further explanation of these two system networks
- 73 -
is given. If we infer from the system network for MODALITY and Table 4.1, it
might be that the meaning of modality is concerned with the ‘probability’ of
proposition, and it is recognized semantically as the component for the clause.
However, if it is expressed in the Finite, as expounded by a modal verb, it is an
element of the ‘verbal group’, and the system network is entered at the point where the
structure of the verbal group is determined. The problem of the treatment of the
Finite element will be discussed in Section 6.2 of Chapter 6.
4.6 How to use Halliday and Matthiessen’s network for ‘modality’: with special
reference to Halliday’s IFG (1994) and Matthiessen’s Lexicogrammatical
Cartography (1995)
Let us consider Halliday’s and Matthiessen’s system networks for ‘modality’.

As we will shortly see, their description of the treatment of ‘modality’ here is
drastically different from Halliday’s previous studies on the two systems for ‘modality’
and ‘modulation’ which we have considered so far. Note that I will refer to the
descriptive model developed by Halliday and Matthiessen as the ‘Sydney Grammar’.
The system networks for ‘modality’ in this model will be compared with Fawcett’s
system networks for the equivalent areas of meaning in the Cardiff Grammar, the
model of which will be provided in the next chapter. In this section, I will point out
two major problems with the Sydney version of the system network, i.e.
overgeneration, and undergeneration.
4.6.1 An overview of the functional components in the IFG model of grammar

for English
In Table 4.1 of Section 4.6, we observed the functional components of the

semantic system in English, where ‘modality’ and ‘modulation’ are considered to be an
interpersonal and an experiential function, respectively.
- 74 -
rank [class] logical experiential (cohesive)
clause TRANSITIVITY MOOD THEME ELLIPSIS/

(nuclear & MODALITY CULMINATION SUBSTITUTION
circumstantial) POLARITY VOICE
MODAL CONJUNCTION
ASSESSMENT
phrase/ [prepositional COMPLEXING: MINOR MINOR MOOD MINOR THEME

group phrase] TRANSITIVITY
[verbal group] TAXIS (parataxis/ TENSE EVENT TYPE FINITENESS VOICE ELLIPSIS
hypotaxis) & ASPECT (non-finite) DEICTICITY SUBSTITUTION
LOGICAL- REFERENCE
[nominal SEMANTIC MODIFICATION THING TYPE MOOD OF DETERMINA- ELLIPSIS/
- 75 -
group] RELATION CLASSIFICATION DETERMINA- TION SUBSTITUTION
(expansion/ EPITHESIS TION
projection) QUALIFICATION PERSON
SELECTION ATTITUDE
model of language (Matthiessen 1995: 88)

[adverbial MODIFICATION CIRCUMSTANCE COMMENT CONJUNCTION (REFERENCE)
group] TYPE TYPE TYPE
word DERIVATION (DENOTATION) (CONNOTATION)
informa- INFO. TAXIS ACCENTUATION KEY INFORMATION

tion unit FOCUS
complexes simplexes
Table 4.2: The newly established remapping of the functional components in the IFG
Table 4.2 shows the functional components, or ‘regions’ to use Matthiessen’s term,
within the grammar of English. One significant feature to note here is that, as
compared to the previous version of the matrix of the functional components in Table
4.1, the system for ‘modulation’ is removed from the experiential component. This is
not to say that the meaning regarding ‘modulation’ is no longer available in English.
As we will see, it is integrated with the system for ‘modality’, which, at this stage, is
referred to as ‘modalization’. Consequently, the ‘modulation’ and ‘modalization’
constitute a single broad system network for ‘modality’, and this in turn is a type of the
interpersonal function of language.
Historically, Halliday’s radical change of the view on ‘modality’ can be found in
Halliday (1981, 1982), where he argues that a common feature can be recognized
between ‘modulation’ and ‘modality’. Halliday (1982:140) states that “in English,
these two systems, modality and modulation, come together in the grammar; although
the two can be expressed in different ways (probably, I think &c. for modalities; had
better, are obliged to &c. for modulations), they also share a common means of
expression in the form of the finite modal auxiliary verb”. Furthermore, he (Ibid.)
goes on to mentioning that “the overlap in expression reflects the fact that there is an
overlap in the meanings. The semantic common ground between the two is to be
seen in their orientation towards the speaker”.
According to Halliday (1982:146-7), such a view can be adopted by relating the
two systems to ‘the very general semantic systems of mood and polarity’. That is, the
realization of both ‘modality’ and ‘modulation’ are pre-determined by the choice
regarding the speaker’s role in the interaction. If a speaker is going to convey some
information to the addressee, the information can be argued about in terms of
‘polarity’, i.e., either a ‘positive’ or a ‘negative’. However, information is not always
conveyed as a categorical assertion, and here arises the necessity of the system for
‘modality’ — the system to deal with the meanings that lies between a ‘Yes’ and a ‘No’.
On the other hand, the commodity exchanged in the verbal interaction may be goods or
services rather than information. In this case, the ‘goods & services’ convey the
meaning regarding ‘Do’ or ‘Don’t do’, and ‘modulation’ provides the speaker with the
- 76 -
choice of options such as ‘obligation’, ‘willingness’ or ‘permission’, which specify the
certain degree of the commitment to the ‘proposal’ to carry out the exchange of ‘goods
& services’.
In the next section, we will discuss Halliday and Matthiessen’s description of
‘modality’ as a single broad area of meaning which involves both ‘modality (i.e.,
‘modalization’ in IFG) and ‘modulation’.
4.6.2 The system network for ‘modality’ in IFG (Halliday 1994)
Even though IFG is organized to show the structural aspect of a ‘functional’

grammar of English rather than ‘systemic’ representation of the meaning potential of
language, Halliday nonetheless gives us a basic system network for ‘modality’. It is
one of the few examples in IFG of the systemic description of the ‘meaning potential’
of English.
- 77 -
probability
modalization
usuality
TYPE
(4)
inclination
modulation
obligation
subjective
objective
ORIENTATION
(4)
explicit
modality
implicit
median
VALUE high
(3)
outer
low
positive
POLARITY direct
(3)
negative
transferred
Figure 4.4: Modality system (Halliday 1994: 360)
According to Halliday (1994:356), ‘modality’ refers to an area of meaning that

resides in the intermediate ground between positive and negative polarity. At the
conceptual level, this is a reasonable description, but in fact the choices of ‘modal’
meanings are not simply points on the continuum from ‘positive’ to ‘negative’,
because we also select independently from POLARITY – as we shortly see.
In Halliday’s system network for ‘modality’ (Halliday 1994:360), four systems
are shown as being entered simultaneously: those of ‘TYPE’, ‘ORIENTATION’,
‘VALUE’ and ‘POLARITY’, i.e., as shown in Figure 4.4. In practice, however, there
are five simultaneous systems, since ORIENTATION leads directly to two further
simultaneous systems.
- 78 -
Let us illustrate the use of this network. In order to obtain the ‘modal verb’ may
in the sense of ‘possibility’, we have to choose five features from these four networks.
Firstly, in the system for TYPE, we have to choose between two major types of
‘modality’, [modalization] and [modulation]. In the present case, we have to choose
[modalization]. Then we go on to further choices between [probability] and
[usuality], and here [probability] is chosen.10 In the ORIENTATION systems, the
two features chosen are, in the case of may, [subjective] and [implicit]. These
features are chosen respectively from the systems concerning ‘subjectivity’ (i.e. the
distinction between [subjective] and [objective]) and ‘explicitness’ (i.e. the distinction
between [explicit] and [implicit]). 11 VALUE is the system in which Halliday
(1994:356) characterizes ‘modality’ as “the intermediate ground that lies between
positive and negative polarity”. Therefore, here we have to decide which value
‘modality’ is required in terms of [high], [median] and [low]. To generate the item
may, we choose [low]. Finally, if we want to generate a clause with the ‘modal verb’
may and with positive polarity, we choose [positive] from the system for POLARITY.
4.6.3 The problem of overgeneration and undergeneration
As Halliday (1994:359) illustrates, the system network for ‘modality’ in IFG

generates a set of 144 categories. For example, it is possible to traverse the system
network and to generate the selection expression of [inclination, subjective, explicit,
median, transferred negative]. Yet there is no expression in English that realizes
these features, so that in this respect the network overgenerates. The fact is that if we
choose [inclination] in the TYPE system, we have to choose [implicit], - and not
[explicit] – in the ORIENTATION system. This suggests that the relationship
between the two features should not be one of ‘simultaneity’ but one in which one
feature is in a system that is dependent on the other.
- 79 -
At the same time, Halliday (1994:359) recognizes that “there is one further
category that needs to be taken into account, that of ability/potentiality”, which he
describes as being on the ‘fringe’ of the ‘modality’ system. Halliday observes that, if
an ‘ability’ meaning is ‘subjective’, it is close to ‘inclination’, and he therefore
suggests that ‘inclination’ and ‘ability’ comprise a general category of ‘readiness’, in
which can and be able to are regarded as ‘low-value’ variants of will and be willing to.
Thus Halliday himself recognizes that there is a problem with his network as it stands.
I will shortly note Matthiessen’s minor modifications to the network to provide for this.
However, there are other omissions besides this, as we will consider, and it is therefore
clear that a more extensive revision is required, as outlined in subsequent chapters here
(especially in Chapter 7 and Chapter 8).
Thus, what seems to be happening in Halliday’s system network for ‘modality’ is
that the desire for the type of systemic elegance that is expressed through the
simultaneity of systems has overruled the desire for an accurate description.
Moreover, if this is the case, the question is raised: ‘How helpful are the networks, in
fact?’
I have noted an example of how the network semantically overgenerates and
another of how it undergenerates, which Halliday himself points out. Now I will ask
the question: ‘Does it provide us with the features that are needed to describe all
expressions of the various types of ‘modality’, or only some of them?’ The fact is
that, even if we were to agree that all modal expressions may be distinguished in terms
of Halliday’s four major categories of ‘modality’, the system network fails to generate
many of the most frequent modal expressions of English. Indeed, Halliday
(1994:362) himself admits that ‘among the many variants that are being left out of
account are those expressed by the different modal operators within each of the values
high, median and low’. Surprisingly, the ‘variants left out of account’ include the
high frequency items below:12
- 80 -
(13) high: must ought to need has to is to
median: will would shall should
low: may might can could’
It seems a serious inadequacy in the network that it fails to generate these items.
Moreover, there are other relatively frequent expressions that need to be included in a
full network, and which are also omitted, such as be due to, be bound to, would rather,
would sooner, and had better.
Thus, Halliday’s system network has two serious faults: (i) it allows combinations
of features for which there are no realizations, i.e., it overgenerates — and (ii) it does
not provide the features from which quite a large number of modal verbs (and related
expressions) would be generated, i.e., it undergenerates.
4.6.4 Congruence and incongruence
Let us now consider Matthiessen’s system network for ‘modality’ (Matthiessen

1995: 49), to examine how far it is an advance on Halliday’s. Matthiessen’s system
network is more explicit and more comprehensive than Halliday’s equivalent diagram
– though, for a comparison between Figure 4.4 and Figure 4.5, the two descriptions are
based on the same principles.
In Matthiessen’s description of English, there is a system of ‘MODALITY’, and,
following Halliday, he claims that it belongs to the interpersonal metafunction. Due
to the fact that ‘modal verbs’ occur as the Finite element, one function of which is to
make the proposition ‘finite’, the system of MODALITY is shown in Matthiessen’s
system network (for which see Figure 4.5) as depending on the feature [modal
finiteness], which depends in turn on the feature [indicative] in the MOOD network.
Note that this is a simplified version of Matthiessen’s network for MOOD.
- 81 -
INDIC. interrogative ...
TYPE
declarative ...
interactant ...
INDIC.
indicative MOOD
PERSON non-interactant
DEIC-
temporal finiteness ...
TICITY
modal finiteness to MODALITY system
Finite:
imperative ... modal auxiliary
Figure 4.5: Matthiessen’s system network for MOOD

(based on Matthiessen 1995:383)
Thus if we choose the option [indicative] in the MOOD system network, we enter
the system of DEICTICITY, in which we have to choose either [temporal finiteness] or
[modal finiteness]. As the realization rule in Matthiessen’s system network states, the
feature will be realized by the ‘Finite’, whatever options we choose in this network.
However, there is a problem with this system network. This is that, while the
features in the MOOD network are realized in the clause, the features in the
MODALITY network are realized as the items that expound the Finite. In their
descriptions of the ‘verbal group’, both Halliday (1994: 196-207) and Matthiessen
(1996: 728-48) treat the Finite as one of its elements, and ‘MODALITY’ as one of its
systems. The system networks, however, are realized in specific classes of unit, and
the unit to which MOOD is relevant is the clause (e.g. see Figure 5-3 in Matthiessen
1995: 384). Both Halliday and Matthiessen introduce MODALITY as a system of the
clause, yet when they come to discuss the ‘verbal group’ MODALITY appears again.
Thus there seems to be an inconsistency here that needs to be resolved. (This
problem is avoided in the Cardiff Grammar by treating the Operator (Finite) as an
element of the clause, as we will see in Chapter 5.
- 82 -
Let us now move on to look at Matthiessen’s network for ‘MODALITY’.
Figure 4.6 shows Matthiessen’s system network for MODALITY. 13 The feature
[modal finiteness] leads to the system for MODALITY, and this, in effect, a slightly
modified version of Halliday’s equivalent network. That is, Matthiessen’s basic
network for MODALITY classifies TYPES of ‘modality’ into [modalization] and
[modulation]. The feature [modalization] leads to a further distinction between
[probability] and [usuality], whereas [modulation] leads to the distinction between
[readiness] and [obligation]. Thus Matthiessen’s network explicitly formalizes
Halliday’s informal suggestion that [inclination] and [ability] may be regarded as
sub-types of a general category of [readiness].
Matthiessen, again following Halliday, also recognizes two systems concerning
how these types of ‘modality’ are expressed; those that distinguish (i) between
[objective] and [subjective], and (ii) between [explicit] and [implicit]. However, he
then sets out more delicate options, which depend on both [subjective] and [implicit],
so that the network generates a fuller set of modal verbs than does Halliday’s network
for ‘modality’. If we then choose both [subjective] and [implicit], we enter a further
dependent system, which distinguishes between [neutral] and [oblique] from which,
for instance, might can be obtained as an alternative to may. In this system network,
therefore, the options [implicit] and [subjective] muse be chosen, if the realization is to
be a modal verb.
- 83 -
*
probability
modalization
usuality **
TYPE inclination
readiness
modulation ability
*
obligation
**
median
VALUE
low
modal clause
outer
**
high
objective
ORIENTATION
neutral
subjective
oblique
implicit
MANIFESTATION
*
explicit direct
negative
negative
transferred
positive negative
Figure 4.6: Matthiessen’s modified version of the system network for MODALITY
(Matthiessen 1995:497)
This part of Matthiessen’s network, then, is an improvement on Halliday’s, but it

still overgenerates in some respects.14 He would claim that the asterisks used in his
figure specify what can and cannot be co-selected, but such ‘marking conventions’
should, if possible, be avoided — as is done in the networks in the Cardiff Grammar,
which will be discussed in Chapter 7 and Chapter 8.
Now let us turn to a rather different type of problem. If we choose [objective]
instead of [subjective] in Halliday’s and Matthiessen’s networks, it is not the modal
verbs but other forms such as the ‘Modal Adjuncts’, that realize these meanings — and
these are elements of the clause, not the verbal group. Moreover, if we choose the
feature [explicit] in the MANIFESTATION system, we find that it is not realized by an
- 84 -
element of the clause, but by introducing another clause, in which the clause that
expresses the original ‘proposition’ is embedded, e.g. it is possible that .... This is the
type of phenomenon that Halliday refers to as the ‘grammatical metaphor’ of
‘modality’. In all such examples, the principle that the system network expresses
choices in meaning that are realized in a given unit is disregarded, and it is far from
clear that such a grammar can actually work. 15 A further problem arises with
examples such as Shall I open the window? Halliday’s analysis of its structure,
represented in his usual ‘box’ diagram style, is shown in Figure 4.7.
Shall I open the window?

Finite: Subject Predicator Complement
modulation
Mood Residue
Figure 4.7: Hallidayan analysis of the ‘Mood’ structure of the clause, shall I open the
window?
The problem with this approach is that, as we saw in Figure 4.5, all of the systems
for ‘modality’ are dependent on the feature [indicative] in the MOOD network, and it
is impossible to combine ‘modal’ meanings with MOOD meanings that are realized in
the clause.
In the Hallidayan approach, a clause such as this is referred to as a ‘modulated
interrogative’, and the modal verb shall will be obtained by choosing ‘inclination’ type
of ‘modulation’ in the system network for ‘modality’. Yet, the function of the clause
in Figure 4.7 is to contribute to the expression of the ‘giving’ of ‘goods-&-services’,
i.e., the speech function of ‘offer’ in Halliday’s terms. At the level of meaning, then,
it conveys a particular type of MOOD, rather than ‘modality’. In other words, as the
term ‘modulated interrogative’ implies, in Halliday’s approach we have to find a way
to traverse the two systems of (i) MODALITY to obtain ‘modulation’ and (ii) MOOD
to obtain ‘interrogative’, in order to express the ‘speech function’ of ‘offer’.
- 85 -
So far we have been considering problems of relating the system network to
realizations in both the clause and the verbal group. However, the following question
arises: how many levels are required in the Sydney Grammar, in order to generate and
interpret the type of clause which is regarded as a ‘modulated interrogative’?
According to Halliday, ‘modulation’ is subsumed under the semantic category of a
‘proposal’. The problem is that this presupposes that the commodity to be exchanged
is ‘goods-&-services’ rather than ‘information’. However, since there is no meaning
in the system network for MOOD that is a congruent expression of ‘offer’, the Sydney
Grammar uses the same syntactic pattern as the ‘interrogative’ clause. This is despite
the fact that the basic function of the interrogative is to demand ‘information’ from the
addressee, i.e., it typically realizes the speech function of ‘question’. Consequently,
Halliday’s description has problems in relation to the level as well as the class of unit.
Here we conclude our survey of the system networks of Halliday and Matthiessen.
In summary, we can say that Matthiessen’s version is an advance on Halliday’s.
However, it is still based too much on patterns at the level of form rather than meaning,
and it still reflects too strongly a desire to express generalizations through the
‘elegance’ of simultaneous systems, rather than recognizing the differences in the
range of meaning in the two areas of, in Halliday’s terms, ‘modalization’ and
‘modulation’.
In this chapter, we compared two provisional works on ‘modality’ both of which

are proposed by M.A.K. Halliday in the course of the development of the SF Theory of
language. Amongst a number of previous works of Halliday, I have taken up in
particular two influential works which are arguably the flagship of the study of
‘modality’ in the framework of SFL; these are (i) ‘Functional Diversity in Language,
as Seen from a Consideration of Modality and Mood in English’ (Halliday 1970b) and
(ii) An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd Edition (Halliday 1994).
- 86 -
Halliday’s two positions about the treatment of ‘modality’ are summarized as
follows:
(14)
(a) Halliday’s 1970b model: two separate categories of ‘modulation’ and
‘modality’ as types of the experiential and the
interpersonal functions of language, respectively
(b) Halliday’s 1994 model: a single system network for ‘modality’ unifying the
two sets of networks for ‘modalization’ and
‘modulation’ as types of the interpersonal
metafunction
It may be worth noting here that Halliday’s ‘modality’ (and ‘modalization’ in his
1994 model) is roughly equivalent to ‘epistemic’ modality, and ‘modulation’ is roughly
equivalent to ‘root’ or ‘non-epistemic’ modality, in traditional terms. Thus, Halliday
also recognizes at least two areas of meaning which are relevant for the description of
modal verbs and some other semantically related forms of expression in English. The
crucial difference between (a) and (b) is how they relate the categories of ‘modulation’
and ‘modality’ or ‘modalization’ to the relevant functional components of language.
This is not a minor problem, because in SFL the organization of functional
components, or ‘metafunctions’ to use Halliday’s term, determines how grammar
works in the overall model of language.
According to Halliday, he decided to include ‘modulation’ in the system network
for ‘modality’ in a broader sense than that in Halliday (1970b) in an attempt to
describe linguistic expressions in fully functional terms. However, in his two
approaches to ‘modality’, I do not find criteria which are convincing enough to explain
why ‘modality’ is described in terms of the interpersonal function of language, because
the expressions of both ‘modalization’ and ‘modulation’ do not contribute to
determining the speaker’s communication role, such as the ‘giver’ of information.
Rather it denotes how the speaker assesses validity of the proposition, and the degree
- 87 -
of the certainty in his assessment of validity is obtained from his beliefs or some
evidence available to him.
In the next chapter, I will observe an overview of the Cardiff Grammar, which is
also a systemically-inspired approach to language, yet it reveals some significant
differences from Hallidayan SFL in their theoretical perspectives on language. The
Cardiff Grammar is the framework to which I adhere in the description of modal verbs
and other related expressions in English.
- 88 -
Notes
1
Halliday (1961: 247).
2
For attempts to investigate the system networks which reach the point where it is
closed by options for lexis, see Hasan (1987) and Neale (2002).
3
The double slash mark stands for a ‘tone group boundary’, and the number attached
to it designates a pitch pattern — ‘tone 1’ indicates a ‘falling tone’, which is, in
English, typically related to the realization of ‘statement’.
4
Halliday (1970b: 326).
5
6
7
8
9
Here I omitted some features, such as ‘ascriptive’ and ‘imperfective’ as a Process
type in TRANSITIVITY, to avoid unnecessary discussion.
10
The other option, [modulation], leads to further choices between [obligation] and
[inclination]. Halliday (1994:357) states that [obligation] is referred to as ‘deontic
modality’ in philosophical semantics, but neither [inclination] nor the ‘ability’ sense of
can are included in this category.
11
According to Halliday, the ‘objective’ equivalent of may is possibly, and the
‘explicit equivalent’ is I imagine that.
12
These items in (13) are listed on page 362 in Halliday 1994.
13
Matthiessen (1995:497).
14
For the instances of realizations of the features in the system network for
‘MODALITY’, see Table 5-22 in Matthiessen (1995:498).
15
The alternative solution is to allow such choices to be made at an earlier stage of
planning – as is done in the Cardiff Grammar.
- 89 -
CHAPTER FIVE
AN OVERVIEW OF THE CARDIFF MODEL OF A COMMUNICATING MIND
5.1 Introduction
Systemic Functional Linguistics has been developed by a lot of scholars in the

world, and it is now used for various purposes of application that are concerned with
diverse modes of semiotic phenomena in our social interactions. The purpose of this
chapter is to provide an overview of the general framework of the Cardiff model of a
‘communicating mind’, as developed in the COMMUNAL project under the direction
of Professor Robin P. Fawcett at the Computational Linguistics Unit of Cardiff
University.1
The Cardiff model has been developed into a comprehensive, large-scale model
of language owing to the combined effects of three factors: theories, descriptions and
applications. Firstly, the tenet of theorizing aspects of language is based on the
cognitive model of language, i.e., in Fawcett’s words (Fawcett 1980: 13), “a model of
interacting mind” that integrates language “with other parts of mentality”. As we will
see in the following sections, the Cardiff model differs in some theoretically important
points from the NIGEL grammar, which is the “Hallidayan-based” model of computer
implementation of SF grammar in the Penman Project.
At the heart of the Cardiff model lies the GENESYS component of language,
which is so called because it GENErates a sentence SYStemically, where the
lexicogrammar of language is integrated as an important part of the procedure of
language production. The descriptive model for this area is now known as the
‘Cardiff Grammar’, which is the second factor that, as a major feedback on theorizing
language, enriches the Cardiff model, and this is the one on which the description of
English is based in this thesis.
- 90 -
Finally, the third and the major pivot that supports the Cardiff model is
‘applications’ of linguistic theory for practical purposes. The importance of
‘applications’ in linguistics is due to the fact that it is the only way of objectively
evaluating the usefulness of the theory in linguistic studies. In other words, the
theory has to be explicit in order to model language successfully and satisfactorily.
In SFL, the construction of computer models of language plays an important role in
developing and testing the explicitness of linguistic theories that have been proposed
2
by systemic linguists.
In cooperation with the concepts of ‘system’, ‘choice’ in the system, and
‘realization’ of meanings, SFL has been recognized as a theory which is particularly
applicable to the computer-implemented model of language. For instance, the
attempts of implementing the SF theory in a computer can be found since the early
stage of the development of SFL in Halliday (1969), Henrici (1981), Hudson (1974/81),
Fawcett (1973/81), and Winograd (1983), and the major project of a large-scale
computer model of SFL shaped first into the Penman Project by Mann and Matthiessen
(1985), which is now followed by a number of spin-off projects, e.g., Patten’s SLANG
(1988) and the KOMET project in multilingual text generation, as described in Teich
(1999) for German. However, amongst the systemic functional approaches to
modeling language in computational environments, it is the COMMUNAL project that
is “a later but completely new computer implementation of a SF grammar for
English”.3
The COMMUNAL project was launched in 1987, aiming its goal at developing a
fully-elaborated model of the generation and the understanding of a natural language
by drawing on systemic functional linguistics at its heart of the theory. In the next
section, I will discuss the general assumptions that are maintained for developing the
linguistic theory of the COMMUNAL project.
- 91 -
5.2 The COMMUNAL project and a ‘communicating mind’
The COMMUNAL project is one of the systemically-inspired approaches which

covers in its scope a full range of linguistic phenomena in social interaction, and the
model of language comprises the components of both Natural Language Generation
(NLG) and Natural Language Understanding (NLU), which are fully implemented in a
computer model of language. At the heart of the overall framework of the project is
the sentence planner, which is referred to as GENESYS, consisting of the
lexicogrammatical components in it.
One of the major goals of the project is, by and large, to achieve a fully explicit
and holistic model of language, the original attempt of which can be found in earlier
works by Fawcett, including ‘generating a sentence in systemic functional grammar’
(1973/81), ‘some proposals for systemic syntax: part 1, 2 and 3’ (1974-6) and
Cognitive Linguistics and Social Interaction: Towards an Integrated Model of a
Systemic Functional Grammar and the Other Components of an Interacting Mind
(1980).
The basic principle which has been consistently proposed since the beginning of
the project is to build up a model of the English language which is (i) socio-cognitive,
that is, a model which “brings ‘social interaction’ within a cognitive model of a
communicating mind”,4 (ii) essentially generative rather than interpretive, and (iii)
computational, in that the feasibility of the theory and the description of English is
testable so that they are sufficiently explicit to be incorporated in a
computationally-implemented model of language.
According to Fawcett (1992:626), the socio-cognitive model views language not
as an object nor as an entity which is thought to be a sort of autonomous system of
language outside the domain of the practical use of language in human interaction, but
as ‘a process, as a procedure, as a programme for behaviour’ which can be primarily
produced by the ‘performer’ in a communicative event. That is, since the whole
process of organizing and producing a language is carried out through the performer’s
construal of the world in his or her mind, the model of the language should also reflect
- 92 -
the process from the performer’s point of view rather than the interpreter’s, i.e., the
addressee’s. Thus the major components for Natural Language Processing (NLP),
which are implemented in the computer program of the COMMUNAL project, are
integrated into the model of ‘a communicating mind’, which is illustrated in Figure
5.1.
- 93 -
Figure 5.1: The major components in the COMMUNAL computer model of a
communicating mind
- 94 -
5.3 The ‘theoretical-generative’ oriented and the ‘text-descriptive’ oriented
approaches in Systemic Functional Linguistics
Therefore, the model of a communicating mind in NLP naturally leads to the

emphasis on the need for more work on NLG rather than NLU. It may be a general
assumption held by some researchers working in the field of computational linguistics
that the production and the interpretation of a language are two aspects of a single
phenomenon and no priority can be given to one over the other. In the COMMUNAL
project, however, this is not the case, because, as Fawcett (1992:623) mentions, “the
meanings that language is organized to express are those of performer rather than those
of the addressee”, and understanding a language is not such a simple process that the
sounds or written forms are turned into meanings, but it is to “turn the performer’s
sounds back into the performer’s meanings”.
Of course, the model of the grammar developed in the COMMUNAL project also
can be used as a tool for the text analysis of English, as SFL is often supposed to be
particularly designed and suitable for that purpose rather than for generative-oriented
work. As we will see in the later sections in this chapter, the same system networks
can be described in two ways, depending on whether the purpose is either developing a
fully explicit generative grammar or describing a text as an instance of generation.
Following Fawcett (1992, 2000a), I will make a distinction between the two types of
approaches, the ‘theoretical-generative’ and the ‘text-descriptive’. Note that the
text-descriptive approach should not be considered redundant or less important than
the theoretical-generative approach. Rather, Fawcett (2000a:81) states that the works
that reflect either of these two aspects of the theory should present “different aspects of
the same model” but not “different models of language”, and “any such ‘different
aspect’ should be a selection of a ‘sub-set’ of the concepts that make up the overall
model, this ‘sub-set’ being selected for presentation to a particular audience in order to
try to meet its particular needs”. In the rest of this thesis, I will attempt to show the
text-descriptive approach to the phenomena concerning so-called ‘modality’ in English
in the framework of the Cardiff Grammar.
- 95 -
5.3.1 Theoretical-generative model
In describing the grammar of a language, what we are looking at is a text, whether

it is spoken or written, or even thought in our mind. In the process of the production
of a text, it is useful to make a distinction between a language taken as a whole and a
text. A language as a whole is a resource for conveying meanings to the partner in
communication, and a text is an ‘output’ from the language when it is actually used in
a certain context of situation. To put it in another way, we can see language from the
viewpoint of either a ‘potential’ or an ‘instance’.
Now we have another distinction which should be made in modeling the semiotic
system of language, i.e., the distinction between different ‘levels’ of language.
Broadly speaking, the core component of the grammar of language consists of the level
of meaning and that of form. In systemic functional linguistics, the relationship
between meaning and form is described in terms of ‘realization’, i.e., forms realize
meanings. Put together with the concept of the ‘instantiation’, the ‘realization’
embraces the process of instantiating the ‘meaning potential’ and then instantiating the
‘form potential’, which is in effect described by a set of ‘realization rules’, into a text.
Thus, the model of the grammar of a language, or any semiotic system, can be
viewed as four components in terms of both the process of ‘instantiation’ from
‘potential’ to ‘instance’ and the process of ‘realization’ from ‘meaning’ to ‘form’.
Fawcett (2000a:36) illustrates this view of these two pairs of concepts which are
defined as “the four components that are essential for modeling any semiotic system”
in the following manner:
- 96 -
potential instance
system network of selection expression

meaning
choices in meaning of 'meaning' features
realization one layer of a richly

form
rules/statements labelled tree structure
Figure 5.2: The main components of the lexicogrammar in the Cardiff model
(Fawcett 2000a: 36)
In the Cardiff Grammar, the system networks make up the component that is the
‘input’ to the selection expression of ‘meaning’ features at the level of meaning, and
this is the only component where the performer ‘chooses’ the features by traversing the
networks.5
5.3.1.1 System networks for the ‘meaning potential’
No matter how long it is, a text is ultimately a linearly-ordered string of sounds (if
it is spoken) or characters/letters (if it is written). Any pieces of the text that are
recognized as a meaningful unit are put in order, and in this sense, they are in
syntagmatic relations AT THE LEVEL OF FORM. Therefore, it will not be so hard to
imagine that there is a theory which inherently places an emphasis on the syntagmatic
relations between the forms and investigate the sets of syntactic rules by which only
‘grammatical’ sentences are generated.
However, if one wishes to explore the meanings of language in depth, it is
inevitable that the theory should be able to describe the paradigmatic relations of
meaning in the language, as this thesis proposes to do. Unlike syntagmatic relations,
paradigmatic relations are relations of contrast, and this is exactly what enables the
speaker to choose which meaning to express, say, either ‘permission’ or ‘obligation’.
- 97 -
Thus, rather than following the formalist tradition, that has now diverged into different
paradigms and yet emerged under the influence of Chomsky’s Transformational
Grammar, Halliday (1994:xxvii) asserts that “a systemic grammar is not syntagmatic
but paradigmatic”. The priority of paradigmatic relations in a theory of language was
first explored by Halliday (1966) as an expression of ‘deep grammar’, where the idea
of ‘system’ is used to refer to the ‘choices’ in a given environment.
The systemic representations of meanings in a language are based on the notion
of ‘choice’ between meanings, which is made by entering the relevant ‘entry
condition’. The choices available for the language are made to express meaning in
the general area of meaning that is specified by the entry condition. Thus, the entry
condition defines the system, and any options of the system themselves may in turn
become an entry condition for another system. The ‘chain’ of systems can be
obtained in terms of the notion of ‘dependency’, which creates the organic whole of
the language system as the ‘meaning potential’. In systemic functional grammar,
the complex organization of systems is referred to as the ‘networks’ of systems, or the
6
‘system networks’.
5.3.1.2 ‘Probabilities’ of the options in system networks
In the Cardiff model of the lexicogrammar of MOOD in Figure 5.3 below, for
instance, MOOD is the entry condition to define the system network in which we will
be choosing a particular type of MOOD of the clause. In this network, we have to
begin with the initial choice of [information], [proposal for action] or [formal wish].
Note that all options in any system networks are not necessarily chosen in the same
frequency, but some options can be chosen in a higher frequency over others. In the
MOOD networks in Figure 5.3, for example, the feature [giver], which is dependent on
the [information] feature, will be chosen more frequently than any other possible
options in certain circumstances, while the performer in fact can choose the feature of
[seeker] more frequently than [giver] in other conditions. The typical example will
- 98 -
be the clause which has an embedded clause that fills the element of a unit that is
higher than that in the tree structure.7
(1a) I know that Joe lives in Tokyo.
In (1a), the part Joe lives in Tokyo is the embedded clause in the unit that is filled
by the Complement of the Main Verb ‘know’, and the clause cannot be an ‘information
seeker’:
(1b) *I know that does Joe live in Tokyo?
As we will see in the next section, this is strictly controlled by the operation of
resetting the probabilities on features in the system.
Thus, ‘probability’ is an important concept in systemic functional linguistics, and
in the Cardiff model of the generative grammar of English, probabilities are explicitly
presented on the options in the system networks, by making use of a large corpus.8
- 99 -
simple giver
confident
giver
deferring
plus confirmation seeker challenging
unmarked
information
interpolated
polarity seeker
seeker new content seeker
choice of alternative content seeker
(others)
unmarked
just directive pressing
addressee identified
simple
appeal to ability ...

MOOD
plus agreement seeker
appeal to willingness ...
directive
appeal to ability ...
appeal
proposal
appeal to willingness ...
for action
by addressee
request hyper-tentative elaborated appeal ...
pseudo-conditional appeal ...

elaborated request
suggestion ... pseudo-doubt ...
proposal for action pseudo-hyper-tentative appeal ...
proposal for action by self and addressee ...
proposal for action by self ...
proposal for action by outsider ...
formal wish
Figure 5.3: A simplified system network of the meaning potential of MOOD in English
(Fawcett n.d., with my adaptation and simplification)
- 100 -
5.3.1.3 Realizations
If we traverse the whole system networks of a language, we will have the set of
options, which have been chosen by the performer. The set of features that have been
chosen through the traversal of the system networks is referred to as ‘selections
expressions’ of the meaning features. As we saw in the previous sections, the
features which are to be chosen in the system networks exist only in the potential,
while the selection expressions of particular features are the ‘instances’, i.e., the
‘instances of meaning’, which are the meanings that will be generated as the syntactic
form in the operation of the language production processes.
Each of the features in the selection expressions is inspected by the grammar to
see whether a ‘realization rule’ is applied to it in the ‘realization operations’, in order
to produce the appropriate output, i.e., the syntactic structure of a sentence. Thus, the
realization rules constitute the component which is the ‘potential’, i.e., the ‘syntax
potential’, at the level of form. It should be noted that the realization operations are
not applied after the traversal of all system networks has been done; rather, it is a
procedure that is dynamically applied in the process of the traversal on a particular
‘pass’ through the network. Following Fawcett (2000a:175-185), the major types of
realization operation are described below.9
i. Insert a unit:
A particular feature requires the operation of adding a unit to the structure. For
example, the feature [situation] is typically realized by inserting the unit ‘Cl’ (for
‘Clause’), in which an element and/or a Participant Role can be filled in the
structure of the clause.
ii. Locate an element at a place in a unit:
The elements of structure must be located in the right ‘Places’. This operation is
essential when the unit that is being inserted into the structure is the clause. For
example, in the largest version of the Cardiff Grammar, the place for the Subject
can be located at some positions in a clause, and the Subject can be preceded by
- 101 -
other elements in the clause, and there are, in theory, 34 places for these elements.
However, if the unit is not a clause, this operation is only rarely applied. As
Fawcett (2000a:179) points out, this is due to the fact that ‘groups and clusters
have little or no variation in the sequence of their elements’. Instead, the
element of groups or clusters is to be located at a place in the structure, according
to the ‘potential structure’ which is provided by Operation 6 below.
iii. Conflate an element or Participant Role with an existing element:
Operation 3 ‘conflates’ two elements which are filled by the same unit. This
operation reflects the essential nature of the ‘multi-functionality’ of language.
As we will see in Section 5.3.2.3, a clause can, but not always, realize eight
strands of meaning simultaneously, and this is especially the case for the elements
which carry the functions of TRANSITIVITY and MOOD. For example, the
Agent (a Participant Role, i.e., typically, the ‘doer’ of an action process) will be
very often conflated with the Subject. Likewise, the Main Verb can be conflated
with the Operator, which is the ‘core’ element of the clause to realize a MOOD
meaning, if it is expressed by the item is/am/are/was/were as in Tokyo is [O/M]
the capital city of Japan.
iv. Expound an element by an item:
This Operation introduces the relationship of ‘exponence’, by which an element
of structure can be expounded by an item, if it is not being filled by another unit.
Note that there is a variation of this operation, depending on the type of item that
expounds the element. This is what is termed the ‘Fetch operation’ in the
Cardiff Grammar, and it is applied to expound items which are not an ordinary
word that contains a ‘meaning’ that make sense in the given culture where the
language is spoken, but a word that has to be ‘fetched’ from memory, i.e., a
proper name (e.g., ‘Joe’).
v. Re-set the preferences:
As we have already seen in the previous section, the probabilities of features in
system networks are a very important notion in language generation, and the
generator of text-sentence has to have the ability to change those probabilities
- 102 -
according to other choices in a network, including the operation of ‘preselection’
of features where the probabilities of features are either 100% or 0%. These
probabilities are reset to their original percentages when the next system network
has been traversed. In practice, this operation must be followed by Operation 6,
because it is not necessary to reset the preferences of choices, if the system
network is not re-entered to produce a complex sentence that will introduce a
recursive structure of ‘co-ordination’, ‘embedding’ or ‘reiteration’.
vi. Re-enter the system network:
The structure of language can have ‘layers’ so that the elements of structure of a
clause is filled with the relevant units in which there is another layer of structure
for ‘groups’, ‘clusters’ or even ‘clauses’. For example, the Complement (which
is typically conflated with a Participant Role) will be filled by a ‘nominal group’,
and in order to generate the nominal group that fills the Complement, we need to
re-enter the network and choose [thing], while if it is filled by an embedded
‘clause’, the feature which should be re-entered is [situation].
5.3.1.4 Higher planner
The decision of choosing particular features in the network is made at the stage of
planning the utterance so that we can achieve a certain goal in the communication. In
the COMMUNAL project, the major components for decision-making of choices are a
‘belief system’ and various ‘planners’, which the ‘logical form’ draws on to provide an
input to the GENESYS component. It is those higher components that enable the
overall system of language to recognize the performer’s act and then to plan the
appropriate utterance.
To give a simple example, let us consider an interview for a job. In such a
context, the frequencies of the features, [giver] or [seeker], in the MOOD network may
be fairly different, depending on the performer’s role in the interaction, i.e., either the
interviewer or the interviewee. The primary goal of the interviewer will be to solicit
- 103 -
information from the interviewee, and the action is planned to achieve the goal in the
way that he or she will typically use an expression of [information seeker], while the
interviewee, on the other hand, will recognize a need for a reply, and then he or she
will plan to ‘give’ one which is appropriate, and so [information giver] will likely be
chosen.
The key concept for higher planning in the COMMUNAL model is
‘predetermination’. The features in the system networks are selected by
predetermination from a higher planner. Note that the predetermination is different
from ‘preselection’, since preselection is used to make a decision within the system
network in the GENESYS component.
In a rich and complex model of NLP, which is capable of handling the issues
involving the ‘pragmatic’ or the higher level of operation, there should be at least
several components in order to build a computer implemented model of language. In
the COMMUNAL framework, the following components are proposed by Fawcett
(1992):
(2)
a. The belief system: this includes (a) ‘long-term beliefs’ which comprise (i) the
knowledge of generic type of events or objects and specific type of them, and (ii)
the current context of situation (i.e., channel, Performer-Addressee relationship
and social situation types),10 and (b) short-term beliefs of (i) preceding discourse
and (ii) the various types of the observable situation.
b. The reasoning and higher planning components: the need for a relevant action
in the communication, such as a reply, is recognized by these components.
c. The various algorithms: drawing upon aspects of the belief system, these guide
the choices of appropriate themes, referring expressions, the aspectual type.
d. The discourse planner: by using the formalisms of the ‘systemic flowchart
model’, this makes choices in both ‘genre grammar’ and ‘exchange structure
grammar’.
- 104 -
Therefore, the planning of the production of a clause can be done in consultation
with the belief system, which results in the ‘basic logical form’, and this is further
‘enriched’ by a series of ‘microplanners’, which guide choices in the system networks
in the lexicogrammatical component. Hood (1997) discusses the computer model of
decisions which are realized in expressions of ‘validity’ in English, which is
specifically relevant to this research.
By adopting Coates’ (1983) description of the modal verbs, Hood (1997:41)
develops the scalar model of the ‘validity microplanner’, where the ‘strength’ of
validity plays a vital role for determining the performer’s confidence about the
likelihood of the ‘event’. The basic scale of validity is divided into ‘bands’ which
encompass different areas of the scale. Thus, according to Hood (Ibid.) possibly, for
example, includes those percentage values from 6 to 60 and may covers 31 to 70.
The overlap of the percentage values of these two lexical items (i.e., the bands from 31
to 60) explains why some linguists argue that may and possibly show more or less the
same value of the strength of validity, although their descriptions are in fact based on
the semantics of ‘modality’ in the first place.
5.3.2 Text-descriptive model
This section introduces the Cardiff version of the theory for the text-descriptive
strand of work in SFL, which is now known as the Cardiff Grammar. It also shows
that there are some significant differences between the Sydney Grammar and the
Cardiff version of grammar in the ways of describing language and the ‘instances’ of
texts at the level of form.
- 105 -
5.3.2.1 Categories
Since Halliday’s ‘Categories of the theory of grammar’ appeared in 1961,

Halliday has consistently maintained the notion of the ‘rank scale’, in which the
concept of ‘unit’ can only exist. To put it in another way, if there are units that serve
relevant functions in the text-sentence, this is because they are related with each other
in terms of their ‘rank’ on that scale. In practice, the highest rank is a ‘clause’, which
consists of certain number of ‘groups’, which in turn consist of certain number of
‘words’, and so on. Thus, in Halliday’s model, it is impossible that there is an
element of the clause which is directly expounded by an item.
In the Cardiff Grammar, however, the concept of the ‘rank scale’ has no place to
play in the operation of grammar. Instead, Fawcett recognizes the ‘class of unit’ as
the first of the three central concepts for the syntactic categories of grammar (together
with ‘element of structure’ and ‘item’). There are three classes of units that are
relevant for the syntax of English: (i) clause, which contains a Main Verb as the
“pivotal element” of it; 11 (ii) group, of which the four types are available, i.e.,
‘nominal group’, ‘prepositional group’, ‘quality group’ and ‘quantity group’; and (iii)
‘cluster’, which has complex meanings associated with two elements of the ‘nominal
group’: the ‘deictic determiner’ and the ‘name’ clusters which always fill the head of a
nominal group.
The proposal for abolishing the ‘rank scale’ from the Cardiff model has been
raised by Fawcett partly and yet significantly in connection with disuse of the notion
of the ‘verbal group’. The claim is that the elements of the ‘verbal group’ are better
handled as direct elements of the clause (Fawcett 2000a, 2000b, 2000c) in English, and
so no verbal group is required in the overall framework of the theory of syntax.
Fawcett (2000c:362) states that:
- 106 -
Clearly the abolition of the ‘verbal group’ seriously affects the standard
claim of the concept of the ‘rank scale’ […] that there should be ‘total
accountability at all ranks’. […] it is simply no longer possible to claim
that the elements of the clause are always - or even typically - filled by
groups, if the Operator, the Auxiliaries and the Main Verb are all
elements of the clause.
The essence of Fawcett’s proposal for the abolishment of the ‘verbal group’, and
so of the ‘rank scale’, is (i) that the classes of unit are defined in terms of their internal
structures, (ii) that it is desirable that the elements of the syntactic units reflect the
‘elements’ of the semantic units that they realize, and (iii) that the constituency of units
are modeled by indicating the ‘probability’ that states the likelihood of one unit filling
each of the elements of each of the other units.12
‘Elements of structure’, which define the classes of unit by their internal structure,
are the second fundamental concept for the Cardiff model. Elements of structure are
the functional elements of the units that are recognized in the grammar. The major
elements in the clause, for instance, include Subject (S), Operator (O), different types
of Auxiliaries (X), Main Verb (M), Complement (C), Adjunct (A). Fawcett
(2000a:214) states that the basic principle for identifying an element in a given class of
unit is that it is “defined in terms of its function in expressing meaning”, and as a
consequence, “every element in a given class of unit serves a different function in that
unit’ and ‘every element in every class of unit will be different from every element in
every other class of unit”.
5.3.2.2 Major types of the strand of meaning
Every element of structure is defined in terms of its function. This is the basic
principle that we have seen in the previous section. Then, what kinds of functions are
available in English so that a functional structure of the English clause is generated?
In the Cardiff model of language, eight ‘strands of meaning’ are proposed in order to
analyze any texts explicitly. According to Fawcett (2000a:51) the eight ‘strands of
- 107 -
meaning’ include: the ‘experiential’, the ‘logical’, the ‘interpersonal’, the ‘polarity’,
the ‘validity’, the ‘affective’, the ‘thematic’ and the ‘informational’. Note that all
clauses do not necessarily realize meanings in all of these ‘strands of meanings’, and
here I will focus on just two major strands of meaning, and look at how the semantic
features are realized by the single integrated syntactic structure at the level of form.
The first is MOOD, which expresses interpersonal meaning. MOOD serves the
function of assigning the ‘communication role’ to the performer and to the clause.
That is, the performer takes a certain role of, for example, giving information or
seeking information, by means of the language that he or she uses, and so the clause
also carries the function of the ‘giver of information’ or ‘seeker of information’. In
English, it is done by the sequence of two elements of clause structure, the Subject and
the Operator. Figure 5.4 shows the analysis of the MOOD in English, which
functions as an ‘information giver’.
Σ
Cl
S O
ngp
Rena can make an omelet.
Figure 5.4: The MOOD
Figure 5.4 shows relationships that have been introduced in the previous sections
of this chapter. First of all, it shows the relationship of the elements between an ‘S’
(for a ‘Subject’) and an ‘O’ (for an ‘Operator’) in terms of the sequence. In Figure
5.4, the sequence of an S and an O specifies the MOOD of the clause, and in this case,
it realizes an ‘information giver’. Secondly, this diagram also shows that the Subject
and the Operator are the elements of the Clause, and ‘h’, which stands for the ‘head’ of
- 108 -
the nominal group, is an element of the ‘nominal group’. This is a relationship of
‘componence’, the part-whole relationship between the unit and its element. Thirdly,
we can see the relationship of ‘filling’, i.e., the relationship between an element and
the unit below it. In this diagram, the element ‘sentence’ (signified by the symbol for
‘sigma’) is filled by the clause, and the element ‘Subject’ is filled by the ‘nominal
group’. The fourth relationship that can be seen in Figure 5.4 is that of ‘exponence’.
In this example, the Subject is expounded by Rena and the Operator is expounded by
the modal verb can.
The second type of function is TRANSITIVITY, which is one of the major areas
that belongs to the experiential strand of meaning. It defines the different types of
‘process’ which are expressible through the language concerned, and the ‘participant
roles’ of which types are dependent on the type of process that has been chosen. By
traversing the system network of TRANSITIVITY, we can express the ‘propositional
content’, that describes the performer’s experience of the world. In the example
above, the ‘propositional content’ expresses a physical action of ‘making’, which
involves someone who ‘makes’ (Rena) and something which is made (an omelet).
Figure 5.5 illustrates the structure that reflects the choices of TRANSITIVITY
function, together with those of MOOD.
- 109 -
COMPONENCE Σ
Cl
S
FILLING
Y
S/Ag O M C/Af N
ngp ngp T
A
EXPONENCE
h qd h X
Rena can make an omelet. TEXT
TRANSITIVITY overt action overt S

agent affected E
M
MOOD information A
giver N
T
I
C
S
Figure 5.5: The full analysis of TRANSITIVITY and MOOD
Figure 5.5 shows the full analysis of the syntactic structure of the clause in terms
of MOOD and TRANSITIVITY, in which the fifth kind of relationship is indicated,
that is, that of ‘conflation’ between elements. In this diagram, the Subject and the
Complement of the clause are conflated with their respective Participant Roles, ‘Ag’
(for Agent) with ‘S’ and ‘Af’ (for Affected) with ‘C’ (for Complement).
Now that the overview of the Cardiff model of the communicating minds has
been introduced, in terms of both generation and description, the next chapter will
focus on a functional description of the relevant areas of meaning for so-called ‘modal
expressions’ of English in the framework of the Cardiff Grammar.
- 110 -
Notes
1
COMMUNAL is an acronym that stands for “COnvivial Man-Machine
Understanding through NAtural Language”.
2
The major contributions to the development of SFL are made in different fields in
applied linguistics, which include discourse semiotics, educational linguistics,
ideological linguistics, discourse analysis, cognitive linguistics, literary stylistics,
language pathology as well as areas of ‘linguistics proper’. The descriptions of each
of them can be seen in two volumes of publications, entitled New Developments in
Systemic Linguistics, edited by Halliday and Fawcett (1987) for volume one, Theory
and Description, and by Fawcett and Young (1988) for volume two, Theory and
Application.
3
Fawcett (2000a: 7).
4
Fawcett (1997a: 62n).
5
In the Sydney Grammar, the system networks are drawn at each stratum of semantics,
lexicogrammar and phonology. See Halliday (1977, 1994), Halliday and Matthiessen
(1999), and also Chapter 3 of this thesis.
6
For further discussion of system networks, see Fawcett (1988b), Halliday (1969,
1976, 1977), Martin (1987), Matthiessen (1995).
7
For the notions of the ‘unit’, the ‘element’, and the ‘layer of structure’, see Section
5.3.2 below.
8
For the system networks with fully explicit probabilities, see Fawcett and Tucker
(2000a), and the volumes of the COMMUNAL working papers, which are available in
the Computational Linguistics Unit, Cardiff University.
9
Compare the Cardiff version of the realization operations with those in the Sydney
Grammar in Halliday (1993) and Matthiessen and Bateman (1991). As Fawcett
(2000a:175-185) discusses, they have a lot in common in their description, except for
the “Split” and “Expand” operations which are only available in the Sydney Grammar.
10
These three types are roughly equivalent to ‘mode’, ‘tenor’ and ‘field’, respectively’,
in Halliday’s description.
11
Strictly speaking, unlike the various types of ‘groups’, the clause has no element
which is obligatorily realized - not even the Main Verb. However, it is useful to
regard the Main Verb as the ‘pivotal element’ of the clause for the descriptive purpose
of the text analysis in English, as the present section is described for this aim, i.e. the
text-descriptive model of grammar.
12
Fawcett (2000c:363). For further discussion of the concept of the ‘rank scale’, see
Halliday (1961), Huddleston (1965), Butler (1985, especially pp.29-33), Fawcett
(2000a, 2000b, 2000c).
- 111 -
CHAPTER SIX
SOME MOOD AND TIME MEANINGS IN THE MODAL VERBS
6.1 Introduction
In Chapter 4, I have discussed Halliday’s two approaches to the description of the

lexicogrammar of the modal verbs and related expressions of ‘modality’. In
Halliday’s IFG model, the meaning potential for ‘modality’ integrates the two sets of
meanings, which are referred to as ‘modalization’ and ‘modulation’.
In this chapter, I will examine the functions that modal verbs may serve. In this
thesis, I will maintain (i) that there are four separate areas of meaning that may
generate modal verbs in English, and (ii) that modal verbs should be described in
relation to various other types of expression, which are semantically very close to the
relevant meanings of modal verbs. But in the first place, it will be worth noting that
the term ‘modal verb’ is in fact quite misleading, when you look at the functions that
they realize in English. (Though the term may have some use as a label for a set of
items at the level of form.) This is not simply a matter of terminology: because the
repeated use of the term may determine this approach to the description of the
lexicogrammar of English. The question is: whether ‘modal verbs’ express a unified
concept of ‘modality’, just as many other traditional terms reflect a classification in
terms of the meaning, such as a ‘noun’ for the name of the class of words that denote
things.
If this is not the case for ‘modal verbs’ in English, I will maintain, what kind of
meaning(s) is/are in fact conveyed by these items, and what should their functional
analysis be like? My main proposal of this thesis may be surprising to some, in that it
suggests that the grammar of English generates modal verbs from four different areas
of meaning. Yet this proposal is more similar to Halliday’s paper in 1970 than it is to
the newly established framework of IFG (Halliday 1994), which also, as it happens,
suggests that there are four main types of modality, as we saw in Chapter 4.
- 112 -
In this and the subsequent chapters, I will investigate the lexicogrammar of modal
verbs and other semantically related forms of expression in English in the framework
of the Cardiff Grammar.1
6.2 The treatment of modal verbs in the Cardiff Grammar
In this section I will explore the basic properties of the full set of the ‘modal
verbs’, and discuss the analysis of the lexicogrammar of the modal verbs in Section 7.3
and Section 7.4.1.
We can define ‘modal verb’ as members of a closed set of items at the level of
form. For most scholars the list includes will, would, can, could, may, might, shall,
should, must, ought to, and perhaps need and dare. Halliday (1970b) proposes seven
criteria for identifying the modal verbs as a distinct category from other ‘verbal’
elements. In this study, I will define them as the set of the exponents of the Operator
(O) that realize certain meanings of ‘validity’ and ‘control and disposition’. They all
function, therefore, as a direct element of a clause at the level of form. In the analysis
of the items, they are usually very easily identified in the clause, because “almost all
modal verbs function as Operators (99% valid)”, as pointed out in Fawcett
(forthcoming a: Section 5 ‘the four meanings of the “modal verbs” that function as the
Operator’ in Chapter 4). The analysis of the Operator is illustrated in Figure 6.1.
Σ
Cl
S O M C
Plants must have water.
Figure 6.1: The Operator as a direct element of the clause
- 113 -
In Halliday’s term, the equivalent element is referred to as the ‘modal Finite
Operator’, or simply the Finite. However, notice that there is a theoretically
significant difference between the Sydney and the Cardiff descriptions of this element.
In the Sydney Grammar, the Finite is an element of the ‘verbal group’, although its
main function is to contribute to the realization of MOOD at the rank of ‘clause’ (e.g.,
it typically precedes the Subject when the clause expresses the ‘primary speech
function’ of ‘question’). For a detailed discussion of the treatment of the Finite, see
Fawcett (2000b, 2000c), in which he argues that the Finite and other elements in the
‘verbal group’ should be elevated to the function as direct elements of the clause — the
result of which is that the verbal group has no function in the description of English.
6.3 Generating modal verbs from four system networks: an overview
As I have mentioned earlier, modal verbs are generated from four separate areas
of meaning. The four semantic areas include MOOD, TIME, VALIDITY
ASSESSMENT and CONTROL AND DISPOSITION. MOOD is a major area of
meaning that is associated with the interpersonal function of language. TIME
constitutes the experiential function, and it particularly deals with meanings regarding
‘time’ meaning, such as the three ‘primary time reference positions’ of ‘past’, ‘present’
and ‘future’. VALIDITY ASSESSMENT and CONTROL AND DISPOSITION are
roughly equivalent to ‘modalization’ and ‘modulation’, to use Halliday’s terms,
respectively. However, I will claim that the two areas of meaning are not integrated
into a single category which is termed ‘modality’, as they are in Hallidayan IFG model
of the linguistic description. That is, VALIDITY ASSESSMENT constitutes a
functional component which is not dependent on the system network for ‘modality’,
nor is regarded as the sub-component of the interpersonal function. On the other
hand, CONTROL AND DISPOSITON is an area of meaning that is associated with the
experiential function of language, along with the major system networks for
TRANSITIVITY and TIME. Figure 6.2 illustrates an overall picture of the locus of
- 114 -
these four areas of meaning in terms of the functional components of language.
FUNCTIONAL SYSTEM NETWORK

COMPONENTS
experiential TRANSITIVITY
TIME (Chapter 6)
CONTROL AND DISPOSITION (Chapter 8)
interpersonal MOOD (Chapter 6)

POLARITY
validity VALIDITY ASSESSMENT (Chapter 7)
(others ...)
Figure 6.2: Functional components of language
Of these four areas of meaning, I will discuss the two sets of the system networks
that may generate the modal verbs in English; these are the meanings concerning
MOOD and TIME. The other two, i.e., those of VALIDITY ASSESSMENT and
CONTROL AND DISPOSITION, will be examined in detail in Chapter 7 and Chapter
8, respectively.
6.3.1 ‘Modal verbs’ expressing MOOD meanings
The first system network from which a modal verb may be generated is that of
MOOD. If we wish to generate a clause of the type that Halliday would call a
‘modulated interrogative’, such as Shall I ...? for an ‘offer’ or Could you ...? for a
‘request’, there is a problem, as we have seen for a Hallidayan grammar. This is that
the ‘modulation’ type of ‘modality’ presupposes the choice of the relevant speech
function, such as ‘offer’ or ‘request’, at the semantic stratum, which is then realized by
an ‘interrogative’ mood, even though this is in fact a typical realization of another
- 115 -
speech function of ‘question’. In the Cardiff Grammar, we do not have to traverse
two system networks in order to generate that kind of clause, as the Sydney Grammar
appears to require, but just one for the meaning potential of MOOD. This is possible
because of the ‘semanticization’ of MOOD network in the Cardiff Grammar, as shown
2
in Figure 5.2 in Chapter 5.
Fawcett (ms: p.1) points out that most systemic linguists, in drawing the system
network for MOOD in English, adopt feature labels such as ‘declarative’ and
‘interrogative’ which are in fact taken from traditional grammar. He (Ibid.) claims
that “far too often it suggests a one-to-one relationship between the feature in the
network and the pattern at the level of form”. For example, consider (1):
(1) Could you pass me the salt?
This clause is referred to in the Sydney Grammar as a special type of

‘interrogative’ clause, which is to describe such an example in terms of the form rather
than its function. Fawcett (ms.:8n) points out that “in functional terms, the
distinction between requesting someone to do something and seeking information is a
far more fundamental one than that between a ‘polar interrogative’ and a
‘wh-interrogative’”, and he therefore argues that the system network for MOOD needs
to be pushed all the way to semantics just as the TRANSITIVITY networks have been
in all SF grammars, — so that the MOOD network also expresses the relevant
contrasts at the level of meaning, instead of those at the level of form.
The features labels in a fully semanticized MOOD network reflect as directly as
possible the functions of utterances in discourse structure that language serves. The
MOOD network opens with a choice between [information] and [proposal for action],
and these features in turn lead to further choices, until we reach the function that
generates the relevant form. Figure 6.3 illustrates a simplified version of the system
network for MOOD, which is taken from GENESYS, — a sentence generator in the
computer implementation model in the COMMUNAL project.
- 116 -
SYSTEM NETWORK TYPICAL REALIZATIONS
simple giver Ivy has read it.

giver
plus confirmation seeker ... Ivy's read it, hasn't she?
polarity seeker Has Ivy read it?
information seeker new content seeker What has Ivy read?
choice of alternative content seeker Did you have wine or beer?
(others)
simple ... Read it!
directive appeal to ability ... Can you read it?

appeal
appeal to willingness ... Will you read it?
proposal for acttion request
MOOD by addressee
elaborated Might you read it?
request ... Would you mind reading it?
Would you like to read it?
authorization ... You can [casual] /may [formal] read it.

ruling recommendation ... You should read it.
requirement ... You must read it.
proposal for action unmarked ruling You will read it.
pseudo-statement of wish ... I want you to read it, please.

suggestion
(others) unmarked suggestion ... What/How about (you) reading it?
pseudo-opportunity-giver ... You could read it.
suggestion by appeal ... Shouldn't you read it?
pseudo-hypothetical suggestion ... Supposing/What if you go now?
proposal for action

by self and addressee ... Let's read it (shall we?)
permission seeker ... Can / Could / May / Might I read it?

proposal for action by self
offer... Shall I read it?
(others)
Figure 6.3: A simplified version of the fully semanticized MOOD network in the
Cardiff Grammar (based on Fawcett n.d.)
The fully semanticized MOOD network provides us with rich options, each of
which serves a distinctively unique function. Yet some of them are in fact realized by
the same pattern of structure in the clause as each other (e.g., a ‘request’ such as Could
you read this, please? and a ‘polarity seeker’ such as Have you read this?). Because
my aim in this section is to present an account of the lexicogrammar of the ‘modal
verbs’ in fully explicitly functional terms, I will focus here on a few examples which
include ‘modal verbs’ that realize some MOOD meanings. The following Clauses (2)
to (5) would all be regarded as some kinds of an ‘interrogative’ in the Sydney
Grammar, on the grounds that the ‘Finite’ element precedes the Subject. However,
- 117 -
none of these examples except (2) is intended just to elicit a ‘Yes’ or a ‘No’ from the
Addressee. Instead, each of these clauses conveys a different intention.
(2) Did you read it?

(3) Will you read it?
(4) Shall we read it?
(5) Shall I read it for you?
From the viewpoint of the ‘speech function’, which, Halliday suggests, is

recognized at a higher level than the ‘lexicogrammatical stratum’ in the Sydney
Grammar, the examples (3), (4) and (5) express different types of ‘proposals’ rather
than ‘propositions’, and the ‘speech function’ conveyed in each clause is a ‘request’, a
‘suggestion’ and an ‘offer’, respectively. In order to generate such clauses, then, the
choice of a relevant type of ‘modulation’ at the lexicogrammatical stratum should be
pre-determined by the choice of a particular ‘speech function’ at the semantic stratum,
because the meaning of ‘modulation’, such as willingness’, is inherently involved so
that the special type of ‘interrogative’ is selected in the MOOD network.
Notice that all of the four examples above have first or second person Subjects.
According to Halliday, however, ‘modulation’ can be expressed in a ‘statement’, which
is typically realized by a ‘declarative’ mood. And in this case, Halliday (1994:89)
states, “modulated clauses … regularly implicate a third person”. Consider the
following examples:3
(6) John’s supposed to know that.

(7) Mary will help.
The commodities exchanged in both (6) and (7) are ‘information’. Thus they
function as ‘propositions’. It should be noted here that both (6) and (7) are regarded
as simple ‘statements’ whatever the meaning of ‘modulation’ expressed in these
clauses is. Consequently, in the Sydney Grammar, the choice of ‘modulation’ in (3)
- 118 -
to (5) seems to be pre-determined by the particular speech functions at the ‘semantic’
stratum, whereas the choices made to produce (6) and (7) do not. In the Cardiff
Grammar, there is no such inconsistency in the treatment of ‘modulation’ between two
‘levels’, or ‘strata’, of ‘semantics’ and ‘lexicogrammar’, to use Halliday’s terms.
Let us consider Example (3). It invites a response by the Addressee, indicating
‘willingness’ to execute the speaker’s opinion or plan, and it therefore realizes the
feature [appeal to willingness] in the MOOD network in Figure 6.3. As the network
shows, this is a type of request, and it is in turn dependent on the feature [directive] in
the MOOD network. If this type of meaning is chosen, it is realized in the structure
at the level of form as the Operator and the Subject, and these are expounded by the
items of will and you, respectively.
Notice that here the modal verb will is obtained by choosing the relevant feature
from the system network for MOOD, and there is no need to enter another network
such as MODULATION, as would be the case in Hallidayan approach. In other
words, the modal verb in (3) carries part of this particular MOOD meaning in its own
right (instead of contributing to the realization of [polarity seeker] as well as
expressing some ‘modulation’ meaning) as Did in (2) does.
Likewise, Example (4) illustrates the function of [proposal for action by self and
addressee], of which one basic sub-type is ‘suggestion’, but in this case it intends the
Performer as well as the Addressee to carry out the proposal.
As a final example, notice that we can have clauses which represent an ‘offer’ in
discourse structure, which involves only the Performer as the intended ‘doer’ of the
proposal. At the level of meaning, such a communication role is referred to as a
‘proposal for action by self’, and this is exemplified in (5).
- 119 -
6.3.2 Modal verbs realizing TIME meanings
The second type of meaning that can be expressed by a modal verb that expounds
the Operator is concerned with that of ‘time’. Many studies, both systemic and
non-systemic, have raised the question whether English ‘tense’ should be seen as
having three basic grammatical categories, i.e., ‘present’, ‘past’ and ‘future’, or only
two, e.g., ‘present’ and ‘non-present’, or ‘past’ and ‘non-past’. For example,
objections to such a division of ‘time’ into three primary categories are raised by
Lyons (1977:677), who argues that “futurity is never a purely temporal concept; it
necessarily includes an element of prediction or some related modal notion”. Lyons
(1977:678) further claims that, in English and many other languages, the distinction
between ‘present’ and ‘past’ is irrelevant. Instead, the English ‘tense’ system
provides a basic distinction between past and non-past, as the “vast majority of the
tense systems of other languages” do.
In contrast to Lyons’ position, Toolan (1998:49-52) confidently states that the
auxiliary verb will can be used as an almost ‘modality-free’ marker of ‘future time
reference’. He gives the following examples, which, he argues, support his position:
(8) The silent auction will take place in the gym.

(9) At 6.17 GMT on 5 January 1997 there will be a partial lunar eclipse.
He claims that the future events expressed in these utterances are not the kind
which are negotiable over the meanings concerning ‘modality’, such as ‘probability’
and ‘willingness’, but they instead express events that have been ‘determined’ or
‘ordained’ to be put into practice. It should be noted here that the future event may
well fail to take shape as described, and he therefore proposes that the meaning of will
in (8) and (9) should be referred to as ‘unmodalized future’, which is ‘virtually
unqualified’.
- 120 -
My position in this study is that I accept the view of the meaning of TIME in
English which distinguishes three primary time meanings, which I will refer to as
‘primary time reference positions’ (trps) – the past, present and future trps. This
correlates with the interpretation of time in terms of a ‘time line’, which, when
complemented by concepts such as ‘span’, ‘time reference position’ and ‘time
positions of the event’, is supported by the range of types of ‘Time Position Adjunct’
available in English.4
A consideration of the use of modal verbs in relation to TIME shows that they are
used for a disparate range of meanings in the overall system network for TIME. The
majority of time meanings are expressed by other forms than the ‘modal verbs’, as in
(10) to (12):
(10) I teach English. [present trp]

(11) I taught English in the 1980s. [past trp]
(12) I will / shall teach English after April. [future trp]
However, the future trp is typically expressed in the ‘modal verb’, i.e., will or
shall, which directly expounds the Operator, as in (12). However, the fact is that
even the future trp can be expressed in various forms other than ‘modal verbs’, such as
be ...ing, be going to, be about to, be on the point of ...ing. Figure 6.4 shows a
simplified network for the future trp, which is entered from the TIME REFERENCE
POSITION network.
If we enter this system network for future trp, the first system that we find is one
in which either [real] or [hypothetical] meaning has to be chosen. In the ‘real’ time,
the features that generate the ‘modal verbs’ that realize ‘future’ meanings are those
which are dependent on the feature [unmarked] (e.g., [no pastness from trp], [future
from pastness from future], [plus secondary modulation], [plus by arrangement
future]). The item that expounds the Operator will be will (or shall if the Subject is
expounded by either I or we). On the other hand, if we choose the ‘hypothetical
future’, the grammar regularly generates would as the exponent of the Operator – and
- 121 -
sometimes should. Note that the ‘modal verb’ expressing the future trp in a
hypothetical time is expressed in the main clause, which is referred to as the
‘conditioned’ clause, as in:
(13) If she lived here [conditioning], she would be happy [conditioned].
The area of meanings of TIME, then, is like that of MOOD, in that the modal verbs are
one of several ways in which these meanings are realized. Yet it is not just a matter
of will and shall as expressions of ‘future’ time; the full picture is much more
complicated, as the examples in Figure 6.4 illustrate.
- 122 -
SYSTEM NETWORK TYPICAL REALIZATIONS
no pastness from trp She will leave soon
past from future simple She will have left by tomrrow
unmodulated retrospective from future future from

pastness from future She will have been going to leave
validity no secondary modulation She will leave soon
unassessed
plus secondary modulation She will have to leave soon
unmarked modulated future She should leave soon
She may leave soon

validity assessed She may be going to leave
She will leave soon

expectation simple
She is going to leave soon
plus by arrangement future She will be leaving soon
real
vivid future She hits him
...
unmarked imminent She is about to leave
foregrounded
closely imminent She is on the point of leaving
imminent future
- 123 -
fully predetermined She is leaving soon
by arrangement future She leaves soon
we hope she leaves soon

quasi-factual
future trp
information simple if / I wish she lived here
full dependent modulated future if / I wish she could / would live here
POSITION (based on Fawcett and Tucker 2000b)

validity assessed if she might leave soon
conditioning
[formal] if she were to live here
strong
[else] if she was to live here
TIME
REFERENCE
elegant if she should leave soon
POSITION
hypothetical
quasi-factual if she leaves soon
simple ... she would be happy

conditioned
quasi-factual ... she will be happy
Figure 6.4: The system network for future trp dependent on TIME REFERENCE
present trp ... She lives in London
past trp ... She lived in London in 1980s

In this chapter, we first looked at the treatment of the modal verbs in the Cardiff
Grammar. I have introduced four distinct areas of meaning which may generate the
modal verbs in English. It should be noted here that the position of the present thesis
is more similar to Halliday’s description of ‘modality’ and ‘modulation’ as presented in
Halliday (1970b) than it is to Halliday’s treatment of the equivalent areas meanings in
the newly established framework IFG or the later works by Halliday and Matthiessen.
The motivation for the proposal in this thesis derives from my desire (i) to describe in
a systematic manner various kinds of forms of expression which are syntactically and
lexically unrelated to each other, and yet are in fact associated with the relevant
meanings of the modal verbs, and (ii) to re-examine, with a critical view, the drastic
change of Halliday’s position in the treatment of the systems associated with modal
verbs.
The four areas of meaning are those associated with some MOOD meanings,
some TIME meanings, VALIDITY ASSESSMENT and CONTROL AND
DISPOSITION, of which the first two was the main focus in this chapter. In the
section of the system network for MOOD, it is maintained that it should be pushed all
the way to the level of semantics as it is done in the Cardiff Grammar. The corollary
of this attempt leads to the possibility to provide a very rich system network for
MOOD, by which we are able to describe in fully functional terms the various kinds of
‘communication roles’ that are expressed in a clause.
In Section 6.3.2, we considered TIME meaning, by confining ourselves to the
particular meanings which are realized by the modal verb will (although the term
‘modal’ is no longer appropriate here, as I suggested in the introductory part of this
chapter, since will expressing a meaning of a future time has nothing to do with the
implication of the so-called ‘modality’ at all).
In the remaining two chapters in this thesis, I will discuss two other major areas
of meaning in English, i.e., that of VALIDITY ASSESSMENT and CONTROL AND
DISPOSITION, which are roughly equivalent to Halliday’s ‘modalization’ and
- 124 -
‘modulation’, respectively.
- 125 -
Notes
1
Hood (1997) presents the microplanner for ‘validity assessment’ in English.
Abunowara (1996) shows a contrastive analysis of the expressions concerning
‘modality’ in English and Arabic, in special reference to the Cardiff Grammar.
2
Fawcett refers to this area of meaning as ‘illocutionary force’ in his earlier works
(e.g., in Fawcett 1980). His intention appears to have been to detach the semantic
category from traditional labels associated with form-based grammars, such as
‘declarative’, ‘interrogative’ and ‘imperatives’. As Fawcett himself admits, however,
the term ‘illocutionary force’ is so tightly bound to the speech act theory that it is
better not to use it in this sense, and he now simply refers to the equivalent network in
the Cardiff Grammar as the ‘MOOD’ network.
3
Halliday (1994: 89).
4
Another reason for supporting the view on three primary time reference positions is
found by observing the fact that, in some dialects, shall can be used as an alternative
form of will, and shall cannot be used in a ‘prediction’ sense. I will not discuss these
notions here, because that is beyond the scope of this thesis. For further detailed
descriptions on TIME, see Fawcett (forthcoming).
- 126 -
CHAPTER SEVEN
VALIDITY ASSESSMENT
7.1 Introduction
In this chapter, I will examine the system networks for ‘VALIDITY

ASSESSMENT’ (or simply ‘VALIDITY’) in English, which are concerned with the
different types of ‘validity’ meaning. I will show a functional analysis of the
lexicogrammar of the various forms expressing those meanings at the levels of both
meaning and form.
Validity assessment is defined by Fawcett (1997b) as:
the part (or parts) of any spoken or written utterance which states the
Performer’s assessment of the level of confidence that he/she has in the
validity of the experiential content of the event (plus its polarity), in
terms of the world assumed by the Performer (and also, the Performer
assumes, by the Addressee) to be the one relevant to the current
discourse.
This is roughly equivalent to Halliday’s ‘probability’ type of ‘modalization’, and

to ‘epistemic modality’ in philosophical approaches to the topic. Note, however, that
validity assessment does not belong to the interpersonal function at all in the Cardiff
Grammar, whereas Halliday’s ‘modalization’ does. Furthermore, this study will show
that the system network for VALIDITY ASSESSMENT is not confined to
classifications of meanings which are expressed in modal verbs. It also incorporates
systemically meanings which generate certain patterns of structure, such as perhaps,
be sure to, it is possible that…, which are syntactically distinct from modal verbs yet
semantically related to these items at the level of meaning.
- 127 -
In this chapter, then, I will illustrate a functional description of various forms of
expression which are obtained through the traversal of the system network for
VALIDITY ASSESSMENT in English. In the next section, I will provide an
overview of how different types of expression are treated in syntax of the clause
structure in the framework of the Cardiff Grammar. As we will shortly see, almost all
classes of items are involved in the patterns of structure which are used to express
certain meanings of ‘validity assessment’, including some ‘auxiliary verbs’,
‘adjectives’, ‘adverbs’, ‘nouns’, ‘verbs’, as well as the ‘modal verbs’.
7.2 A treatment of major forms expressing ‘validity assessment’ in English
In Chapter 2, I noted that a number of studies have been dedicated to the

description of the meanings of a small set of items, i.e., modal verbs, in English.
However, as I mentioned above, the fact is that there are other linguistic forms which
are semantically, and so systemically, related to modal verbs at the level of meaning.
One of the main purposes of this study is to make a full and explicit account for the
treatment of different forms which are used to convey certain ‘validity’ meanings in
English in terms of a systemic functional description of language. In this section, I
will provide an overview of how different forms which may be generated from the
system network for VALIDITY ASSESSMENT are analyzed in the Cardiff Grammar.
7.2.1 The Operator realizing ‘validity’ meanings
At some points in the previous chapters, we have already seen an analysis of a

clause involving a modal verb. In this section, I will recapitulate very briefly how the
modal verbs are analyzed at the level of form in the framework of the Cardiff Grammar.
Since I am here analyzing modal verbs which realize types of meaning regarding
VALIDITY ASSESSMENT, I will consider the following example:
- 128 -
(1) Joe may have repaired the roof yesterday.
In Example (1), the underlined item, may, is regarded as an item which directly
expounds the Operator. The principal reason for treating it as the Operator will be the
possibility that it can precede the Subject to contribute to the realization of some
MOOD meaning, such as a ‘polarity seeker’, as in:
(2) May Joe have repaired the roof yesterday?
Another characteristic which may be worth noting is that any of ten modals,
including will, would, can, could, may, might, shall, should, must and ought (to),
cannot be combined with each other in a single clause. For instance, we cannot have:
(3) *Joe may must have repaired the roof yesterday.
Example (3) demonstrates the basic principle that THERE MUST BE ONE AND ONLY
ONE OPERATOR IN A CLAUSE IF IT IS TO OCCUR. The analysis of (1) is illustrated in

Figure 7.1.
Σ
Cl
S O X M C A
Joe may have repaired the roof yesterday.
Figure 7.1: The Operator as an element of the clause
- 129 -
7.2.2 Auxiliary Verbs
7.2.2.1 ‘Validity Auxiliary’
In the previous section, I mentioned that there are ten modal verbs which function
as the Operator in the clause. However, in English, there are in fact other items
which can also expound the function of the Operator as an element of the clause, but in
a somewhat different way from the nine ‘modals’ listed above. Consider the
following example:
(4) Ted has to have been here.
According to Quirk et al. (1985:145), have to is referred to as a ‘semi-auxiliary’,

because it does not fulfill the formal criteria to be a member of the ‘central modal’, to
follow Quirk et al’s term, and yet the meaning of this expression has something to do
with ‘modality’. That is, it is possible to treat the item has as the Operator, if we look
at the fading yet still possible usage of have to, as illustrated in (5):
(5) Has Ted to have been here?
The fact remains, however, that the expression is semantically richer than the term
“semi-modal” implies. Firstly, the position of the Operator, in relation to the Subject,
has a significant meaning in realizing the MOOD meaning. Secondly, the Operator
has realizes one of the validity meanings, and the Operator is conflated with the
particular type of the Auxiliary Verb (for ‘VX’), which is typically followed by the
Infinitive Element (for ‘I’). This interpretation is ensured by the fact that, by adding
to have after the Operator, this item indicates that the clause refers to the event in the
past; has to in (4) cannot be interpreted as expressing one of the types of meanings that
is generated from the system network for ‘basic obligation’, which is in turn dependent
on the broad area of meaning, known as ‘CONTROL AND DISPOSITION’ in the
- 130 -
Cardiff Grammar. The conflation of two elements is represented by the slash ‘/’ as in
‘O/VX’. The analysis of (4) is illustrated by the tree diagram in Figure 7.2.
Σ
Cl
S O/VX I X M A
Ted has to have been here.
Figure 7.2: Analysis of have to as the conflation of the Operator and Auxiliary
7.2.2.2 The Extension of Validity Auxiliary
In English, the Auxiliary Verbs realize different functions that belong to the
relevant areas of meaning, including the ‘passive’ meaning, some TIME meanings, and
what Fawcett terms ‘control’ and ‘disposition’ meanings, which will be discussed in
Chapter 7, as well as some ‘validity’ meanings. The Auxiliaries that will be
introduced in this section are those that are accompanied by an item which is analyzed
as an ‘Extension’ of the Auxiliary in the Cardiff Grammar. According to Fawcett (in
press: Chapter 14), those Auxiliaries add up to eleven types, of which two types
express ‘validity’. Here are some typical examples:
(6a) He has got to be bored.

(6b) He is bound to be bored.
(6c) He seems likely to be bored.
(7a) He is said to have lived there.
(7b) He is thought to have lived there.
(7c) He was seen touching it.
- 131 -
The first type to be considered here is referred to as the ‘Validity Auxiliary (VX)’
and their ‘Extension (XEx)’, whose examples are (6a, b and c), and the other type is
referred to as ‘Report Validity Auxiliary’ and its ‘Extension’, which is illustrated in (7a,
b, and c). As the examples show, except (6a) and (7c), Auxiliary Verbs with their
Extension typically takes the pattern of structure, as in ‘be/am/is/are/was/were … to’.
One might argue that (6b and c) and (7a, b and c) should be analyzed as what is termed
as one type of the ‘raising’ construction in a formalist approach. However, I maintain
that all these examples are analyzed in the way Fawcett proposes, i.e., as different
types of Auxiliary Verb and its accompanying Auxiliary Extension plus the ‘Infinitive
Element’ as in the examples above. All of these three elements are, therefore,
analyzed as the direct elements of the clause. One of the reasons is that, from a
functional point of view, they are semantically very close to the relevant modal verbs
that are used in the ‘validity’ sense. The treatment of these expressions from a
functional viewpoint will be illustrated in detail in three sections of this chapter, i.e., in
Section 7.4.2, 7.4.3 and 7.4.4.
7.2.3 Adjectives
Unlike the modal verbs, adjectives belong to the major classes that constitute an
open set of lexical items, along with other classes of items, such as verb, noun, and
adverb. Some of the relevant adjectives are used to express ‘validity’ meanings in
several different lexicogrammatical patterns. As Tucker (1998:159) illustrates, they
may occur in the Complement which is conflated with the experiential function of an
‘Attribute’ as illustrated in (8) or in the ‘modifier’ function in the ‘nominal group’ as in
(9):
(8) Victory / Betrayal / Innovation is certain / likely / possible / probable.

(9) He is a certain / probable / likely / possible suspect.
- 132 -
However, when the adjectives are used to express the validity types of meanings,
they are usually used in a relatively fixed pattern of construction. Consider (10):
(10) It is certain / probable / likely / possible that he will win.
In the Cardiff Grammar, the structure of the underlined portion in (10) is regarded
as a typical form of what is referred to as an ‘evaluative enhanced theme
construction’.1 The analysis of this construction will be considered in Section 7.5.
There is another type of the validity expression which is considered to be more
complicated as in be likely / certain / sure to:
(11) They are likely / certain /sure to come.
Example (11) is what was known as the ‘subject-to-subject raising’ construction

in Chomsky’s Transformational Grammar. That is, in the TG framework, the Subject
they is considered to have been moved from the original position in the embedded
clause, and the covert Subject is recognized at the ‘trace’ position which is generated
by applying the ‘subject-to-subject raising’ transformation. From a functional point
of view, however, the pattern of ‘be likely/certain/sure to’ is, I maintain, semantically
related to the use of modal verbs, and all such elements are analyzed as the direct
elements of the clause, as we will see in Section 7.4.2.
7.2.4 Adverbs
There are a number of adverbs which express certain types of ‘validity’ meaning.
It should be noted that most — but not all — ‘adverbial’ forms are derived from the
corresponding adjectival forms which can be related to each other at the level of
meaning, although there are some exceptions including perhaps, maybe and likely. The
typical examples include arguably, certainly, surely, probably, likely, clearly,
- 133 -
conceivably, apparently, perhaps, maybe and so on, which are specifically referred to
as ‘modal adverbs’ in the traditional term. While all modal verbs, without exception,
may be generated from several different areas of meaning, all of these adverbial
expressions are primarily concerned with validity meanings. Compare the following
examples:
(12) He must consider the matter very carefully.

(13) Surely he considers the matter very carefully.
Must in (12) is ambiguous because, depending on the context, it may be

interpreted either as an expression of a validity meaning of ‘conclusion’, or as an
expression of an ‘obligation’ meaning, which is dependent on the CONTROL AND
DISPOSITION network, as we will observe in Section 7.3. On the other hand, it is
not possible to use surely to express the ‘obligation’ sense, and it simply conveys the
meaning of ‘validity’ as in (13).
It should also be noted that a validity adverb has an overlapping yet
complementary role with a modal verb, when they occur in the same clause as in:
(14) Certainly he must have gone to the party last night.
Compared with:
(15) *Possibly he must have gone to the party last night.
According to Hoye (1997:143), the co-occurrence of an adverb and a modal verb

is a kind of an intuitive ‘symbiosis’ between the two, both of which contribute to an
expression of ‘modal’ meanings which are inherently related. If the modal verb is
used to express a meaning which has nothing to do with a validity assessment, the
constraint on the use of the limited range of adverbs is eliminated, and the following
example is grammatical:
- 134 -
(16) Perhaps you must go now.
As we will see in Section 7.4, the system network which generates the adverbs
associated with the validity meaning is referred to as ADJUNCTIVAL VALIDITY
ASSESSMENT, because this reflects the functions that these lexical items serve in the
clause at the level of form.
7.2.5 Nouns
Another class of items that is concerned with an expression of validity meanings

is that of noun, such as necessity, possibility, certainty, likelihood, probability. They
usually occur in the construction ‘there is a … that …’, as illustrated by (17).
(17) There is a possibility that they will win.
A situation to which the validity assessment applies may also be expressed by an

event thing. Compare the following examples:
(18) There is high probability for an earthquake in Japan.

(19) There is negligible probability for an earthquake in England.
Interestingly, the level of confidence about the likelihood of the event to take
place is expressed not by the validity adverb itself, but by an adjective attached to it, as
illustrated in the comparison between (18) and (19). This suggests that Halliday’s
description of the meaning of ‘probability’, which is said to express about fifty percent
degree of likelihood, fails to account for this type of phenomenon. In my opinion, the
‘neutrality’ of the likelihood in ‘probability’ is simply the marker of a ‘tentativeness’
about the validity of the event, and the precise level of confidence is dependent on
- 135 -
certain objective evidence available to the speaker, which is expressed by the ‘degree
adjective’ attached to the validity noun.
7.2.6 Lexical verbs
Though not many, some lexical verbs may be used to express a certain type of
‘validity’ meaning. Here I will show an example which seems not to have received
special attention in previous studies:
(20) It goes without saying that the earth is round.
In (20), the lexical verb in the underlined portion clearly denotes a meaning
which is somewhat related to validity meaning, because it is semantically very close to
the expression:
(21) It is obvious/evident/noticeable that the earth is round.
Thus, the lexical verb goes in (20) can be regarded as an expression of a certain
type of validity. I propose that it realizes a meaning of ‘pseudo-process’, because it
functions as the Main Verb at the level of form as if it carries the function of a process
type, yet it has nothing to do with the meaning of ‘going’, and so it does not require
the relevant Participant Role of the ‘Agent’. The lexicogrammatical description of
(20) will be illustrated in Section 7.5.4.
7.3 Entering the system networks for validity assessment
Validity assessment mainly conveys the speaker’s statement of his/her level of

confidence in the validity of the experiential content of the event, as set out by
reference to Fawcett’s definition in Section 1 of this chapter. The initial choice in the
- 136 -
VALIDITY network is whether or not to express his/her commitment to the validity
meaning at all. If the speaker makes an assertion with the absolute validity of the
proposition, he/she says:
(22) She lives here.
If, on the other hand, the speaker’s confidence is not so strong as making a categorical
assertion, it will be expressed as:
(23) She may live here.
If we look at the examples (22) and (23), we find the interesting fact that the
strongest statement does not contain an explicit marker of the absolute validity in the
clause, and there is no need for such an expression to enter the VALIDITY network.
The system network for the initial choice is illustrated in Figure 7.3.
SYSTEM NETWORK EXAMPLE
validity unassessed ... She lives here.
validity assessed ... She may live here.
Figure 7.3: The initial choice for entering the VALIDITY network
As we saw in the system network for time meanings in Section 7.3.2, English has
three primary time reference positions, each of which is expressed with reference to
the event either in reality or in hypothesis. Consider the following examples:
(24) Rena will be driving out at present.

(25) Rena should have been busy yesterday.
(26) It may be rainy tomorrow.
- 137 -
Notice that the form be …ing in example (24) is used here in order to ensure that
the clause is interpreted as referring to an event that is currently occurring at the time
when the speaker is uttering the clause. Moreover, the use of an Adjunct, at present,
indicates the particular time to which the proposition refers in the current situation. It
can be doubtlessly argued, therefore, that will in (24) is not used to express the event in
the future at all. The Adjunct yesterday in (25) indicates that the clause refers to the
event in the past, but it should be noted that the ‘past tense form’ of should itself does
not express the ‘past’ meaning at all, but the speaker’s assessment of a certain degree
of validity of the proposition. By the same token, may in (26) does not refer to the
‘future’ meaning, although the clause expresses the event in the ‘future’ as the addition
of the Adjunct, tomorrow, clearly indicates. What is common in all of these
examples, then, is that there are no modal verbs that express ‘past’ nor ‘future’
meanings, whatever the time reference positions the event refers to. The reason for
this is that it is only at the ‘present’ time when the speaker can express the assessment
to the validity of an event. Consequently, the system network for VALIDITY
ASSESSMENT can be entered from any time meanings of ‘present’, ‘past’ or ‘future’,
each of which meaning is dependent on the system network for TIME REFERENCE
POSITION, as illustrated in Figure 7.4.
- 138 -
validity
unassessed present ... She lives here
real present
present trp validity assessed to VALIDITY ASSESSMENT She may live here
hypothetical
validity
unassessed past ... She lived here
real past
TIME
REFERENCE
past trp validity assessed to VALIDITY ASSESSMENT She may have lived here
POSITION
hypothetical
validity
unassessed future ... She will live here
real future
future trp validity assessed to VALIDITY ASSESSMENT She may live here next year
(possibility)
hypothetical
(others)
Figure 7.4: A simplified TIME network as entry to the VALIDITY network
If the feature [validity assessed] is chosen from the system network in Figure 7.3,
there is another system of options that should be considered here. It is one that
distinguishes the type of a validity meaning which is integrated with the proposition in
the main clause, from the other type which is expressed in the other clause than the
substantive one. Compare the following examples:
(27) He may be studying.

(28) It is possible that he is studying.
The latter type of validity meaning, as exemplified in (28), is expressed in a

clause which occurs at a higher layer than the substantive clause, which is embedded
in the Complement of the higher one. The distinction of these options is illustrated in
Figure 7.5.
- 139 -
integrated ... He may be studying.

VALIDITY
ASSESSMENT
superordinated ... It is possible that he is studying.
Figure 7.5: The first options in ‘validity assessed’
7.3.1 ‘Basic validity’
Amongst many different ways of expressing one’s assessment of the validity of a

proposition in a clause, ‘basic validity’ is the most frequent type of the meaning in
English. The system network for ‘basic validity’ is entered if the feature [integrated]
is chosen in the system network in Figure 7.5. The major options in the system
network for ‘basic validity’ is given in Figure 7.6.
SYSTEM NETWORK REALIZATION
conclusion ... O < must
basic possibility ... O < may
prediction ... O < will
Figure 7.6: Major options in the system network for ‘basic validity’
This type of validity is so ‘basic’ to the meaning that it is typically, but not always,
realized by the Operator, which is an element that is at the ‘core’ of the meaning of the
clause in many ways. In the subsequent sections, we will look at the more delicate
system networks for each type of ‘basic validity’ in detail.
- 140 -
7.3.1.1 ‘Conclusion’
The essential meaning of ‘conclusion’ is that a speaker is able to draw a

conclusion from what s/he has already known or observed. If a speaker enters the
system network for ‘conclusion’, s/he has two options of either [clear] or [tentative], as
illustrated in Figure 7.7.
clear ...
conclusion
tentative ...
Figure 7.7: The system network for ‘conclusion’
The difference between the two options in Figure 7.7 is dependent on the degree
of a speaker’s confidence about the veracity of the evidence that s/he can draw on.
The ‘clear’ meanings are more confident than the ‘tentative’ ones.
7.3.1.1.1 ‘Clear conclusion’
If a speaker chooses [clear conclusion], it leads to the further sub-system, in

which the features of either [simple] or [strong] are chosen. The latter option
[strong] opens up further choice between [unmarked] and [re-enforced], as shown in
Figure 7.8.
- 141 -
simple O < must
clear
unmarked X < have to
strong
re-enforced X < have got to
Figure 7.8: The system network for ‘clear conclusion’
If a speaker says the following clause,
(29) Rena must be kind to everyone.
the speaker may have observed, for example, Rena helping an aged stranger to carry a
heavy luggage, or never doing harm to living things. The modal verb must in this
example is regarded as an item which expresses the ‘simple’ meaning as a type of
‘clear conclusion’, because it functions as the Operator. It is useful to understand
some basic meanings such as MOOD (although must is very unlikely used to express
the MOOD meaning of a ‘polarity seeker’ as in Must Rena be kind to anyone?),
POLARITY (e.g., Rena mustn’t be kind to everyone) as well as the VALIDITY
meaning.
The two options, [unmarked] and [re-enforced], which are dependent on a ‘strong
conclusion’, are the only exceptions of the ‘basic validity’ that are not realized by the
Operator. Note that the ‘strong’ types of meaning are far less likely to be chosen than
a ‘simple’ conclusion in British English, as Palmer (1990: 56) points out. The
examples are given below:
(30) Rena has to be kind. [strong: unmarked]

(31) Rena has got to be kind. [strong: re-enforced]
- 142 -
The structure in each example is as in Figure 7.9.
Cl
S X XEx I M C
(30) Rena has to be kind.

(31) Rena has got to be kind.
Key to additional terms: Cl = Clause S = Subject

X = Auxiliary
XEx = Auxiliary Extension
M = Main Verb
C = Complement
Figure 7.9: Clauses with a strong validity
Notice that (29) - (31) are all examples of the positive clauses, and the negative
ones should also be considered here. In a negative clause, two portions may be
negated, i.e., either ‘validity’ or ‘situation’. On the one hand, for example, if it is
validity in the sense of a simple conclusion that is negated, need plus n’t is used as in:
(32) Joe needn’t be sad.
In (32), need expresses a meaning of ‘logical necessity’, and it is this that is negated, if
we take this clause as the negation of the validity meaning. 2 Thus the basic
interpretation of (32) is ‘it is not the case that Joe is crazy’, where the speaker is so
confident that s/he denies the logical necessity that the proposition is valid. If, on the
other hand, the situation is negated, it is expressed by can plus n’t as in:
(33) Joe can’t be happy.
- 143 -
Here the interpretation of (33) is roughly ‘it is the case that Joe isn’t happy’, and
so, the meaning conveyed by can’t is a logical impossibility. In both cases of (32)
and (33), therefore, the degree of the speaker’s confidence about the validity of what
s/he is saying indicates the same level, and yet must is not used for either form of
negation.
Moreover, the set of expressions of ‘conclusion’ meanings should also be
considered, in terms of the distinction between those in a ‘direct clause’ and those in a
‘reported clause’. For example, if a simple conclusion is expressed in a ‘positive’ and
‘reported’ clause, it is expressed by must as in the following example:
(34) You said Joe must be happy.
On the other hand, if it is expressed in a ‘negative’ and ‘reported’ clause, there are
two variables of forms, and each of these variables expresses the validity meaning in
different forms, depending on which portion of meaning in the proposition is negated,
i.e., if it is the meaning of validity that is negated, it is expressed as in (35), whereas if
‘situation’ is negated, it is expressed as in (36).
(35) You said Joe need not be happy.

(36) You said Joe could not be happy.
Up to this point, we have observed that there are six variables for expressing a
single feature, i.e., [clear conclusion], in the system for validity assessment, by taking
into consideration the simultaneous options such as ‘polarity’ and ‘directness’. The
extremely complex relation between the system for ‘clear conclusion’, ‘polarity’ and
‘direct vs. report’ choices is summarized in Table 7.1.
- 144 -
direct report
negative negative
positive positive
validity situation validity situation
simple conclusion must may can must might could
clear conclusion has/have to has/have to - had to had to -
unmarked
strong
re-enforced has/have has/have - had had -
got to got to got to got to
Table 7.1: ‘Clear conclusion’ and its realizations in modal verbs
7.3.1.1.2 ‘Tentative conclusion’
So far, we have considered features which are dependent on [clear conclusion].

In comparison with ‘clear conclusion’, the meanings of ‘tentative conclusion’ are less
frequent options in English. Consider the following examples:
(37) The students should be at school by now.
Should in (37) is weaker than must in terms of the degree of the certainty
regarding a conclusion drawn by the speaker. The basic implication in should is that
‘it seems reasonable to conclude that …’, whereas must implies ‘the only possible
conclusion is that …’.
The tentative conclusion may be re-enforced by using ought to as in:
(38) The students ought to be at school by now.
What is common to both cases of should and ought to is that the speaker
acknowledges that there might be something wrong with his/her conclusion that ‘the
students “ought to” be at school by now’. In using the forms which express ‘tentative
conclusion’, therefore, there is room for the speaker to explicitly deny or doubt the
- 145 -
validity of the conclusion that s/he has drawn. Because of this tentativeness in should
and ought to, these items are used instead of must if the conclusion has to do with the
future, because the future event can, by and large, never be an observable fact:
(39) If you paint the wall now, it should get dry in an hour.
Figure 7.10 shows the system network for tentative conclusion.
unmarked O < should

tentative
re-enforced O < ought to
Figure 7.10: The system network for ‘tentative conclusion’
7.3.1.2 ‘Possibility’
In the system network for ‘possibility’, two kinds of meaning should be

distinguished. As with the case of the distinction must and should / ought to, the
distinction here is made between [clear possibility] and [tentative possibility]. The
system network for these types of ‘possibility’ meaning is illustrated in Figure 7.11.
clear possibility O < may

possibility
tentative possibility ... O < might
Figure 7.11: The system network for ‘possibility’
- 146 -
As we will discuss, all ‘possibility’ meanings which are dependent on ‘basic
validity’ are realized by the Operator.
7.3.1.2.1 ‘Clear possibility’
A ‘clear possibility’ is expressed in may, of which one basic property is that it

concerns the ‘real’ situation, since it is, in practice, dependent on the choice of the
feature [real] in each of ‘present’, ‘past’ and ‘future’ in the system network for TIME
REFERENCE POSITION as shown in Figure 7.4 in Section 7.4. In other words, may
conveys the possibility of ‘actualization’ of the situation at hand, as in:
(40) Joe may be right.
On the other hand, if the speaker refers to the situation in a hypothetical meaning,
can is used rather than may.3
(41) Even God can make a mistake.
The meaning of can in a hypothetical clause is that the situation is just one of the
possibilities from the relevant circumstances, and it does not refer to any instances of
actualization. In the Cardiff Grammar, therefore, this type of meaning is referred to
as ‘quasi-possibility from circumstances’. For further discussion about validity in
hypothetical meaning, see Section 7.6 below.
7.3.1.2.2 ‘Tentative possibility’
The Option [tentative possibility] leads to further choices between [unmarked]

and [quasi-ability], as shown in Figure 7.12.
- 147 -
unmarked O < might

tentative
quasi-ability O < could
Figure 7.12: The system network for ‘tentative possibility’
If the speaker chooses [unmarked], it is expressed by might, which indicates a

little less certainty than may as in:
(42) Joe might be quite impressed by her presentation.
If, on the other hand, [quasi-ability] is chosen, could is used to express the
meaning. A typical example would be (43):
(43) In his country furniture could be up to 20 times as expensive as that in Japan.
The tentative could may be used for both a hypothetical and a real possibility, as
illustrated by (44) and (45):
(44) That could be my friend who is in a mad rush over there. [real]
(45) I wonder if that kind of animal could be seen in Japan. [hypothetical]
In view of negation, could cannot replace might in negative clauses, because the
former negates the situation whereas the latter negates possibility. Compare (46) and
(47):
(46) Joe mightn’t be in Tokyo.

(47) Joe couldn’t be in Tokyo.
- 148 -
As we can see, (46) can be paraphrased as ‘there is a slight possibility that Joe
isn’t in Tokyo’, while (47) would be paraphrased as ‘it is impossible that Joe is in
Tokyo’.
7.3.1.3 ‘Prediction’
A ‘prediction’ meaning is typically expressed by the modal verb will. As I

mentioned in Chapter 6, the ‘prediction’ meaning is essentially distinguished from the
‘future’ meaning. ‘Prediction’ is regarded as a type of ‘validity meaning, whereas the
‘future’ meaning is associated with the experiential function of language. As
Example (48) demonstrates, the use of will in a ‘prediction’ sense is not necessarily
related to ‘futurity’.
(48) Find him — he will know who killed the President.
Note that when the speaker uses will, s/he is no less confident than similar
utterances with must, and what differentiates will from must is the absence of a clear
conclusion that is drawn from what s/he has known or observed.4
This section concludes the most frequent type of meaning of ‘validity assessment’
in English, i.e., the system network for the ‘basic validity’. To summarize the
meanings regarding ‘basic validity’, let us observe the whole network for this area of
meaning. This is illustrated in Figure 7.13.
- 149 -
simple O < must
clear
unmarked VX < have, I < to
strong
conclusion re-enforced VX < have, XEx < got, I < to
unmarked O < should

tentative
re-enforced O < ought to
clear O < may

basic
possibility
unmarked O < might
tentative
quasi-ability O < could
prediction O < will
Figure 7.13: The system network for ‘basic validity’
7.3.2 ‘As pseudo-quality of subject theme’
We now come to another set of options for validity assessment that is expressed
by an Auxiliary Verb with its various extensions that constitute a significant pattern in
English grammar. Consider the following example:
(49a) He is sure to be kidding.

(49b) He is likely to be kidding.
(49c) He is certain to be kidding.
(49d) He is bound to be kidding.
(49e) He is set to be kidding.
(49f) He is supposed to be kidding.
- 150 -
From a viewpoint of a functional description of language, we should consider
how a given form of expression contributes to the realization of a particular function in
the clause. Consider the following examples:
(50a) He must be kidding.

(50b) He has got to be kidding.
(50c) He is bound to be kidding.
As Examples of (50a) to (50c) clearly demonstrate, there are semantic similarities

in the meanings of the three underlined portions in the functional structure of the
clause. In other words, the semantically connected relationship between these three
expressions suggests that it is more desirable to treat them as markers of very similar
meanings to each other (i.e., the slightly different types of ‘conclusion’ meanings in
the VALIDITY network), so that all of these three different expressions are generated
from the system network for VALIDITY ASSESSMENT. In light of this functional
approach, Examples (49a) to (49f) and (50b) are analyzed as having the same pattern
of structure, as illustrated in Figure 7.14.
Cl
S O/VX XEx I X M
(49a) He is sure to be kidding.

(49b) He is likely to be kidding.
(49c) He is certain to be kidding.
(49d) He is bound to be kidding.
(49e) He is set to be kidding.
(49f) He is supposed to be kidding.
(50c) He has got to be kidding.
Figure 7.14: A functional syntax of the structure of ‘pseudo-quality of subject theme’
- 151 -
As Figure 7.14 shows, the elements that contribute to express the relevant
‘validity’ meanings are integrated within the structure of the clause that expresses the
substantial proposition. Therefore, all of these underlined items are analyzed as the
direct elements of the clause, — these are represented as the complex structure of the
Validity Auxiliary (VX) and its Extension (XEx) followed by the Infinitive Element (I).
Notice that, in this construction, the items that carry the relevant validity meaning are
particularly those that expound the Auxiliary Extension (XEx), rather than the
Auxiliary Verb which also functions as the Operator. The Auxiliary Extension is
expounded by different classes of items, including adjectives or ‘past participles’, to
express some validity meaning, such as ‘likelihood’, ‘certainty’, ‘boundness’.
However, note also that these validity meanings expressed in the Auxiliary Extension
are not attributed to the Subject Theme, but the whole proposition that the clause
expresses, and this is the reason why we refer to this type of meaning as
‘pseudo-quality of subject theme’ in the system network for VALIDITY
ASSESSMENT.
7.3.3 ‘As perception’
If you choose [validity as perception] in the system network for VALIDITY

ASSESSMENT, you must choose one of the three options of either [unmarked],
[foregrounding appearance] or [from report]. The realizations of these features in the
structure at the level of form will be quite tricky to some. As Figure 7.15 shows,
each feature is realized by the relevant item that may be thought to belong to the class
of the main verb in a traditional grammar.
- 152 -
unmarked VX < seem to
validity as perception foregrounding appearance VX < appear to
from report M < sound
Figure 7.15: The system network for ‘validity as perception’
However, the present analysis in Figure 7.15 suggests that the items expressing
these meanings expound the ‘Validity Auxiliary’ and the Infinitive Element, i.e., to,
both of which are analyzed as the direct element of the clause. In the subsequent
subsections, I will discuss the analysis of the examples in detail.
7.3.3.1 ‘Unmarked’
An example of ‘unmarked validity as perception’ is (51).
(51) Rena seems to be happy.
In the Cardiff Grammar, seem in (51) is regarded as an item that expounds the
Validity Auxiliary, as illustrated in Figure 7.16.
Cl
S VX I M C
Rena seems to be happy.
Figure 7.16: Seem as the Validity Auxiliary
- 153 -
This analysis enables us to account for the semantic similarity to the expressions
such as Rena is likely to be happy, where ‘likelihood’ is expressed in the complex
structure of the conflated Operator/Validity Auxiliary and its Extension plus the
Infinitive element in the clause, as we saw in Section 7.3.2 above. In both instances,
seem to and be likely to express the validity meanings of ‘possibility’. Moreover, the
present analysis will be sustained by looking at the very close relationship between
(52) and (53).
(52) Rena is likely to be happy.

(53) Rena seems likely to be happy.
(53) is slightly less confident than (52), and the function of likely in both
examples is, therefore, analyzed as the XEx — the difference between the two clauses
is that is functions as the Operator as well as the Auxiliary Verb, whereas seem doesn’t.
Yet, by looking at these two examples in parallel, both is and seem carry the same
function to expressing some validity meaning. Thus it is possible to treat them as the
Validity Auxiliary.
7.3.3.2 ‘Foregrounding appearance’
If the speaker decides to choose [foregrounding appearance] it is expressed by

appear as in (54):
(54) He appears to be bored.
The analysis of (54) presents the same structure as that in Figure 7.16. That is,
the item appears in (54) expounds the Validity Auxiliary rather than the Main Verb, as
- 154 -
Cl
S VX I M C
He appears to be bored.
Figure 7.17: appear as the Validity Auxiliary
7.3.3.3 ‘From report’
The option [from report] is similar to both [unmarked] and [foregrounding

appearance], in the sense that a speaker assesses validity of a proposition in terms of
his perception. Here a speaker has access to the source of information which is
typically transmitted to him through a spoken or written communication. It should be
noted, however, that the option [from report] is not realized in the pattern of ‘O/VX +
XEx + I’, the structure of which can be observed in the realization of [unmarked] and
[foregrounding appearance]. That is, for [from report], sound to be is ungrammatical.
Compare Example (55a) and Example (55b) below:
(55a) His advice sounds useful.

(55b) *His advice sounds to be useful.
The comparison of these two examples demonstrates that the option [from report]
is expressed by sound, which is analyzed as the Main Verb in a clause. The analysis
of Example (55) is shown in Figure 7.18.
- 155 -
Cl
S M C
His advice sounds useful.
Figure 7.18: The analysis of sound as the exponent of the Validity Auxiliary
7.3.4 ‘As report’
The system network for ‘validity as report’ provides three major options, i.e., [of
saying], [of thought] and [of feeling]. These meanings are concerned with what is
sometimes termed as a ‘hearsay’ modality, which presupposes ‘evidentiality’ (Palmer
1990: 12). The sources of the ‘evidence’ are usually either ‘linguistic’ or ‘cognitive’
ones, as indicated in the system network for ‘validity as report’ in Figure 7.19.
of saying VX < be said/reported
of thought ... VX < be known/believed/

thought/understood/
seen/assumed/judged
validity as report
acknowledged/
recognized
of feeling VX < felt
Figure 7.19: The system network for ‘validity as report’
I will show some typical examples for each type of meaning below:
- 156 -
(56) He is said / reported to have repaired the computer. [of saying]
(57) He is known / believed / thought to be an ideal leader. [of thought]
(58) He is felt to be rude. [of feeling]
These examples are analyzed in the same way as shown in Figure 7.14, with the
Validity Auxiliary Extension expounded by the items such as said, know, felt.
7.4 Adjunctival validity
‘Adjunctival validity’ expresses meanings in the system network for

ADJUNCTIVAL VALIDITY ASSESSMENT, in which the speaker must choose
options in two systems simultaneously; one that decides the type of adjunctival
validity meaning, and the other that specifies the position of the Adjunct in the clause.5
There are a multitude of options for distinguishing different types of the ‘adjunctival
validity’, which are illustrated in the system network for this area of meaning. Figure
7.20 shows the system network for ADJUNCTIVAL VALIDITY ASSESSMENT, in
which the examples of the realizations of the relevant features are indicated.
- 157 -
S Y S T E M N E T W O R K E X A M P L E
unre-enforced certainly / definitely / doubtlessly

undoubtedly / unquestionably
with certainty re-enforced most / quite / very certanly
doubly re-enforced absolutely / completely certainly
virtual virtually / almost certainly
with near certainty some fairly certainly
seeking confirmation surely e.g., He's there, surely?
much very probably
hopefully great most probably

with probability
considerable quite probably
simple probably / apparently
much very possibly
with possibility considerable quite possibly
simple possibly / perhaps / maybe

validity assessment
specified conceivable conceivably
with slight possibility very slight just possibly
very slightly conceivable just conceivably
ADJUNCTIVAL same information unit Almost certainy Ike loves Ivy.

VALIDITY thematized
separate information unit Almost certainly, Ike loves Ivy.
ASSESSMENT
same information unit She quite definitely loves him.
integrated
separate information unit She, quite definitely, loves him.
potentially new She loves him quite definitely.
supplementary information She loves him, quite definitely.
validity assessment unspecified
Figure 7.20: The system network for ADJUNCTIVAL VALIDITY ASSESSMENT
The items that express these types of meanings are analyzed as a Validity Adjunct,
of which one basic characteristic is that it can occur at different positions in the clause,
as in:
(59) <Certainly> Joe is <certainly> rich <certainly>.
Here the angle brackets indicate ‘mutual incompatibility’ with each other. The
position where the element exactly occurs in the clause is decided by choosing relevant
features, such as either of [thematized], [integrated], [potentially new] and
[supplementary information], in the system network for ADJUNCTIVAL VALIDITY
ASSESSMENT. The realization of these four features are illustrated in the following
- 158 -
examples respectively:
(60) Almost certainly Rena loves Joe. [thematized]

(61) Rena quite definitely loves Joe. [integrated]
(62) Rena loves Joe quite definitely. [potentially new]
(63) Rena loves Joe, quite definitely. [supplementary information]
Notice, however, that (62) is different from (63) by the absence of the punctuation
in the clause if it is written. In a spoken text, different intonation patterns will play
the role of distinguishing the two functions which are symbolized by the backward
slash (╲) indicating a ‘falling tone’:
(64a = 62) Rena loves Joe quite ╲ definitely.

(64b = 63) Rena loves ╲ Joe | quite ╲ definitely.
The vertical line in (64b) indicates the boundary between two ‘tone units’, which
lead to the interpretation of the portion of the Validity Adjunct as expressing
‘supplementary information’.6
7.5 The major ‘superordinated’ options for validity assessment
In Section 7.3 we have seen that the speaker has to choose one of the options of
either [integrated] or [superordinated] at the initial choice in the traversal of the system
network for VALIDITY ASSESSMENT. As I mentioned in that section, the major
characteristic in the ‘superordinated’ type of the validity meanings is that it is
expressed in a higher clause so that a substantial clause is expressed in an embedded
clause that fills the Complement of a higher clause. Figure 7.21 shows the major
options that are dependent on the feature [superordinated].7
- 159 -
as quality of attribute
as qualifier of abstract thing

superordinated
as report ...
as event
Figure 7.21: The major options for ‘superordinated’ clause
The system network for ‘superordinated validity’ in Figure 7.21 shows that there
are four different types of meaning which are in turn expressed in four different
patterns of structure. Now I will examine the meaning which is referred to as ‘quality
of attribute’ in the Cardiff Grammar.
7.5.1 ‘As quality of attribute’
As the term ‘quality of attribute’ implies, an attributive adjective, such as possible,

is used as in:
(63) It is possible that Rena loves Joe.
The structure of the clause in (63) is analyzed as illustrated in Figure 7.22.
- 160 -
Cl
Sit O/M C/At C/Ca

Cl
B S M C
It is possible that Rena loves Joe.
Key to additional terms: Sit = Empty Subject At = Attribite

Ca = Carrier B = Binder
Figure 7.22: An analysis of a clause with an embedded clause
7.5.2 ‘As quality of abstract thing’
The next option, which is referred to as [validity as quality of abstract thing], is

typically expressed in a construction of an ‘existential’ clause with an embedded
that-clause. Consider the following example:
(64) There is a possibility that Rena loves Joe.
As Example (64) illustrates, a substantive proposition (i.e., Rena loves Joe) is

expressed in the embedded clause, which functions as a ‘qualifier’ in a nominal group.
Figure 7.23 shows the analysis of (64).
- 161 -
Cl
Sth O/M C/Ca

ngp
dq h q
Cl
B S M C
There is a possibility that Rena loves Joe.
Key to additional terms: Sth = Empty there Subject ngp = nominal group
dq = quantifing determiner h = head q =qualifier
Figure 7.23: An analysis of a clause with a ‘qualifier of abstract thing’
7.5.3 ‘As report’
If the speaker chooses the feature [as report], it enters another dependent system,
where [personalized] and [depersonalized] are distinguished, as illustrated in Figure
7.24.
personalized
as report
depersonalized
Figure 7.24: The distinction of [personalized] vs. [depersonalized]
[Personalized] explicitly indicates the ‘reporter’ in the clause with a relevant verb
expressing the ‘report’ meaning, such as say in the following example:
- 162 -
(65) They say that Rena loves Joe.
On the other hand, a ‘depersonalized’ clause does not show a ‘reporter’ overtly,
by using the ‘Empty Subject’ followed by a verb which is ‘passivized’, as in:
(66) It is said that Rena loves Joe.
The analyses of (65) and (66) are illustrated in Figure 7.25 and Figure 7.26,
respectively.
Cl
S M C/Ph
Cl
B S M C
(65) They say that Rena loves Joe.
Key to additional terms: Ph = Phenomenon
Figure 7.25: A clause expressing ‘personalized’ report
- 163 -
Cl
Sit O/Xpa M C/Ph

Cl
B S M C
(66) It is said that Rena loves Joe.
Key to additional terms: Xpa =Passive Auxiliary
Figure 7.26: The structure of a ‘depersonalized’ clause
7.5.4 ‘As pseudo-process’
The final option is expressed in a fairly fixed frame of ‘it goes (without saying)
that …’, in which an element that has not been introduced in this thesis is used, i.e., the
Extension of the Main Verb (or the Main Verb Extension = MEx) that is elaborated by
an embedded clause with very limited elements in it. (67) is an example of this type
of meaning:
(67) It goes without saying that Rena loves Joe.
The analysis of (67) is shown in Figure 7.27.
- 164 -
Cl
Sit M MEx C/Ca

Cl Cl
B M B S M C
It goes without saying that Rena loves Joe.
Key to additional terms: MEx = Main Verb Extension
Figure 7.27: A clause with a Main Verb and its Extension expressing a validity
meaning
This chapter has explored a large area of meaning that is concerned with the
expressions of ‘validity assessment’ in English, by looking at the lexicogrammatical
patterns of them at the level of both meaning and form. The description that I have
presented in this chapter is, by and large, based on the descriptive model in the
framework of the Cardiff Grammar, as developed in the COMMUNAL Project under
the direction of Robin Fawcett and other scholars, including Gordon Tucker, Malcolm
Hood, and Abunowara, in particular.
As we have seen, the modal verbs, which would have been particularly studied by
numerous scholars in previous works in terms of the single category of ‘modality’ in
both systemic and non-systemic approaches, do in fact carry several meanings that are
generated from different system networks at the level of meaning. If we focus on the
functions of the modal verbs in English, we have seen four areas of meaning, i.e.,
those of some ‘MOOD’ meanings, some ‘time’ meanings, ‘validity assessment’ and
- 165 -
‘control and disposition’, the last of which meaning is the focus of the study in the
next chapter.
Moreover, we have seen that each of these four areas of meanings is not confined
to the generation of the modal verbs but various other forms. We have observed that
at least the classes of adjective, noun, verb and adverb can be involved in the
description of the lexicogrammar of the expressions of ‘validity assessment’, yet none
of the previous studies has in fact provided us with a satisfactory account for the
relationships between these expressions from a systemic functional viewpoint.
In the next chapter, I will examine the lexicogrammar of what is termed ‘control
and disposition’ types of meaning and their expressions in detail.
- 166 -
Notes
1
For further detail of the ‘enhanced theme constructions’, see Fawcett and Huang
(1995).
2
The same clause may be interpreted in a totally different way, i.e., it is a negation of
situation in the clause with clear possibility. In this case, the clause may be
paraphrased, with the least difference in meaning from the given clause, as ‘it is
possible that Joe is not crazy’. See Section 7.4.1.2 for further detail.
3
In formal English, however, the use of can is sometimes avoided. Instead, may is
preferred for both meanings.
4
According to Hood (1997), will indicates about 97 - 98 percentage values of the
degree of confidence on the ‘validity strength scale’, which is equivalent to that of
must.
5
See Ball (2002) for fuller analysis of the lexicogrammar of Adjuncts in English.
6
It is beyond the present thesis to pursue the intonation systems of English. See
Tench (1997) for fuller analysis of the phenomena in SFL.
7
The system network is based on Abunowara (1996: 211).
- 167 -
CHAPTER EIGHT
CONTROL AND DISPOSITION
8.1 Introduction
In this chapter, we will consider the various forms of expression in English which
realize the features in the system network for the area of meaning which is referred to
as ‘CONTROL AND DISPOSITION’ in the framework of the Cardiff Grammar
(Fawcett in press). According to Fawcett (in press: Chapter 4), the ‘control’ types of
meaning include various sources and degrees of ‘power’ that influence upon people
and events, and the ‘disposition’ types are concerned with certain ways of expressing
the ‘disposition’ of an object, whatever it is — a person, an institute or a nonliving
thing — that is expressed in the Subject of the clause. These two types of meaning
are roughly equivalent to Halliday’s ‘modulation’ in Halliday (1970b), and I will
borrow the term ‘modulation’ as a short term for the system network for this area of
meaning. As I mentioned in Section 7.3.4 in Chapter 7, however, the meanings of
‘control and disposition’ (i.e., ‘C&D’, for short) are not integrated with those of
‘validity assessment’ into a single system network for ‘MODALITY’ as type of
‘interpersonal metafunction’, as they are in Halliday’s description of the equivalent
areas of meaning in IFG. As we will shortly see, it will be argued that ‘control and
disposition’ are types of ‘experiential’ meaning in the present study.
- 168 -
8.2 An overview of the major forms expressing ‘control and disposition’
Let us begin by looking at some typical expressions of various types of ‘control

and disposition’, which will be considered in terms of Systemic Functional perspective
in this chapter. This label of ‘control and disposition’ gives a better sense of the types
of meaning involved than Halliday’s more abstract term ‘modulation’ (though this is
also used at times for brevity, e.g., in the entry condition to the sub-networks, as we
will see in Section 8.4 below.
(1) She must water the plant everyday, or it won’t bloom.

(2) She had better see a doctor soon.
(3) She was forced to confess her sins.
(4) She was willing to help them.
(5) She wanted to eat an apple.
(6) She has an obligation to assure the safety of them.
(7) It is important that she arrive promptly at 9:00.
(8) It is necessary for her to return the book tomorrow.
(9) We have found it necessary to adjust certain prices.
(10) There was an obligation on members to subscribe.
(11) It is her duty to assure the safety of them.
The underlined parts from Examples (1) to (6) are those that realize some
‘integrated’ types of modulation in the clause. The ‘integrated’ types include
expressions which function as the elements of structure within the clause, in which a
substantial proposition is conveyed. Examples from (7) to (11), on the other hand,
illustrate forms of expression which have to do with ‘superordinated’ types. The
‘superordinated’ types are ones which function in a higher clause than another clause
at which the body of a proposition is expressed. If we look at these examples listed
above, a modal verb in (1) is only one of various ways of expressing different types of
modulation. In Example (1), must is analyzed as the Operator, a direct element of the
- 169 -
clause, which carries a ‘basic’ function to express a particular type of ‘modulation’
meaning. Thus, the item must means either a type of validity assessment or a type of
modulation, yet, at the level of form, it is analyzed as the Operator, whichever meaning
is expressed. Indeed, there is a similarity between validity assessment and
modulation, in that those two semantically disparate areas of meaning in fact have
similar options in the system network for each, and such options in each system
network are realized by the same items, viz. modal verbs and some auxiliary verbs,
which, as a consequence, bring about an ambiguity of them in a certain context.
A clause which includes a modal verb expressing a certain type of modulation,
such as an ‘important’ type of ‘basic obligation’ as in (1), can be analyzed as in Figure
8.1:
Cl
S O M C A
She must water the plant everyday
Figure 8.1: A clause with a modal verb expressing a type of modulation
However, note that there is no reason for suggesting that validity assessment and
modulation are integrated into a single area of meaning, such as ‘modality’, only
because both types may be realized by the same form, viz. the modal verb, such as
must, as compared in (12a) and (12b) below:
(12a) She must water the plant everyday, or it won’t bloom. [control: obligation]
(12b) She must be tired after the long journey. [validity: conclusion]
- 170 -
By observing the fact that in English the same ‘modal’ form can be used to
express either ‘root’ or ‘epistemic’ meanings, Sweetser (1990:50) suggests that “modal
verbs do not have separate unrelated senses, but rather show an extension of the basic
root-sense to the epistemic domain”. However, Palmer (1986:125) points out that
Sweetser fails to account for variations in syntactically related or similar forms, and
does not account for variations in the negatives. Do we have to integrate the
meanings of ‘passive’, ‘progressive aspect’, and a certain type of ‘future tense’ into a
single category simply because the same form of an auxiliary verb, be is used in order
to express these meanings? It might be argued that Sweetser’s claim is convincing as
long as the interpretation of modal verbs is concerned, but she ignores various forms of
expression other than the modal verbs, such as those illustrated in (3) to (11) above,
which do not function as the Operator in the clause at the level of form, yet the
functions which they serve are in fact very closely related to the modal verbs at the
level of meaning. Therefore, it is quite unclear as to how far her interpretation of the
‘root modality’, as an extension of ‘epistemic modality’, is relevant to the analysis of
various ‘non-modal verb’ expressions. For example, the expression is bound to in
(13) can be used to convey a certain type of ‘obligation’ meaning, as we will shortly
see. Note here that these items can be replaced by the modal verb must, because it
conveys a very similar meaning to that of is bound to, i.e., an ‘obligation’ meaning, as
in:
(13) She is bound to water the plant everyday, or it won’t bloom.
Thus, in the Cardiff Grammar, the underlined part in (13) is analyzed as an

expression of a certain type of ‘obligation’, and it is realized as the configuration of an
Auxiliary Verb (X) plus its Extension (XEx) followed by the Infinitive Element (I).
That is, in a construction as in (13), an adjective carries the feature which plays a
central role of distinguishing one type of ‘control’ meaning from another, and the
Auxiliary Verb, which is expounded by the particular form of be, does not express the
validity meaning at all by itself. Moreover, it should be noted here that the use of the
- 171 -
same pattern of structure can be found in English, as we have seen in the chapter for
VALIDITY ASSESSMENT, such as ‘be [VX] said [XEx] to [I]’ as type of ‘reported’
meaning of validity. Thus in the functional description of English, it is necessary to
explicitly show the function that the particular elements serve in the clause. In
expressing MODULATION, as in is bound to in (13), an adjective bound expresses a
particular type of ‘obligation’ meaning (here, ‘obligation as state’) as an extension of
the C&D Auxiliary. The Auxiliary Verb which introduces its Extension to express
some ‘control and disposition’ meaning is explicitly labeled as ‘CX’ in the structure of
the clause. Figure 8.2 shows an analysis of (13):
Cl
S O/CX XEx I M C A
She is bound to water the plant everyday
Figure 8.2: A clause with a MODULATION meaning expressed in the C&D Auxiliary
(CX) and its Extension (XEx)
In addition, we will look at another example, which is to be analyzed with regard

to the relevant feature in the system network for MODULATION. For instance,
‘obligation’ may also be expressed in the frame of ‘it is …to …’, as in (14a), where the
substantial function of expressing the meaning is indicated in the Complement of the
matrix clause which is filled by the nominal group (i.e., her duty) as in:
(14a) It is her duty to water the plant everyday.
- 172 -
The syntactic structure of (14a) is illustrated in Figure 8.3 below:
Cl
Sit O/M C/At C/Ca

ngp Cl
I M C A
ngp
dd h dd h
It is her duty to water the plant everyday
Figure 8.3: A clause with a nominal group expressing ‘obligation’ as an ‘enhanced

theme’
Interestingly, as the analysis of (14a) in Figure 8.3 demonstrates, the person who
undertakes an obligation is expressed in the ‘deictic determiner’ (represented as ‘dd’ in
Figure 8.3) in the nominal group, even though it conveys a feature of ‘agentivity’,
which will usually be expressed in the Subject at the level of form.
According to Huang (1996:73), the syntactic frame of It is … contributes to
creating a ‘thematic buildup’, and ‘the effect of using it be is to enhance the theme’.
In order to clarify the concept of the ‘enhanced theme’, let us compare (14a) with
(14b) as follows:
(14b) To water the plant everyday is her duty.
- 173 -
The analysis of the syntactic structure of (14b) is shown in Figure 8.4.
Cl
S/Ca O/M C/At

Cl ngp
I M C A
ngp
dd h dd h
To water the plant everyday is her duty
Figure 8.4: An analysis of a clause with a relational process
Figure 8.4 illustrates an analysis of Example (14b), in which the Carrier is

conflated with the Subject as ‘S/Ca’, and the Attribute is conflated with the
Complement as ‘C/At’, and these two elements of the clause, i.e., ‘S/Ca’ and ‘C/At’,
are expected by a Process of being, which is regarded as an item expounding the Main
Verb, which is, once again, conflated with the Operator at the level of form. The
structure of Example (14b), then, is a simple clause with a ‘relational process’, to use
the terminology in Systemic Functional Grammar, as represented by ‘S/Ca + O/M +
C/At’, and the Subject is ‘filled’ by an embedded clause, instead of a nominal group, as
an incongruent representation of an ‘object’ which the element refers to.
We can now compare (14a) and (14b), and consider what is common and what is
different between the two Examples in functional terms. On the one hand, in view of
a basic property which the two Examples have in common, both types convey the
same experiential content of the proposition, because the two Participant Roles in each
example refer to the same ‘object’ (i.e., ‘to water the plant’, represented as ‘Carrier’,
and ‘her duty’, as ‘At’), and no experiential meaning is newly introduced to (14a),
although additional markers of ‘thematic build-up’ is used.
- 174 -
On the other hand, a significant difference between the two instances will be
considered in terms of the notion of ‘information structure’. 1 In (14b), the
relationship between the two Participant Roles is one of ‘class inclusion’ (Huang and
Fawcett 1996:184), i.e., the referent of an Attribute is included in the class of the group,
which is expressed in the Carrier in the clause. In (14b), the Attribute carries the
status of ‘new information’. In (14a), on the other hand, her duty is given the status
of the ‘enhanced theme’, which is introduced to the addressee with a prominence of
the informational status of ‘contrastively new’, by using the ‘thematic build-up’, i.e., It
is.
It is true that the item it in this type of construction does not convey an
experiential meaning, as it is referred to as a ‘dummy subject’ in a ‘cleft-construction’
in some formalist approaches; to use the terms in our framework, no Participant Role
is conflated with the Subject, which is directly expounded by it. As Huang points out,
however, the item it in fact carries two functions of (i) signaling the ‘thematic buildup’
to the addressee and (ii) contributing to the expression of MOOD by its presence as the
Subject of the matrix clause. In the Cardiff Grammar, the type of construction which
contains the ‘enhanced theme’, as in (14a), is specifically referred to as an
‘experiential enhanced theme construction’. In Section 8.10, we will see the system
network which generates types of enhanced theme constructions.
If we consider variations in the forms of expression which may be used to express
MODULATION, we can look at another example, which is related to (14a) as an
instance of the ‘enhanced theme construction’, while here the element which is
‘enhanced’ is expressed by another class of item, i.e., an adjective, as in:
(15) It is necessary (for her) to water the plant everyday.
(15) shows a similar structure to (14a), in that the adjective necessary in (15)
directly expounds the Attribute, which is conflated with the Complement as an
enhanced theme, which is followed by another Complement. However, here the first
Complement which is expounded by the adjective expresses a ‘quality’, which can
- 175 -
consist of a ‘quality group’ filling the Complement. Consider the following example:
(16) It is absolutely necessary (for her) to water the plant everyday.
(16) is analyzed as in Figure 8.5 below.
Cl
Sit O/M C/At C/Ca

qlgp Cl
(B S) I M C A
ngp
t a dd h
It is absolutely necessary (for her) to water the plant everyday
Key to additional items: B = Binder, qlgp = quality group, t = temperer, a = apex
Figure 8.5: An analysis of the quality group which fills the C/At as an enhanced theme
By observing those expressions considered above, I will argue that the modal
verbs are, on the one hand, polysemic, and the same form can be generated from
different system networks, e.g., either from the system network for VALIDITY
ASSESSMENT in the ‘validity’ strand of meaning or from the MODULATION
network in the ‘experiential’ strand of meaning. On the other hand, the features in the
MODULATION network are realized by different expressions at the level of form, and
the use of the modal verb is merely one of various ways of expressing the features in
the same area of meaning, viz modulation in the experiential strand of meaning. As
we have seen, the speaker can use almost all lexicogrammatical resources for
- 176 -
expressing the features in the system network of MODULATION in English.
So far, we have seen at least twelve syntactic patterns which express different
types of modulation in English, which can be classified into two broad types of
‘control’ and ‘disposition’. We have also seen analyses of some examples presented
above, by using the framework the Cardiff Grammar. As I have demonstrated in
those analyses, the semantic system for MODULATION should not be underestimated
as a small category for interpreting the meanings of the modal verbs. In the
following sections, I will investigate a functional analysis of the lexicogrammar of the
various forms of expression for modulation in English.
8.3 Entering the system network for ‘CONTROL AND DISPOSITION’
As I mentioned above, the system network for CONTROL AND DISPOSITION

(or simply ‘MODULATION’, to use Halliday’s term) provides a resource for
expressing a type of experiential meaning in English, and it particularly has to do with
the speaker’s construal of the world of experience in terms of either ‘power’ of
controlling a person or an event in certain ways, or different kinds of ‘disposition’ or
‘volition’ of what is referred to in the Subject of the clause.
In Halliday (1970b), it is claimed that ‘modality’ (i.e., an equivalent to ‘validity
assessment’ in the Cardiff Grammar) is different from modulation in terms of tense;
the former itself has no tense, whereas the latter has their complete set of tenses.
Halliday points out that the difference between ‘modality’ and modulation with respect
to the tense system is observed because they serve different functions in the clause.
Halliday (1970b:342) states:
- 177 -
… in modality and modulation, we have to do with two different systems
which are at the same time in some sense semantically alike. […]
Modality is a system derived from the ‘interpersonal’ function of
language, expressing the speaker’s assessment of probabilities. It is
therefore not subject to variations or constraints of tense or polarity
[…] The system which we have called ‘modulation’ is very different: it
is ideational in function, and expresses factual conditions on the process
expressed in the clause.
By using ‘modulation’, the speaker expresses a certain aspect of a world as part of

the experiential content of the clause with reference to a particular time reference
position, whereas ‘modality’ in the validity sense serves the function of conveying the
speaker’s assessment of validity, which is external to the experiential content in the
clause.2 Halliday’s position in his 1970’s paper leads us to conclude that we have
three versions of system networks for MODULATION, and each system network is
dependent on the relevant feature in the network for TIME REFERENCE POSITION,
i.e., one of ‘present’, ‘past’ and ‘future’, respectively. The following section will
illustrate how the system network for MODULATION is entered from the features in
the system network for TIME REFERENCE POSITION.
As we discussed in Section 2, a speaker can use different forms of expression to
convey different types of meaning which are in fact systemically related to each other
from a functional point of view. For instance, different forms, such as must, have to,
be forced to, there is an obligation on … to …, may all express different types of
‘obligation’, which are described in the system network for MODULATION. Note
that these kinds of variations allow a speaker to choose, of his own accord, the
appropriate meaning, consciously or unconsciously, so that he can express the accurate
experiential content by using a relevant form. However, there is another type of
variation regarding the forms, which is in fact ‘predetermined’ by the choice of the
relevant feature in the system network for TIME REFERENCE POSITION. That is,
if the speaker chooses a certain time reference position, the form which realizes
‘obligation’ is predetermined by the relevant time reference position. Consider the
following examples:
- 178 -
(16a) She must take English lessons.
(16b) She had to take English lessons (when she was a student).
(16a) illustrates the use of the modal verb in the sense of ‘obligation’, or precisely
‘important’, to use a more ‘delicate’ option for the item, with the present time
reference position. If we look at Example (16b), however, it demonstrates that the
past tense form of have to, i.e., had to, is used to express a type of ‘obligation’. This
is not simply due to the fact that there is no ‘past tense form’ of must; one might
conclude that must may be used to express ‘obligation’ with past time reference
position without changing its form, by analogy with the fact that must can be used to
express a type of ‘obligation’ laid on an event in the future, as exemplified in (17)
below:
(17) She must take English lessons when she becomes a high school student next year.
It should be noted here that a form of expression, such as must have [Main
Verb]-en/ed, cannot be used to express any type of ‘obligation’ at all, as illustrated in
(19) below:
(18) They must have learned English (when they were students).
If we compare (18) with (16b), had to in (16b) may express either a type of
validity assessment or a type of ‘obligation’, but must have learned in (18), cannot be
interpreted as expressing an ‘obligation’ which was laid in the past; it only expresses
validity assessment. In other words, as Example (18) indicates, if the validity
assessment is realized by the Operator which is directly expounded by must at the level
of form, the item itself does not need to change its form even if the clause expresses a
situation in the past or in the future, whereas must is replaced by had to if the speaker
has chosen a feature of a past time reference position to express a type of ‘obligation’.
Consequently, in English, there are three versions of system networks for
- 179 -
MODULATION, and the speaker enters the relevant system network for
MODULATION depending on the particular feature of time which has been chosen
from the system network for TIME REFERENCE POSITION. In other words, the
relationship between TIME REFERENCE POSITION and MODULATION is one of
‘dependence’, and the entrance to the relevant system network for MODULATION is
‘pre-selected’ by the particular feature of time reference position at the level of
meaning. Figure 8.6 illustrates the system network for TIME REFERENCE
POSITION as entry to MODULATION.
S Y S T E M N E T W O R K EXAMPLES
unmodulated present She lives here

real present
modulated present to 'modulated present' She can swim
present trp
hypothetical present
unmodulated past She lived here

real past
modulated past to 'modulated past' She could swim by the age of 5
past trp
hypothetical past
information
full dependent
unmodulated future She will live here
real future
modulated future to 'modulated future' She may live here next year
TIME
future trp (permission)
REFERENCE
POSITION
hypothetical future
time position recoverable (I like) my coffee black
others ...
Figure 8.6: The simplified system network for TIME REFERENCE POSITION as
entry to MODULATION
Figure 8.6 provides an initial step towards entering a MODULATION network,

namely, the choice of whether or not to express a certain type of modulation, which is
dependent on a particular time reference position. In the next sections, I will firstly
show an overview of the major types of meaning regarding modulation, and then, I
- 180 -
will discuss in detail the lexicogrammar of various forms of expression for this broad
type of meaning, with special reference to the system networks for MODULATION in
the framework of the Cardiff Grammar.
8.4 An overview of the system network for MODULATION (i.e., ‘CONTROL

AND DISPOSITION’)
In this section, I will provide an overview of the system network for

MODULATION. As I mentioned in the previous section, there are three versions of
the system network for MODULATION, and the appropriate one is pre-selected by
choosing a particular feature of time reference position in the ‘TIME’ network for
English. Figure 8.7 illustrates a generalized system network for MODULATION,
which includes a classification of major options dependent on any versions of
MODULATION.
- 181 -
obligation ...
control by
authority
permission ...
ability ...
disposition of
subject theme willingness ...
modulated present
modulated future insistence ...
modulated past
(others) requirement ...
inherent nature
quasi-ability ...
no secondary modulation
plus secondary modulation
Figure 8.7: A generalized system network for MODULATION
Here the reader should be reminded that a curly bracket indicates that two (or
more) dependent systems are entered simultaneously through the traversal of the
network. Therefore, if a speaker enters the system network for MODULATION from
any features on which it depends, then a speaker must choose simultaneously both (i)
one of three options of either [control by authority], [disposition of subject theme] or
[inherent nature], and (ii) either [no secondary modulation] or [plus secondary
modulation]. Figure 8.8 shows the first step in traversal of the network for
MODULATION with some examples which are associated with the relevant options in
it.
- 182 -
SYSTEM NETWORK EXAMPLES
control by authority ... She has to leave
disposition of subject theme ... She is willing to leave
modulated inherent nature ... Plants must have water
no secondary modulation ... [as above]
plus secondaty modulation ... She has to be willing to leave
Figure 8.8: The first choices in ‘modulated’ meaning with their typical examples
In the following sections, I will analyze the expressions of ‘modulated’ meanings in

English, and examine in detail the system network for this broad area of meaning by
drawing on examples at various points. The reader may be encouraged to refer to the
overall structure in Figure 8.6 at some points so that he/she can see where we are
currently drawing attention.
8.5 ‘Control by authority’
Along with [disposition of subject theme], [control by authority] is one of the

options which is by far the most frequently chosen in MODULATION. Note that the
meaning of ‘control by authority’ refers to a ‘power’ which resides within some
external authority, which lays an obligation on or gives permission to someone or
something to do something. This feature leads to further choices of meaning, i.e.,
either [obligation] or [permission], as set out in Figure 8.9:
- 183 -
obligation ... Joe is obliged to stay here

control by
authority
permission ... Joe is allowed to stay here
Figure 8.9: The options in [control by authority]
8.5.1 ‘Obligation’ in ‘modulated present’
The most frequent type of ‘obligation’ meaning is expressed through particular

classes of items, such as modal verbs. Since these items operate at the same layer of
the structure as other direct elements of the clause, such as the Subject, the
Complements, the Adjuncts, they are regarded as an element realizing an ‘integrated’
meaning with other elements from major semantic components in English, such as
TRANSITIVITY. Here are a few examples of ‘integrated’ types of ‘obligation’,
which are, as you may have noticed, expressed in the same forms as those in some
‘validity’ senses, namely, both types use the Operator or some Auxiliary Verbs and
their Extensions to express the relevant meanings, as illustrated below:
(19) Rena must see a doctor regularly.

(20) Joe is obliged to surrender.
(21) They are requested to lie.
(22) He is supposed to decline their invitation.
Example (19) demonstrates a typical way in which a ‘basic’ meaning is expressed

through a modal verb, which directly expounds the Operator at the level of form.
Examples from (20) to (22) illustrate the use of items as an Auxiliary Extension (which
is represented as ‘XEx’) in the same way. The structure of (20), (21) and (22) are
analyzed as in Figure 8.10.
- 184 -
Cl
S O/CX XEx I M C A
(20) Joe is obliged to go alone

(21) They are requested to lie
(22) He is supposed to decline their invitation
Figure 8.10: An analysis of clauses with Auxiliary Verbs and their Extension
As the system network in Figure 8.11 indicates, these three Examples show
different types of ‘obligation’ meaning in terms of the source of authority implied in
the utterance. For instance, (20) would be read as ‘Joe is (in the state of being)
obliged to go alone, because he has no friends to go together’. Example (21), on the
other hand, may presuppose someone’s request, which is actually made in some way or
other. If we follow such interpretation, the clause may be read as ‘they are requested
to lie, because their boss says so’. Finally, an interpretation of (22) will be obtained
by considering a circumstance which affects the addressee, so that the proposition at
hand is achieved; it can be read as ‘he is supposed to decline their invitation, because
he is to attend a meeting in his office on the same day’.
Therefore, it is true that these three examples are analyzed in the same way
regarding the syntactic structure in the clause, but the meanings which they realize are
distinguished into three different types of meaning.
Finally, consider the following example:
(23) It is obligatory for her to stay here.
- 185 -
As we have seen in Section 8.2, Example (23) is clearly an example of a
‘superordinated’ type of modulation, which is ‘enhanced’ to the higher clause by the
‘thematic build-up’ of it is. The clause conveying a substantial proposition is
embedded in the Complement of a superordinated clause, i.e., it [S] is [O/M]
obligatory [C/At] for her to stay here [C/Ca]. The superordinated types of obligation
meaning will be examined in Section 8.10.
Figure 8.11 illustrates the system network for these meanings considered in this
section.
basic ... Rena must be careful
as state Joe is obliged to go alone

integrated
via directive They are requested to lie
obligation
from arrangement He is supposed to decline their invitation
superordinated ... It is necessary for her to stay here
Figure 8.11: The features dependent on [obligation]
8.5.1.1 ‘Basic obligation’
The ‘basic’ option is the one that is usually selected more frequently than other
‘obligation’ meanings. Generally speaking, options which are dependent on the
‘basic’ meaning are typically realized by the Operator, and so expounded by a modal
verb at the level of form, but they in fact include ones which predetermine the use of
an Auxiliary Verb (and its Extension, if necessary), such as have (got) to. If a speaker
enters this feature, there are further options of [important], [necessary to achieve goal]
and [simple], as illustrated in Figure 8.12.
- 186 -
SYSTEM NETWORK REALIZATIONS
important O < must
necessary to achieve goal O < need, I < to

basic
unmarked CX < have, I < to
simple
re-enforced CX < have, XEx < got, I < to
Figure 8.12: Options dependent on the ‘basic’ meaning
The following are examples which include expressions of obligation meaning

depending on the ‘basic’ option.
(24) Rena must be careful.

(25) They need to sleep well.
(26) Joe has to work hard.
(27) Joe has got to work hard.
Note that examples here express ‘obligation’ dependent on present as their time
reference position, but not on the meaning of future. In most cases, the meaning
conveyed by must in the ‘obligation’ sense, as in (24), expresses that something is
thought to be necessary or important to be done by someone.
- 187 -
8.5.1.1.1 Need (to)
Example (25) presents a problem, when we decide whether need is analyzed as an

Auxiliary or as a Main Verb. Compare the followings:
(28a=25) They need to sleep well.

(28b) They don’t need to sleep well.
(28c) Need they sleep well?
(28d) No, they needn’t (sleep well).
What is happening to Examples (28a) to (28d) is that the item need functions as
either an Operator, as in (28c) and (28d), or a Main Verb, as in (28a) and (28b).
According to Fawcett (forthcoming a), it is more used as a Main Verb rather than as an
Operator in Modern English, but the fact is that many speakers of English do not
necessarily use it in a coherent way. Table 8.1 shows a summary of the variants of
need both as the Main Verb (M) and as the Operator (O) in accordance with the
relevant features in MOOD and polarity, which are co-selected as conditioning
features so that the appropriate forms of need are generated.
information giver
polarity seeker
positive negative
modern usage He needs to go He doesn't need Does he need to
(as M) to go go?
fading usage He needs to go He needn't go Need he go?

(as O)
Table 8.1: Modern and fading usages of need as the Main Verb or the Operator
(Fawcett in press: Chapter 4)
- 188 -
From a historical perspective, the basic function of need is clearly derived from a
Main Verb, as in I need water. However, what is ‘needed’ is very likely a ‘situation’
rather than an ‘object’, and this promoted it to functioning as the Operator in the clause,
so that the function of the item has been developed to expressing a type of
‘modulation’ meaning, i.e., the meaning of ‘necessary to achieve goal’ in this case, as
shown in Figure 8.12. In this sense, the fact that there is a tendency of the fading
usage of need as the Operator in Modern English seems to counter the trend towards
the ‘grammaticalization’ (i.e., the development from lexical to grammatical forms), yet
it has not gone far enough to function as a full lexical verb. Consequently, for text
analysis, one has to guess whether the speaker intends to use the item as the Operator
or as the Main Verb, by observing any available clues, such as the speaker’s age or his
social class.
8.5.1.1.2 Have (got) to
Have to and have got to express both validity assessment and obligation, and we
are interested in the latter interpretation for our current discussion. Compare the
following examples:
(29) They must bow quietly in the shrine.

(30) They have to bow quietly in the shrine.
If we assume that the underlined parts in both (29) and (30) express ‘obligation’
meanings instead of ‘validity’, the crucial difference between the two examples lies in
the presence or absence of a particular authority, which is implied in these forms.
When the speaker uses must, on the one hand, it usually implies the involvement of
authority, and in many cases, the authority is the speaker. On the other hand, have to
refers to compulsion or necessity without implying such particular kind of source, so
that it can be used in a wider context. In light of this property of have to, the meaning
- 189 -
of the item is referred to as the ‘unmarked’ type of ‘simple’ meaning, which is
dependent on ‘basic obligation’ in modulated present.
The other option in ‘simple’ meaning is referred to as ‘re-enforced’, which is
realized in the form have got to, as in:
(31) Rena has got to be here by 6:00 PM.
Have got to is different from have to in several respects; have got to is normally
more casual than have to, and thus it is often used in colloquial texts. Another
significant difference between them is that have got to cannot be used when it is used
as a ‘secondary modulation’, as in:
(32) *Joe will have got to pick me up on his way to the party.
The system network for the ‘secondary modulation’ will be examined in detail in
Section 8.11.
8.5.1.2 ‘As state’
The meaning of ‘authority as state’ can be ‘neutralized’ by using items, such as

bound to, obliged to, required to, as illustrates in:
(33) He is obliged to stay away from his wife.

(34) Rena is required to stop smoking.
The structure of these items are analyzed as those expounding the ‘control’
auxiliary and its Extension. See Figure 8.12 for an analysis of this type of expression
in the clause.
- 190 -
8.5.1.3 ‘Via directive’
This meaning is expressed by using the set of ‘directive’ verbs which involve an
‘influential’ function on the addressee to do something. In other words, these lexical
verbs report an order, a request, a warning, a prohibition or a requirement, from an
authority which is not, in many cases, explicitly mentioned. Typical examples of
these meanings are illustrated as follows:
(35) Joe is requested to guide the tourist.

(36) She is asked to manage their salary.
(37) They are persuaded to ignore him.
(38) Rena is warned to see a doctor.
(39) Only members are authorized to offer a paper at the conference.
8.5.1.4 ‘From arrangement’
This feature is associated with an obligation which is determined by a fate or a

destiny, which is quite similar, semantically, to the type of ‘from plan’, that will be
considered in Section 8.5.2.1.5. A few examples of this meaning is given below:
(40) He is due to organize an international conference.

(41) The interviewees are bound to answer the question.
(42) Caddies are supposed to carry the bags, not play the course.
(43) The teacher is meant to encourage her students.
- 191 -
8.5.1.5 Variants of forms realizing ‘basic obligations’ in present modulation
It is the complexity of the variant forms of modal verbs that will be one of the
great difficulties for scholars in describing English, when they analyze the
lexicogrammar of these items in accordance with some conditioning features, such as
‘time reference position’, ‘polarity’, and ‘direct’ versus ‘reported’ meanings as types of
speech. Table 8.2 catalogues the possible forms of variants of the modal verbs, which
will occur in the clause under the relevant conditions presented at the upper right
columns.
For instance, if the speaker has chosen the feature [necessity to achieve goal]
dependent on ‘modulated present’, and if it is negated in reported speech, it is realized
by didn’t need to, as in:
(44) You said he didn’t need to be here by ten o’clock.
But if the same meaning has been chosen under the condition of ‘situation-negative’ in
direct speech, it will be as follows:
(45) She can’t / cannot / mayn’t / may not eat chocolates.
The interpretation of Example (45) would be ‘she is not permitted to eat chocolates’.
On the other hand, however, if it is modulation that is negated, it should be interpreted
as denoting ‘she is permitted not to eat chocolates’, as illustrated in Example (46):
(46) She needn’t / need not eat chocolates.
- 192 -
present trp, factual
direct reported
negative negative
positive positive
modulation situation modulation situation
important must - - - - -
necessity to achieve goal need to need can't needed to didn't need needed
basic
n't/not cannot to not to/
mayn't to not
may not
... obligation
unmarked has/have to has/have to - had to didn't have had to
to ... not
simple
re-enforced has/have has/have - had had had got
(others) got to n't/not got got to n't/not not to
to got to
Table 8.2: Variants of forms realizing ‘basic’ meanings in modulated present
8.5.2 ‘Obligation’ in ‘modulated future’
In the ‘obligation’ meanings dependent on future time reference position, richer

options are provided than those available in ‘modulated present’ and ‘modulated
future’. The overall structure of the system network considered in this section is
shown in Figure 8.13. Note that here we are considering instances in which the
meaning of ‘futurity’ is expressed in the elements for ‘modulated future’ themselves,
so that it is not preceded by an Operator, will, which simply realizes ‘future’ meaning
in its own right, as illustrated in Example (47).
(47) Rena is bound to return the book to the library next week.
Therefore, (47) is systemically distinguished from (48), where will only expresses
‘unmarked future’, and modulation is expressed in the subsequent forms of expression,
which is referred to as the ‘secondary modulation’, as in:
- 193 -
(48) Rena will be bound to return the book to the library next week.
important
necessary to achieve goal

general
unmarked
simple
re-enforced
basic with formal authority
unmarked
with tentantive authority
re-enforced
strongly advisable
... obligation from plan
as state
via directive
from arrangement
Figure 8.13: An overview of the system network dependent on ‘obligation’ meaning in

‘modulated future’
8.5.2.1 ‘Basic obligation’
If the speaker chooses the option of [basic], it opens up five further options,
including [general], [with formal authority], [with tentative authority], [strongly
advisable], [from plan], as illustrated, with an example for each type, in Figure 8.14.
- 194 -
general ... They must leave tomorrow
with formal authority They shall leave tomorrow
... basic with tentative authority ... They should leave tomorrow
strongly advisable They had better leave tomorrow
from plan They are to leave tomorrow
Figure 8.14: Options dependent on ‘basic’ meaning in ‘modulated future’
In the following sub-sections, instances in each type will be examined in detail.
8.5.2.1.1 Options dependent on the feature of ‘general’
The feature of [general] leads to further choices of more ‘delicate’ options, which
is shown in Figure 8.15.
SYSTEM NETWORK REALIZATIONS
important O < must
necessary to achieve goal O < need, I < to

basic
unmarked CX < have, I < to
simple
re-enforced CX < have, XEx < got, I < to
Figure 8.15: Options dependent on the ‘basic’ meaning in ‘modulated future’
- 195 -
If we look at Figure 8.15, it will be noticed immediately that it shows exactly the
same structure as that in Figure 8.12, which illustrates the types of ‘basic obligation’
dependent on present time reference position. This indicates that once the speaker
chooses the option [basic] from both ‘modulated present’ and ‘modulated future’,
either of them provide the basic properties in common, and it may be difficult to
describe which is intended by the speaker in the given text-sentence. However, it
should be noted that the intended time meaning can be conceived by looking at a
‘Time Adjunct’, which very often co-occurs with an item expressing some ‘obligation’
meaning in the clause. Consider the following examples:
(49) Rena must visit him tomorrow. [important]

(50) They need to see him at the weekend. [necessary to achieve goal]
(51) Joe has to buy it for her on the next sale date. [simple: unmarked]
(52) Joe has got to buy it for her on the next sale date. [simple: marked]
Thus, from the viewpoint of a text-descriptive approach, the meaning referred to

in a Time Adjunct has to be examined in order to obtain an appropriate interpretation
of the expressions of modulated meanings, if there is one, as in (49) to (52).
8.5.2.1.2 ‘With formal authority’
The usage of shall in the sense of ‘obligation’ is very rarely observed in Modern
English. As a marker of ‘obligational’ meaning, shall is somewhat close to must, but
the former is used in a restricted situation expressing an obligation by virtue of a legal
rule or law. An example is illustrated below:
(53) After his assumption of office as the Prime Minister, he shall make a policy
speech.
- 196 -
Declerck (1991: 365) argues that shall expresses various shades of meaning,
including ‘strong volition’ or ‘determination’, ‘insistence’ and even ‘willingness’,
which then would be classified as types of ‘disposition’ meaning rather than
‘obligation’. He gives following examples:
(54) You shan’t escape being punished for this! [determination]

(55) He shall come with me, whatever you say. [insistence]
(56) He shall be handsomely rewarded if he agrees to support us. [willingness]
However, the interpretation of these examples are fairly context-dependent, and

Declerck’s examples also seem to allow another interpretation, depending on the
context. To take an example of (55), if we assume that there was an agreement in
writing between him and me in advance, the source of the speaker’s ‘insistence’ will
derive from a legal authority with which they have to comply. Alternatively, it may
well be taken simply as a ‘promise’. It is true, therefore, that, as Declerck notices,
shall expresses “various shades of meaning”, but it should be argued that the
ambiguity in the possible interpretations of an item need not always be handled in
semantics — we also draw attention to the ‘higher’ components, where we describe the
speaker’s ‘decision making’ of how he utters a particular speech in a certain context.
However, here I will not discuss a relationship between the system network at the
semantic level and speaker’s ‘decision making’ at the contextual level. Consequently,
at the level of meaning, I will propose a feature of [with formal authority] as an option
which generates shall in a clause.
8.5.2.1.3 ‘With tentative authority’
The feature of [with tentative authority] enters the distinction between

[unmarked] and [re-enforced]. The meaning is termed as it is because either subtypes
of it typically express a moral necessity, instead of some absolute necessity, and it is
- 197 -
usually used when the speaker is less confident about the actualization of the situation
than in the case that must or have (got) to are used. For example:
(57) Parents should take responsibility for looking after their children’s health.
(58) Parents ought to take responsibility for looking after their children’s health.
Examples (57) and (58) demonstrate that the speaker will use should or ought to
when the situation is unfulfilled in the current state, despite the fact that there is the
obligation or the desirability of the situation to be actualized in the future. The
system for ‘with tentative authority’ is illustrated with more examples for its options in
Figure 8.16.
unmarked Hospital rooms should be kept clean

... with tentative authority
re-enforced Hospital rooms ought to be kept clean
Figure 8.16: The choice in the ‘basic obligation with tentative authority’
8.5.2.1.4 ‘Strongly advisable’
This feature can be observed in the use of rather idiomatic expression of ’d / had
better and ’d / had best. 3 These forms are used in clauses to give advice or
recommendation. Here are some examples of this:
(59) They had better / best start perfecting it soon.
The question is how these forms are analyzed in the structure of the clause. In
order to answer the question, let us consider the following examples:
- 198 -
(60) Had I better go soon?
The example (60) clearly demonstrates that had functions as an Operator to

realize MOOD of the ‘information seeker’, and it fulfills the general principle that:
Almost all modal verbs function as Operators (99% valid).
Furthermore, the form of had in this example cannot be changed into another form,
such as have, has or having, and it is not preceded by another modal verb. Therefore,
we cannot have:
(61) *You may have better go soon.
The ungrammaticality of Example (61) indicates that had in had better should be best
analyzed as a simple Operator, instead of the conflation of the Operator with the C&D
Auxiliary Verb, which is represented as O/CX in the structure of the clause.
Next, the following example shows that better must be separated from both the
Operator and the Main Verb.
(62) I had probably better go soon.
In other words, better must be treated as an element in its own. When had better is
negated, the negative element follows better, as in:
(63) You had better not move now.
(63) seems to imply that better is so closely attached to the Operator so that the
meaning of ‘obligation’ is substantially carried in this item rather than the Operator
itself. This is more clearly shown in the following example:
- 199 -
(64) You better not move now.
As (64) demonstrates, the Operator had can be omitted. Now considering all the
various factors together, I propose that had better/best should be analyzed as the
Operator plus its Extension (represented as ‘OEx’), as illustrated in Figure 8.17.
Cl
S O A OEx N M A
You had (probably) better (not) go soon.
KEY: OEx = Operator Extension
Figure 8.17: An analysis of a clause with had better
8.5.2.1.5 ‘from plan’
The basic meaning of ‘from plan’ is to represent the future as determined by fate,
which is semantically very close to the feature ‘from arrangement’, which was already
examined in Section 8.5.1.5. Compare the following examples:
(65) She is to meet a handsome man at the party tonight. [from plan]
(66) She is destined to meet a handsome man at the party tonight. [from arrangement]
The essential difference between be to and be destined to is that the former

realizes the feature of [from plan], which is dependent on the ‘basic’ meaning, and be
of be to is analyzed as the Operator, whereas be of be destined to functions as the
- 200 -
conflation of the Operator and the Auxiliary Verb followed by its Extension which
carries the substantive meaning of [from arrangement]. Figure 8.18 illustrates the
analyses of the examples (65) and (66).
(65) Cl
S O I M C A A
ngp pgp
p cv
ngp
qd m h dd h
She is to meet a handsome man at the party tonight
(66) Cl
S O/CX XEx I M C A A
ngp pgp
p cv
ngp
qd m h dd h
She is destined to meet a handsome man at the party tonight
KEY: qd = quantifying determiner, m = modifier, h = head, p = preposition,

cv = completive, dd = deictic determiner
Figure 8.18: An analysis of be to in comparison with be destined to
- 201 -
8.5.2.2 Variants of ‘basic obligation’ in modulated future
Table 8.3 summarizes the possible forms of variants realizing features dependent
on basic obligation in modulated future.
future trp
direct reported
negative negative
positive positive
important must - must n't/not - - -

...
necessary to achieve goal need(s) to needn't need(s) to had ... to didn't/not needed to ...
general need not ... not need to not
don't need to
unmarked has/have to do/does has/have to had to didn't/not had to ... not

n't/not ... not have to
simple have to
re-enforced has/have got has/have has/have got had got to hadn't/not got had got to ...
to n't/not got to to ... not to not
with formal authority shall shall not shall should shouldn't/not should ... not
shan't ... not
... obligation, basic
unmarked should - should should - should ... not
n't/not
with tentative authority
re-enforced ought to - ought ought to - oughtn't/not
n't/not to to
with personal recommendation had better - had better not had better - had better not
from plan am/is/are to - am/is/are was/were to - was/were to

n't/not to not
Table 8.3: Variants of forms realizing ‘basic’ meanings in modulated future
8.5.3 ‘Obligation’ in ‘modulated past’
As Figure 8.19 illustrates, this ‘obligation’ meaning dependent on ‘modulated

past’ has the same structure as that in ‘modulated present’, EXCEPT FOR the significant
fact that the feature [important] is absent in the present network.
- 202 -
necessary to achieve goal
basic
unmarked
simple
re-enforced
... obligation
as state
via directive
from arrangement
Figure 8.19: An overview of the system network for ‘obligation’ in modulated past
8.5.3.1 ‘Basic obligation’ in ‘modulated past’
If the speaker enters the system network for ‘obligation’ which is dependent on
‘modulated past’, any features available in this network are not realized by the modal
verbs that directly expound the Operator at the level of form. Here are examples of
these types of ‘obligation’ meaning dependent on the past time reference position.
(67) They needed to fill in the form. [necessary to achieve goal]

(68) She had to sleep well. [simple: unmarked]
(69) She had got to sleep well. [simple: marked]
Note that had to in (68) can be used as the alternative form to must, when it refers
to an ‘obligation’ in the past. Therefore, the meaning of had to in (68) is essentially
equivalent to that of must, i.e., [important], in the system network for ‘modulated
present’.
- 203 -
8.5.3.2 Variants of ‘basic obligation’ in modulated past
Table 8.4 summarizes the possible forms of variants realizing features dependent
on basic obligation in modulated past.
past trp
direct reported
negative negative
positive positive
necessary to achieve goal needed to didn't/not needed needed to needed not needed
needed to not to to not to
obligation
basic unmarked had to didn't/ had to had had to hadn't/ had had to
requirement did not ... not had not ... not
simple have to had to
re-enforced had got to hadn't got to had got to had got to hadn't got to had got to
... not ... not
Table 8.4: Variants of forms realizing ‘basic’ meanings in modulated past
8.6 ‘Permission’
The ‘permission’ meaning is classified into two types of options: [basic] and [as
state], and the ‘basic’ type leads to a further choice of the options: either [formal] or
[casual]. Figure 8.20 illustrates the system network for ‘permission’.
formal Joe may use my racket.

basic
casual Joe can use my racket.
integrated
... permission as state Joe is allowed to use my racket.
superordinated It is permissible for him to refuse the offer.
Figure 8.20: Options dependent on the ‘permission’ meaning
- 204 -
The ‘basic’ meaning is the meaning which is more frequently selected. The
distinction between the use of may and can is made in terms of whether the social
context is formal or casual.
Examples in Figure 8.20 illustrate the cases where the features refer to the
relevant types of ‘permission’ in the present or the future time. The ‘permission’
meanings in ‘modulated past’ are expressed by using the past tense forms, as in:
(70) The attendants could express an opinion when they wished.
Note that, in modulated past, the expression of the basic meaning is restricted to
the use of could, and might can be used, if it occurs in the reported speech, as in:
(71) The audiences asked me if they might give flowers to the dancer.
Another restriction on the use of might can be seen in an expression of

‘permission’ in a hypothetical clause. Consider the following example:
(72) If you told me the truth, you could / *might go home.
The expression that is generated from the options dependent on the feature
[superordinated] will be discussed in Section 8.10.
The ‘permission’ meaning dependent on the ‘basic’ feature is realized by various
forms in accordance with the conditioning features, which we have seen in the
discussion of the ‘obligation’ types of meaning. Table 8.5 illustrates two versions of
the list of variants of the items expressing the ‘basic permissions’; one shows the
version of ‘permission’ in the present or the future, and the other shows that in the
past.
- 205 -
presnet & future trp
direct reported
negative negative
positive positive
... permission, basic ... may can't/not needn't might couldn't/not needn't/not
if [formal], mayn't/not do/doesn't if [formal], mightn't/not didn't/not
else need to else need to
can can ... not could
may ... not
past trp
direct reported
negative negative
positive positive
... permission, basic ... could could could could could could
n't/not ... not n't/not ... not
Table 8.5: Variants of items realizing the ‘basic permission’ meaning
8.7 An overview of ‘disposition of subject theme’
We are now looking at the second major type of meaning in the system network
for MODULATION. In the Cardiff Grammar, this is referred to precisely as
‘disposition of subject theme’, since it covers the range of meanings, such as
‘willingness’, ‘ability’, ‘preference’ and ‘insistence’ which are conceived by a person
or a thing expressed in the Subject. The major characteristic of this type of meaning
is that the source of ‘disposition’ meaning is explicitly mentioned in the referent of the
Subject in the clause. To put it another way, when the ‘disposition’ meaning is
expressed in a clause, it refers to a certain property, concerning a sub-type of
‘disposition’, which is carried by the referent of the Subject Theme. Since the
meanings such as ‘willingness’ and ‘insistence’ usually presuppose one who has ‘will’
or ‘intension’ in his/her mind, the Subject usually refers to a human being, as in:
- 206 -
(73) Their parents will come with you, if you’ve got no objections.
Figure 8.21 shows an overview of the major options which are entered by
choosing ‘disposition of subject theme’. 4 In the following subsections, I will
examine each type of meaning in detail.
SYSTEM NETWORK EXAM PLES
ability ... Rena can speak Italian.
disposition of willingness ... They will do it if you like.

subject theme
preference ... They would rather die.
insistence ... They WILL do it if you like.
Figure 8.21: The options dependent on ‘disposition of subject theme’
8.7.1 ‘Ability’
The first system network which may be entered from the feature [disposition of
subject theme] is that of ‘ability’. The meaning of ‘ability’ is concerned with certain
qualities, such as knowledge, skill, or capacity, which someone or something has to do
something. This meaning is distinguished into three sub-types of meaning, [basic],
[as quality of subject theme] and [as quality of thing], as illustrated in Figure 8.22.
basic She can drive a car
... ability as quality of subject theme ... He is able to draw a straight line on the board
as quality of thing ... She is a very capable speaker of Chinese
- 207 -
Figure 8.22: The system network for the major types of ‘ability’ meaning
The feature [basic] is realized by the Operator, which is expounded by the modal
verbs of can and could. The other two options, [as quality of subject theme] and [as
quality of thing], involves the use of adjectives which express the relevant types of
ability meaning as ‘quality’, as we will see in Sections 8.7.1.2 and 8.7.2.2 below.
8.7.1.1 ‘Basic ability’
The meaning of ‘basic ability’ is entirely expressed by the modal verbs can and
could. If these items are used in this sense, they are usually interpreted as referring to
an ability of (typically) the person to do something, and this meaning is nearly
equivalent to that of know how to, as in:
(74) Rena can play the guitar. (= Rena knows how to play the guitar.)
However, in some cases, paraphrasing can / could with know how to is not
appropriate, and another interpretation of these items is required. Consider the
following examples, which show the use of the item can in the sense of ‘basic ability’
— yet with slightly different nuances.
- 208 -
(75) I’m sorry, I have no idea, but he can tell.
(76) Sushi is very much an acquired taste, but Rena can eat it, notwithstanding her
age.
(77) Look! Jane can eat Japanese dishes properly with chopsticks.
Can in Example (75) refers to the Subject’s capability of telling something, and in
this case, the precise interpretation of this can would be a mental capacity for access to
information in his mind, rather than a practical skill or power to do something physical.
In (76), on the other hand, can is used in another sense, which has to do with an inborn
or an acquired capacity of the person referred in the Subject rather than with either the
practical skill or the mental capacity, whereas in (77), can here expresses a physical
capacity to do the particular action of ‘eating Sushi’. Note, however, that can in both
(74) and (77) expresses a ‘physical ability’, and yet the meaning is in fact
distinguished into two different types in terms of ‘actualization’; Example (74) merely
refers to an ability which does not need to be actually carried out when it is uttered,
whereas (77) denotes an ability, the reference of which is a specific instance of an
actual occasion at the time when the clause is uttered.
8.7.1.2 ‘Ability as quality of subject theme’
There are other forms which are semantically related to certain types of ‘ability’
meaning. The typical form of the expression is be able to, which is regarded as an
alternative form of can. Such an observation of be able to is possible, because it will
be used when can or could cannot be used due to the lack of the relevant verb forms in
certain circumstances, i.e., as in:
- 209 -
(78) Rena has never been able to see a horror film to the last minute.
(cf. *Rena can never have seen a horror film to the last minute.)
(79) Rena will be able to go home after the lesson.
(cf. * Rena will can go home after the lesson.)
In the construction of ‘be … to/at/in/of ’, various adjectives can be inserted in

between be and to/at/in/of, and the adjectives carry the function of expressing the
particular type of ‘ability’ meaning. In this case, different adjectival forms are used
according to the relevant choices from the system network for ABILITY AS
QUALITY OF SUBJECT THEME, in which each option specifies an accurate type of
meaning regarding ‘ability’. The major options in this system network include
[general ability], [innate ability], [mental ability], [practical skill], [emotional
estimation of ability] and [qualified ability]. Figure 8.23 shows the system network
for ABILITY AS QUALITY OF SUBJECT THEME and examples for each option in
it.
unmarked ability Rena is able to swim

general ability
specialized ability Rena is capable of swimming
innate ability ... Rena is talented at drawing pictures

... as quality of
subject theme mental ability ... Rena is clever at making excuses
practical skill ... Rena is skilled in sewing dresses
emotional Rena is good at using computers

estimation of ability ...
qualified ability ... Rena is qualified to teach dancing
Figure 8.23: The options in the ‘ability as quality of subject theme’
- 210 -
At the level of form, be able to is apparently different from be capable of in terms
of (i) the forms of the verb which follows these expressions, and (ii) the use of
different prepositions, i.e., to and of. From a formalist point of view, the preposition
of in be capable of might be analyzed as a preposition in a Noun Phrase. However, I
maintain that, from a viewpoint of a functional analysis of language, we must account
for the similarities between be able to and be capable of, both of which convey types
of ‘ability’ meaning. Here we are assigning functional labels to these forms of
expression, since we need to analyze a ‘preposition’ in terms of the function that it
realize. For this reason, of in Example (80b) expounds the Infinitive element. The
analyses of different items expounding the Infinitive element will soon be observed
below.
(80a) Rena is able to swim.

(80b) Rena is capable of swimming.
At the level of meaning, however, the underlined parts in (80a) and (80b) are
sometimes hardly distinguished from each other, since they may be used
interchangeably in a clause conveying an identical proposition, as demonstrated in the
two examples above. But in fact it seems that able expresses broader meanings in
one’s ability than capable, and the latter expression refers to one’s ability in a more
specialized aspect. Compare (80c) with (80d), in which both adjectives, able and
capable, are used as a ‘qualifier’ of the head noun, football player, but the two clauses
convey different meanings from one another in terms of the relevant interpretations
obtained from the two adjectives respectively:
(80c) Rena is an able football player.

(80d) Rena is a capable football player.
- 211 -
(80c) will be interpreted as ‘Rena is a football player with quality’, and the
interpretation of (80d) will be ‘Rena has the ability to be a football player’.
If a speaker particularly intends to convey the meaning of ‘innate ability’, which
is naturally held from birth by the referent of the Subject, it will be expressed by the
form involving the relevant adjectives in its syntactic pattern, such as be talented /
gifted at, as in:
(81) Rena is talented / gifted at drawing pictures.
Another type of ‘ability’ meaning refers to an ability which is related to one’s

mental or intellectual faculties. This will be expressed by adjectives, such as clever,
smart, sharp, and canny.
(82) Rena is clever at making excuses.

(83) Rena is sharp / smart / canny enough to realize it quickly.
If the feature [practical skill] is chosen, it is realized as adjectival forms such as

skilled, expert, and adept, which are relevant to abilities requiring a special training.
An example is shown in (84):
(84) Rena is skilled in sewing dresses.
If the speaker is conveying his or her personal estimation as to the Subject’s

ability, the feature [emotional estimation of ability] is chosen from the system network
for ‘ability as quality of subject theme’. Since this option involves the speaker’s
judgment or opinion about the ‘ability’ which is possessed by the Subject, the
adjectives used for this type of meaning are understood in terms of the degrees of
intensity. For instance, the following examples show different degrees of intensity
ranging from the least strong as in (85) to the strongest as in (87):
- 212 -
(85) Rena is good at using computers.
(86) Rena is superb at explaining the situation.
(87) Rena’s presentation is marvelous.
Finally the option [qualified ability] implies that the Subject has acquired the
qualities and skills needed for an activity or a task. The features dependent on
[qualified ability] are realized as adjectives, such as qualified, certified, trained, and
assured, as in:
(88) Rena is qualified / trained to teach dancing.

(89) Rena is assured of being elected chairperson of the Committee.
Figure 8.24 illustrates a syntactic analysis of instances of each option discussed in

this section. As Figure 8.24 shows, a functional analysis of the syntactic frame,
‘be+{adjective}+to/of/at/in’, provides us with the pattern of using adjectives as an
Extension of the Auxiliary Verb in expressing the relevant ‘ability’ meanings.
- 213 -
MEANING FORM
Cl
S O/CX XEx I M C
unmarked ability Rena is able to swim

general ability
specialized ability Rena is capable of swimming
innate ability ... Rena is talented at drawing pictures

... as quality of
subject theme mental ability ... Rena is smart to realize it
practical skill ... Rena is skilled in sewing dresses
emotional Rena is good at using computers

estimation of ability ...
qualified ability ... Rena is qualified to teach dancing
Figure 8.24: A functional analysis of the syntactic pattern realizing options regarding
‘ability as quality of subject theme’
8.7.1.3 ‘Ability as quality of thing’
In the previous section, we looked at a way of using adjectives which expounds

the direct element of the clause in the semi-fixed pattern of ‘be [CX] + ADJECTIVE
[XEx] + PREPOSITION [I]’ followed by a Main Verb 5 . The adjectives in such a

construction can be regarded as a ‘verbalized’ element in terms of
‘grammaticalization’, i.e., the adjectives analyzed as the Extension of the Auxiliary
Verb (represented as ‘XEx’) rather than as a Participant Role of an ‘Attribute’ in a
‘relational process’ or as a ‘modifier’ of a noun in the nominal group.
Here we will consider an instance in which ‘ability’ meaning is expressed in an
adjective. Consider the following example:
(90) Rena is the most experienced and capable liar I’ve ever seen.
- 214 -
In order to analyze the structure of (90), it should be noted that a functional
analysis of language inquires into how and why the language is structured as it is, and
that we should specify the function of the particular unit in terms of its internal
structure and its external function in relationship to its environment. If we look at the
underlined portion in (90), the function of it as a whole can be seen as the conflation of
the Complement and the Attribute which is expected by the Main Verb be. Although
it is possible for the element ‘Complement / Attribute’ to be directly expounded by a
lexical item, such as “Japanese” (noun) in Rena is Japanese, or “intelligent”
(adjective) in Rena is intelligent, it can also have its internal structure, which in fact
contains both a noun and adjectives, as demonstrated in (90). In this case, the
relationship between the two adjectives, experienced and capable, and the noun, liar,
is one of ‘modification’ in the way that the adjectives are used to specify the quality of
the noun. Thus it is the noun that is regarded as the pivotal element of the structure at
the ‘Complement/Attribute’, and this element is referred to as the ‘head’ of the
‘nominal group’.
The coordination of the two adjectives indicates that the ‘modifier’ has its internal
structure by themselves, which constitutes a unit filling the ‘modifier’ of the head noun.
In the Cardiff Grammar, this unit is referred to as a ‘quality group’, which always
includes the element called ‘apex’. According to Tucker (1998:205), when the
adjectives are coordinated in the quality group, they obligatorily belong to the same
semantic class — here, the class of ‘ability’ meaning. Therefore, in order to generate
the structure in (90), the speaker must be able to re-enter the system for ‘ability as
quality for thing’, so that the semantically related two forms are generated, as
- 215 -
basic
... ability as quality of subject theme ...
general ... able
practical ... experienced
as quality of thing (others ...)
non-coordinated
coordinated able and experienced
Figure 8.25: The system network for ‘ability as quality of thing’ that can be re-entered
from the feature [coordinated]
The syntactic structure of the quality group which includes an expression of

‘ability’ meaning is fairly complicated by realizing additional meanings expressed in
the most in the quality group. Furthermore, the nominal group also consists of
another element which is referred to as a ‘qualifier’. In (90), the qualifier is filled by
the embedded clause I’ve ever seen. The analysis of the syntactic structure of (90) is
- 216 -
Cl
S/Ca O/M C/At

ngp
m h q
qlgp Cl
qld dt a & a S X A M
Rena is the most experienced and capable liar I 've ever seen.
Key to additional items: ngp = nominal group, qlgp = quality group, m = modifier, h = head
q = qualifier, qld = quality group deictic, dt = degree temperer, a = apex, & = linker
Figure 8.26: Adjectives expressing ‘ability’ meaning as the elements of the quality
group filling the modifier of the head in a nominal group
8.7.2 ‘Willingness’
The second major type of ‘disposition’ meaning is related to ‘willingness’, the

typical form of which is the modal verb will, as in:
(91) Joe will lend you his coat if you ask politely.
It should be noted that will in the ‘willingness’ sense is always Subject-oriented;

the ‘willingness’ meaning of will in (91) is derived from Joe, who is the referent of the
Subject in the clause, and what the speaker is doing with this utterance is to give the
information to the addressee. Consider the following examples:
- 217 -
(92) Please be seated on the sofa. I’ll make you a cup of tea.
(93) Will you show me your passport, please?
The two examples here demonstrate the use of will which contributes to the
expression of the speaker’s role in communication with the addressee. In Example
(92), the configuration of the two elements, the Operator will and the Subject I, of
which the referent is the speaker of the clause, expresses the speaker’s proposal for
action by himself / herself, and such an utterance is usually accompanied by the
performance of the action expressed in the clause. On the other hand, Example (93)
expresses a speaker’s proposal for action by the addressee, and this is achieved by the
configuration of the Operator will preceding the Subject you, which refers to the
addressee in the verbal interaction.
At the level of form, the structure of (93) is the same as the ones realizing a
‘polarity seeker’ (i.e., the speaker is inviting the addressee to confirm “yes” or “no”
over the proposition at hand), but in fact Example (93) serves another function of a
‘proposal for action by addressee’, which is a type of ‘directive’ meaning in the
MOOD network, to use the term in the Cardiff Grammar. Consequently, will or its
contracted form ’ll in both (92) and (93) contributes to the realization of the MOOD
meanings, instead of the ‘willingness’ meaning in the system network for
MODULATION. See Chapter Six for the interpretation of will which is generated
from the MOOD network in English.
Figure 8.27 illustrates the system network for ‘willingness’ type of ‘disposition’
meaning, which is entered from the MODULATION network.
basic willingness
... willingness
as quality of subject theme ...
Figure 8.27: The system network for ‘willingness’
- 218 -
8.7.2.1 ‘Basic willingness’
If the speaker selects the feature [basic willingness] in the ‘willingness’ network,
it generates the modal verb will, which functions as the Operator at the level of form.
An example is given below:
(94) Joe will do anything to win.
Coates (1983) and some other scholars state that will in the sense of ‘willingness’
can be paraphrased by be willing to, as in:
(95) Joe is willing to do anything to win.
It is true that will in (94) and is willing to in (95) are semantically close to each
other, and for this reason, both forms of expression are generated by choosing options
in the same system network. In the strict sense, however, the interpretation of these
two expressions does not violate the systemic principle that every form of expression
has its unique function which the speaker can choose, consciously or unconsciously,
for good reason in a certain context. Will is inherently associated with ‘futurity’, and
it expresses not only ‘willingness’ but also ‘future actualization’. Therefore, it is not
possible to say *Joe will do anything to win but he can’t, compared to Joe is willing to
do anything to win but he can’t.
8.7.2.2 ‘Willingness as quality of subject theme’
The feature [as quality of subject theme] leads to choices between [affective
willingness] and [neutral willingness], and the ‘affective’ type opens up further choices
between [volitional] and [desirous], both of which involve even more delicate options,
as shown in Figure 8.28.
- 219 -
unmarked She is willing to meet you
with politeness She is pleased to meet you
with joy She is glad to meet you

volitional pleasure
with contentment She is happy to meet you
with excitement She is delighted to meet you

affective
willingness tentative She is inclined to meet you
inclination
... as quality of positive She is disposed to meet you
subject theme
neutral She is eager to meet you
desirous with determination She is determined to meet you
with impatience She is impatient to meet you

neutral
willingness ... She is prepared to meet you
Figure 8.28: The system network for ‘willingness as quality of subject theme’
The feature [neutral willingness] reveals the notion regarding the Subject’s
‘readiness’ for the future event in practice. The typical example for this type is
illustrated in (96).
(96) Rena is ready / prepared to answer any questions that they may have.
In the next section, we will discuss the options dependent on [affective

willingness] in detail.
8.7.2.2.1 ‘Affective willingness’
The meaning of ‘affective willingness’ covers a various range of meaning

regarding manifestations of ‘volition’ and ‘desire’ which are conceived by the referent
of the Subject. If this option is selected, it leads to another system in which either
- 220 -
[volitional] or [desirous] has to be chosen. The [volitional] option introduces three
categories of [unmarked], [pleasure] and [inclination]. The [unmarked] option is the
most frequent one, which generates the structure involving the adjective willing as the
Extension of the Auxiliary Verb be, as in:
(97) Rena is willing to pay more for the service.
As Figure 8.28 in the previous section illustrates, the two options of [pleasure]
and [inclination] lead to further delicate choices which enable the speaker to specify
the precise sense of ‘willingness’. The former includes [with politeness], [with joy],
[with contentment] and [with excitement], as illustrated in Examples (98), (99), (100)
and (101), respectively.
(98) Rena is pleased to meet you.

(99) Rena is glad to answer enquiries.
(100) Rena is happy to help you.
(101) Rena is delighted to welcome you.
The latter option, [inclination], introduces a choice of either [tentative] or

[positive], which generates, respectively, inclined and disposed, as follows:
(102) Rena is inclined to believe, although it might sound mythical.

(103) Rena is disposed to argue with him.
Alternative to the [volitional] option, [desirous] is the other one which is

dependent on [affective willingness], and the [desirous] option deals with meanings
associated with ‘desire’ of the referent of the Subject. As the term ‘desire’ indicates,
the meaning implies a strong wish to do something. The meaning of ‘desire’ includes
meanings, such as [neutral], [with determination] or [with impatience], which are
illustrated in the following examples:
- 221 -
(104) Rena is eager to finish a Ph.D. degree as soon as possible.
(105) Rena is determined to propel herself into linguistics.
(106) Rena is impatient to see Joe.
8.7.3 ‘Preference’
The third major type of ‘disposition’ meaning is referred to as ‘preference’, which

is expressed in the configuration of the two elements, i.e., would / had and rather /
sooner, in the following Examples:
(107a) They would rather die.

(107b) They had rather die.
(108) They would sooner die.
Therefore it is possible to consider the two system networks which are entered
simultaneously, in order to generate the relevant patterns of structure, as shown in the
two examples above. The system network is illustrated in Figure 8.29.
neutral sooner
dramatized rather
preference
unmarked would
elegant had
Figure 8.29: The simultaneous systems for ‘preference’
- 222 -
If would occurs in this construction, it is treated as an item expounding the
Operator, which is followed by either sooner (if ‘neutral’) or rather (if ‘dramatized’).
However, if had is realized, it is regarded as a conflation of the Operator and the
Auxiliary Verb, as it can never be used by itself to express the various meanings
associated with ‘preference’, and the substantial meaning of ‘preference’ is usually
expressed by such a form as rather.
Since the two items, sooner and rather, can be interpreted as expressing types of
‘preference’ only when they are combined with would or had — but had sooner is not
possible —, they can be regarded as the Extension of O or O/CX. Thus (109)
demonstrates the unity of the two elements of O and XEx realizing the single meaning
from the system network for ‘preference’, in the way that it fulfills Huddleston’s
‘NICE’ property.6
(109) Would you like that? Don’t hesitate to say ‘no’, if you’d rather not.
The syntactic structures of (107a), (107b) and (108) are illustrated in Figure 8.30.
Cl Cl
S O XEx M S O/CX XEx M
(107a) They would rather die. (107b) They had rather die.
(108) They would sooner die.
Figure 8.30: The analyses of (107a), (107b) and (108)
Example (110) shows that the system network for ‘preference’ should be extended
to include the meaning which generates an element which has an internal structure:
- 223 -
(110) They would as soon die.
In other words, while from a functional point of view the structure in as soon is
regarded as the Extension of O or O/X to express a certain meaning of ‘preference’,
each item functions at the class of unit that fills XEx, the structure of which is
analyzed in Figure 8.31.
Cl
S O XEx M
qlgp
dt a
They would as soon die.
Figure 8.31: The internal structure of XEx expressing a ‘preference’ meaning
Note that the structure of the quality group in (110) can constitute a discontinuous
structure such as the one indicated by the underlined portion of They would as soon die
as surrender. Here the part as surrender constitutes an element which is referred to
as a ‘finisher’ in the Cardiff Grammar. Figure 8.32 illustrates the structure of the
discontinuous quality group that fills the element XEx.
- 224 -
Cl
S O XEx M
qlgp
dt a f
They would as soon die as surrender.
Figure 8.32: The discontinuity of the quality group filling XEx which realizes the
‘preference’ meaning
The extended system network for ‘preference’ is shown in Figure 8.33.
neutral sooner
clear preference
dramatized rather
pseudo-equal preference as soon

preference
unmarked would
elegant had
Figure 8.33: The extended system network for ‘preference’
8.7.4 ‘Insistence’
The fourth major type of ‘disposition’ meaning is ‘insistence’, which is

semantically very close to ‘willingness’, in the sense that it is expressed by the modal
verb will, and here it represents a strong persistence of the referent of the Subject.
- 225 -
(111) Joe WÍLL get the bag at all costs.
Although it might be difficult to show the difference between ‘willingness’ and

‘insistence’ just by looking at the form of the item, English speakers seem to
distinguish ‘insistence’ from ‘willingness’ either by using capital letters (if it is
written) or by laying stress on it (if it is spoken). Furthermore, when will in the sense
of ‘insistence’ occurs in a text, the contracted form of ’ll is hardly used whether it is
written or spoken.
8.8 ‘Inherent nature’
The third type of meaning which is dependent on MODULATION is that of

‘inherent nature’, which leads to a choice between [requirement] and [quasi-ability], as
requirement
inherent nature
quasi-ability
Figure 8.34: The options in the ‘inherent nature’ meaning
The typical example of [requirement] would be (112):
(112) Plants must have water.
Must in Example (112) is generated from the system network for ‘inherent nature’.
Note that this type of meaning can also be thought as a kind of ‘disposition’, because
the various sub-types of meaning are attributed to the Subject of the clause. However,
as this clause illustrates, it is the ‘inherent nature’ that causes the event in a certain
- 226 -
circumstance, and the key aspect of this concept is that the objects are typically
non-human. Indeed, it is inappropriate to treat this type of meaning in the same way
as ‘disposition’.
Another type of meaning regarding ‘inherent nature’ is what is termed as
‘quasi-ability’, which may be apparently similar to ‘possibility’ meaning. Consider
the following example:
(113) If it’s raining tonight, the baseball games can be held indoors.
This is clearly related to the ‘possibility’ meaning, if we interpret Example (113)

as ‘it is possible for the baseball games to be held, if it’s raining tonight’. However,
it should be noted that can here indicates a provisional relationship between the
circumstances and an event, rather than the validity of the proposition from all
possibilities of an event.
8.10 ‘Superordinated modulation’
In Section 8.5.1, I mentioned that it is possible for some meanings in

MODULATION to be realized by the structure which is referred to as a type of
‘experiential enhanced theme construction’ in the Cardiff Grammar. This is
illustrated in (114):
(114) It is important that you arrive on time.
However, there is a strong constraint on the use of some adjectives that are used
to realize certain meanings in MODULATION. Compare the followings:
- 227 -
(115) It is important / necessary / inevitable that you arrive on time.
(cf. *You are important / necessary / inevitable to arrive on time.)
(116) It is permissible for the students to use an English dictionary in the exam.
(cf. *The students are permissible to use an English dictionary in the exam.)
(117) *It is able that Joe tells time notwithstanding his age.
(cf. Jenny is able to tell time notwithstanding her age.)
(118) *It is willing / eager that Rena helps them.
(cf. Rena is willing / eager to help them.)
In the examples above, the first two include expressions which reveal certain
types of ‘control’ meanings, whereas the latter two show ungrammatical clauses as a
result of thematizing the element expressing ‘disposition’ meanings such as ‘ability’
and ‘disposition’. Thus it can be generalized that disposition meanings cannot be
expressed in the frame of It … that, because, as I mentioned earlier, any
lexicogrammatical markers of ‘disposition’ meanings presuppose that the Subject of
the clause must refer to the object that carries the ‘disposition’. Therefore, it is, in
practice, impossible to paraphrase a clause including expressions of disposition with a
superordinated clause, which typically contain the Empty Subject that is expounded by
it. It is for this reason that the option [superordinated] is available only in the system
network for control meaning.
8.11 Secondary modulation
Finally, we are considering the generation of more than one instance of the
modulation meaning in a clause, which I have illustrated at the bottom of the system
network for MODULATION in Figure 8.7 in Section 8.4. First consider (119):
(119) You should be able to behave properly in a formal situation, as you are 20.
- 228 -
Here the underlined portion realizes two different meanings of (i) ‘obligation’
which is dependent on the ‘control’ meaning and (ii) ‘ability’ which is dependent on
the ‘disposition’ meaning. In the actual operation of traversing the system network
for MODULATION, the grammar undergoes the stage of applying the ‘realization
rules’ to the features chosen so that they can be realized in the appropriate form of
expression. This is necessary, because in English it is impossible to use more than
one modal verb which expounds the Operator, as in:
(120) *You should can behave properly in a formal situation, as you are 20.
In order to prevent the grammar from generating an unacceptable form as in

Example (120), it has to provide a rule such as ‘once a feature dependent on the [basic]
meaning is selected in the system network for MODULATION, change probability of
the [basic] options into zero when the network is re-entered’. This is illustrated in
Figure 8.35.
- 229 -
0%
basic
obligation 100%
control by (others)
authority 0%
basic
permission 100%
(others)
0%
basic
willingness 100%
(others)
0%
disposition of
basic
subject theme
ability 100%
(others)
modulated present
0%
insistence
modulated future
(others)
modulated past
no secondary modulation
(others)
plus secondary modulation
Figure 8.35: The system network for MODULATION re-entered from the feature [plus
secondary modulation]
By going through the realization rule of re-entrance to the same system network,
we will have the full sets of features which have been chosen through the traversal of
the system networks in English, and then, the structure of the clause will be organized
according to the features chosen. Here, it is important to note that the sequence of the
words of should be able to is relatively fixed in the way that the element carrying the
‘control’ meaning precedes the one which carries the ‘disposition’ meaning, if both of
them are to occur in the same clause. In English, the principle of the fixed sequence
is strictly applied to the Operator and the subsequent elements up to the Main Verb.
For instance, if a clause contains elements expressing a ‘validity’ meaning, an
‘obligation’ meaning, a ‘willingness’ meaning and some other ‘time’ and ‘polarity’
- 230 -
meanings lumped together at the unit which Halliday refers to as the ‘verbal group’,
the sequence of the elements are as follows:
(121) Rena may not have been obliged to be willing to give Joe money.
Figure 8.36 illustrates an analysis of the structure of this example.
Cl
S O N X CX XEx I CX XEx I M C C
Rena may not have been obliged to be willing to give Joe money.
validity obligation willingness

polarity time
Figure 8.36: The sequence of elements realizing ‘validity’, ‘modulation’, ‘polarity’ and
‘time’ meanings lumped together in a clause
In this chapter, we have examined the system network for MODULATION, which
is specifically referred to as CONTROL AND DISPOSITION in the framework of the
Cardiff Grammar. Throughout this chapter, what I have suggested is, most
importantly of all, that the sets of expressions which are to be generated from the
current system network should be associated with the experiential function of language.
This is particularly significant, as Halliday originally claimed in his paper in 1970,
when we observe the fact that the element which carries the function of the Operator is
expounded by an item whose form is determined by the relevant choice of the primary
- 231 -
time reference position of either ‘past’, ‘present’ and ‘future’. This clearly indicates
that the system network for MODULATION is dependent on that for TIME
REFERENCE POSITION, which is regarded as a type of experiential function of
language in both the Sydney and the Cardiff Grammar. In spite of the systemic
dependency between the TIME meaning and the MODULATION meaning, Halliday
attached more weight on the desire for the systemic elegance to draw a simple system
network for MODALITY from which both ‘modalization’ and ‘modulation’ are dealt
with.
Thus it may be claimed by some that my proposal in this thesis is a kind of
reversion to Halliday’s original position which is developed in Halliday (1970b).
However, notice that the system network for MODULATION in this thesis is fully
semanticized so that there is no one-to-one relationship between the feature in the
network and the syntactic pattern in the clause at the level of form, whereas the
classification of the features in the system networks presented in Halliday (1970b) are
based on the forms that are directly related to the features in the networks. Moreover,
I have shown a detailed analysis of the various forms of expression of modulation, in
which I have suggested that the elements which are considered to be the elements of
‘verbal group’ in the Sydney Grammar are analyzed as the direct elements of the
clause, although it is possible for these elements to have the internal structure by
themselves which constitutes a lower unit than the unit at which the primary functions
of the Subject, the Operator, the Main Verb, the Complement(s) and the Adjunct(s),
operate.
- 232 -
Notes
1
See Huang (1996) and Huang and Fawcett (1996) for further detail about the
enhanced theme construction in terms of information structure.
2
Here, I will put aside the discussion about the relevance of associating modality with
the interpersonal function of language.
3
Some users of English consider had best to be non-standard, and it is avoided in
formal speech. Therefore, I will treat it as a type of variety of had better in some
specific registers, instead of regarding it as an established option alternative to had
better in the system network.
4
The small capital letters of WILL in example of [insistence] indicates that the feature
is realized by a phonological prominence on the modal verb, i.e., ‘tonicity’.
5
Here the term ‘semi-fixed’ is preferred to ‘fixed’ because (i) these expressions can be
intervened by elements such as the ‘Negator’, which is expounded by not, as in Rena
is not able to swim, and / or (ii) the element ‘O/X’ precedes the Subject if the speaker
has chosen, to illustrate, the option [polarity seeker] from the system network for
MOOD, as in Is Rena able to swim?
6
Huddleston (1976:333).
- 233 -
CHAPTER NINE
CONCLUSION
This thesis has presented the re-analyses of English modals and related
expressions in the framework of SFL, especially in the Cardiff Grammar. The
purpose of this thesis has been to (i) make an investigation into the semantic systems
of associating with modal verbs with other related forms in English, and (ii) show a
detailed analysis of the structures of these expressions at the level of form. In
traditional grammar, the concept of ‘modality’ is treated to introduce the complex set
of meanings of modal verbs in English. In the previous studies of modal verbs, two
major types of ‘modality’ are recognized: the ‘epistemic’ and the ‘root’ types of
‘modality’. That is, modal verbs can be interpreted in terms of either epistemic or
root ‘modality’. Moreover, in such a view of ‘modality’, these two types of the
‘epistemic’ and the ‘root’ meanings are integrated into a unitary category for modal
verbs. In this sense, the interpretation of ‘modal verb’ can be said that it is confined
to the narrow semantic interpretation of ‘modality’.
As for Halliday, he made a clear distinction between the level of form and the
level of meaning. At the former level, modal verbs form a single class of items, and
at the latter level, modality is treated in order to describe the meanings of these items.
The distinction between these two levels enables to relate modal verbs to other types
of forms, such as perhaps, be forced to, and it is possible that. In other words, the
interpretations of the above expressions are obtained in relation to modal verbs.
Viewed from this perspective, the relation between modal verbs and other forms of
expression, or the various expressions of ‘modality’, have been collectively referred to
as ‘modal expressions’. It is thus needed to extend the semantic interpretation of
modality in order to comprise the various types of modality forms. These forms
include classes of items, ranging from ‘adverbial’ forms, such as perhaps, surely,
conceivably, to more complex patterns of forms, such as have (got) to, had better,
seem (to), be forced to, it is possible that…, and it goes without saying that…, together
with modal verbs including can, could, may, might, will, would, shall, should, must,
- 234 -
dare and need.
In light of a functional description of language, I adhered to the framework of the
Cardiff Grammar, and maintained that modal verbs can be treated by four different
areas of meaning, i.e., (i) TIME, (ii) MOOD, (iii) VALIDITY ASSESSMENT and (iv)
CONTROL AND DISPOSITION, rather than two types of meanings, i.e., (i)
‘epistemic’ and (ii) ‘root’ meanings. Furthermore, all of these four areas of meaning
are fully semanticized, so that the various forms of expression can be incorporated into
the more comprehensive semantic systems for ‘modality’. It is important to note that
these four areas of meaning are treated in different functional components, although
both of TIME and CONTROL AND DISPOSITION are the types of ideational
function.
Accordingly, I developed a descriptive model for the system networks for the four
areas of meaning. In this thesis, I particularly extended the system networks for both
VALIDITY ASSESSMENT and CONTROL AND DISPOSITION, so that they cover a
wider range of expressions. Moreover, I have argued that the structures of these
expressions can be analyzed by adopting a tree diagram, called a ‘flat structure’ in the
Cardiff Grammar, as proposed by Fawcett. This is quite powerful for the analysis of
a clause at the both levels of form and meaning. The flat structure illustrates how the
particular elements are structured to realize a certain meaning in a clause. That is, the
relations between elements, as well as the semantic interpretation, can be explicitly
manifested in the flat structure. Therefore, all of the following elements are analyzed
as the direct constituent of a clause: a Subject, an Operator, different types of Auxiliary
Verbs, a Main Verb, a Complement and an Adjunct. This flat structure enables to
provide comprehensive analyses of the syntactic interpretations together with the
semantic ones.
The present study is particularly based on the system networks developed in
Fawcett (1997b) for VALIDITY ASSESSMENT, and in Fawcett and Tucker (2000b)
for TIME, VALIDITY ASSESSMENT and CONTROL AND DISPOSITION.
Regarding VALIDITY ASSESSMENT and CONTROL AND DISPOSITION, however,
the system networks are integrated into a MODALITY network here. It is important
- 235 -
to say that the analyses of the various expressions in all of the previous studies are
intended to develop the theoretical model of the Cardiff Grammar. For this purpose,
the treatment in these studies is confined to describing the system networks generating
some relevant elements in a clause. Therefore, they do not treat such an example as it
goes without saying that…, which forms the ‘supeordinated’ structure of a clause
expressing a validity meaning. Moreover, the structural analysis of such an
expression at the level of form is not fully examined in the previous works of the
Cardiff Grammar.
Accordingly, in the descriptive approach to ‘modality’ in the framework of the
Cardiff Grammar, I analyzed a clause containing more than one form of the ‘modal’
expression, as in Rena may have been obliged to be willing to give Joe money. In this
clause, all of a validity assessment, a control meaning and a disposition meaning are
expressed. It is quite difficult to analyze the above clause by making use of the
Hallidayan analysis, because the clause contains expressions of both ‘modalization’
and ‘modulation’ in the same clause. In order to analyze this type of clause, I have
argued that the system networks for both VALIDITY ASSESSMENT and CONTROL
AND DISPOSITION should allow the operation of ‘re-entrance to the same system
network’. In this example, after choosing a feature of ‘obligation’ from the system
network for CONTROL AND DISPOTION, the same system network is re-entered to
reach the feature of a ‘disposition meaning’ realized by be willing to.
Moreover, in drawing a system network, it is worth noting that an ungrammatical
clause, such as *Rena may must will give Joe money, is not allowed to occur. In a
systemic description of language, such an ungrammatical clause can be avoided by the
paradigmatic relations between meanings in a system network. That is, in this clause,
the meanings of may, must and will are treated in an ‘either-or’ relation, and only one
feature must be chosen from the relevant system. However, it is possible to use both
may and possibly in the same clause, because each item carries the different function;
may expresses a ‘basic’ function realized by the Operator, whereas possibly carries a
rather residual function of ‘supplementary information’ realized by the Adjunct.
Thus, the item possibly cannot be regarded as the obligatory element in the Mood
- 236 -
structure, as discussed in Section 7.4 of Chapter 7. Consequently, the various
expressions of ‘modality’ are analyzed in terms of both (i) the paradigmatic relation
between meanings in a system network and (ii) the syntagmatic relation between
elements which can co-occur in the same clause.
This study is aimed at developing the system networks for the four separate areas
of meaning in order to describe the wider range of expressions of ‘modality’ in English.
However, it will be revealed that there are numerous ways of expressing different
types of ‘modality’ in both lexis and grammar, and this leaves open possibilities for
further research from various perspectives. I hope that this study will be of some
help to establish the more comprehensive system networks for English ‘modality’, and
to contribute to the development of further analyses in SFL.
- 237 -
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abunawara, A.M. 1996. ‘Modality in English and Arabic: A Study of the Difficulties encountered
by Arabic-Speaking Learners of English, Using a Systemic Functional Approach.’ Ph.D.
Thesis. School of English, Communication and Philosophy, Cardiff University, Cardiff.
Aksu-Koç, A. 1988. The Acquisition of Aspect and Modality: The Case of Past Reference in
Turkish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Allwood, J., L-G. Andersson and Ö. Dahl. 1977. Logic in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Appelt, D.E. 1985. Planning English Sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Austin, J.L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Benson, J.D. and W.S. Greaves (eds.). 1985. Systemic Perspectives on Discourse, Vol.1. Norwood,
N.J.: Ablex.
Ball, F. 2002. ‘A Functional Approach to Adjuncts in English: A Lexicogrammatical Analysis of

Corpus Data’. Ph.D. Thesis. School of English, Communication and Philosophy, Cardiff
University, Cardiff.
Berry, M. 1975. Introduction to Systemic Linguistics, Vol 1: Structures and Systems. London:
Batsford.
Berry, M. 1977. Introduction to Systemic Linguistics, Vol. 2: Levels and Links. London: Batsford.
Berry, M. 1999. ‘Enacting Social Relationships’. In R. Geluykens and K. Pelsmaekers (eds.).

Discourse in Professional Contexts. Muenchen: Lincom Europa, pp.81-108.
Biber, M., S. Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad and E. Finegan. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken
and Written English. Harlow: Pearson.
Bouma, L. 1975. ‘On contrasting the semantics of the modal auxiliaries of German and English’.
Lingua 37, pp.313-339.
Butler, C.S. 1985. Systemic Linguistics: Theory and Application. London: Batsford.
- 238 -
Butler, C.S. 1988. ‘Politeness and the semantics of modalised directives in English’. In J.D.
Benson, W.S. Cummings and W.S. Greaves (eds.). Linguistics in a Systemic Perspective.
Amsterdam: John Banjamins, pp.119-153.
Butler, C.S. 1990. ‘Qualifications in Science: Modal Meanings in Scientific Texts’. In Walter
Nash (ed.). The Writing Scholar: Studies in Academic Discourse. London: Sage, pp.137-170.
Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins, and William Pagliuca. 1994. Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect,
and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Chafe, W. 1986. ‘Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing’. In W. Chafe and J.
Nichols (ed.). Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Norwood: Ablex, pp.
261-272.
Chafe, W. and J. Nichols (eds.). 1986. Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology.
Norwood: Ablex.
Close, R.A. 1980. ‘Will in if-clause’. In S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvik (eds.). Studies in
English Linguistics: For Randolph Quirk. London: Longman, pp.100-109.
Coates, J. 1983. The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.
Declerck, R. 1991. A Comprehensive Descriptive Grammar of English. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Eggins, S. 1994. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Pinter.
Ehrman, M. 1966. The Meanings of the Modals in Present-Day American English. The Hague:
Mouton.
Fawcett, R.P. 1973/81. ‘Generating a sentence in systemic functional grammar’. In M.A.K.

Halliday and J.R. Martin (eds.). (1981). Readings in Systemic Linguistics. London: Batsford,
pp.146-83.
Fawcett, R.P. 1974-6. ‘Some proposals for systemic syntax: Part 1, 2 and 3’. MALS Journal, 1.2,
pp.1-15; 2.1, pp.43-68; 2.2, pp.36-68.
Fawcett, R.P. 1980. Cognitive Linguistics and Social Interaction: Towards an Integrated Model of
a Systemic Functional Grammar and the Other Components of an Interacting Mind.
Heidelberg: Julius Groos and Exeter University.
Fawcett, R.P. 1983. ‘language as a semiological system: A re-interpretation of Saussure’. In J.

Morreall (ed.). The Ninth LACUS Forum1982. Columbia: Hornbeam Press, pp.59-125.
- 239 -
Fawcett, R.P. 1984a. ‘System networks, codes and knowledge of the universe’. In R.P. Fawcett,
M.A.K. Halliday, S.M.Lamb and A. Makkai (eds.). The Semiotics of Culture and Language,
Vol. 2: Language and Other Semiotics Systems of Culture. London: Pinter, pp.135-179.
Fawcett, R.P. 1984b. ‘Language as resource’. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 7.1,
pp.17-56.
Fawcett, R.P. 1987a. ‘The semantics of clause and verb for relational processes In English’. In
R.P. Fawcett and M.A.K. Halliday (eds.). New Developments in Systemic Linguistics, Vol. 1:
Theory and Description. London: Pinter, pp.130-83.
Fawcett, R.P. 1987b. ‘The form of a minimal procedural grammar, i.e. a grammar for natural
language interaction with a computer’. In I. Fleming (ed.). The Thirteenth LACUS Forum
1986. Columbia: Hornbeam Press, pp.381-393.
Fawcett, R.P. 1988a. ‘Language generation as choice in social interaction’. In M. Zock and G.
Sabah (eds.). Advances in Natural Language Generation, Vol. 1. London: Pinter, pp.27-49.
Fawcett, R.P. 1988b. ‘What makes a good system network “good”?: Four pairs of concepts for
such evaluations’. In J.D. Benson and W.S. Greaves (eds.). Systemic Functional Approaches
to Discourse: Selected Papers from the 12th International Systemic Workshop, Norwood,
N.J.: Ablex, pp.1-28.
Fawcett, R.P. 1988c. ‘The English personal pronouns: an exercise in linguistic theory’. In J.D.
Benson, M. Cummings and W.S. Greaves (eds.). Linguistics in a Systemic Perspective.
Amsterdam. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp.185-220.
Fawcett, R.P. 1990. ‘The Computer Generation of Speech with Discoursally and Semantically
Motivated Intonation’. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Natural
Language Generation, pp.164-173.
Fawcett, R.P. 1992. ‘Language as program: a reassessment of the nature of descriptive linguistics’.
Language Sciences, 14.4, pp.623-657.
Fawcett, R.P. 1993. ‘The Midi Grammar: A New Research Concept for Natural Language
Generation’. In M. Zock, G. Adorni and G. Ferrari (eds.). Preprints of the Fourth European
Workshop on Natural Language Generation, pp.175-178.
Fawcett, R.P. 1994a. ‘A generalist approach to grammar reversibility in natural language

processing’. In T. Strzalkowski (ed.). Reversible Grammar in Natural Language Processing.
Dortrecht: Kluwer, pp.365-413.
- 240 -
Fawcett, R.P. 1994b. ‘On moving on ontologies: Mass, count and long thin things’. In D.
McDonald (ed.). Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Natural Language
Generation, pp.71-80.
Fawcett, R.P. 1995. Mass, Count and Long Thin Things: On the Relationship between Ontologies
and System Networks. COMMUNAL Working Paper No. 7, Cardiff: Computational
Linguistics Unit, Cardiff University. (A revised and expanded version of Fawcett 1994b.)
Fawcett, R.P. 1996. ‘A systemic functional approach to complementation in English’. In M.

Berry, C. Butler, R.P. Fawcett and G. Huang (eds.). Meaning and Form: Systemic Functional
Interpretations. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, pp.297-366.
Fawcett, R.P. 1997a. ‘Invitation to systemic functional linguistics: The Cardiff Grammar as an
extension and simplification of Halliday’s Systemic Functional Grammar’. Helicon 22,
pp.55-136. Nara, Japan.
Fawcett, R.P. 1997b. ‘Notes on Validity Assessment for text description’, ms.
Fawcett, R.P. 1999. ‘On the subject of the Subject in English: Two positions on its meaning (and on
how to test for it)’. Functions of Language 6.2, pp.243-273.
Fawcett, R.P. 2000a. A Theory of Syntax for Systemic Functional Linguistics. Amsterdam,
Philadelphia: john Benjamins.
Fawcett, R.P. 2000b. ‘In place of Halliday’s verbal group, part 1: Evidence from problems of
Halliday’s representations and the relative simplicity of the proposed alternative’. Word 51.2,
pp.157-203.
Fawcett, R.P. 2000c. ‘In place of Halliday’s verbal group, part 2: Evidence from generation,
semantics and interruptability’. Word 51.3, pp.327-375.
Fawcett, R.P. in press. The Functional Syntax Handbook: Analyzing English at the Level of Form.
London: Continuum.
Fawcett, R.P. forthcoming. The Functional Semantics Handbook: Analyzing English at the Level of
Meaning. London: Continuum.
Fawcett, R.P. no date. Towards a Full Network of the Meaning Potential of MOOD.
Fawcett, R.P., M.A.K. Halliday, S.M. Lamb and A. Makkai (eds.). 1984a. The Semiotics of Culture
and Language, Vol.1: Language as Social Semiotic. London: Pinter.
- 241 -
Fawcett, R.P., M.A.K. Halliday, S.M. Lamb and A. Makkai (eds.). 1984b. The Semiotics of Culture
and Language, Vol.2: Language and Other Semiotic Systems of Culture. London: Pinter.
Fawcett, R.P. and M.A.K. Halliday (eds.). 1988. New Developments in Systemic Linguistics, Vol.2:
Theory and Description. London: Pinter.
Fawcett, R.P. and D.J. Young (eds.). 1988. New Developments in Systemic Linguistics, Vol2:
Theory and Application. London: Pinter.
Fawcett, R.P., A. van der Mije and C. van der Wissen. 1988. ‘Towards a systemic flowchart model
for local discourse structure’. In R.P. Fawcett and D.J. Young (eds.). New Developments in
Systemic Linguistics, Vol.2: Theory and Application. London: Pinter, pp.116-143.
Fawcett, R.P., G.H. Tucker and Y.Q. Lin. 1993. ‘How a systemic functional grammar works: the
role of realization in realization’. In H. Horacek and M. Zock (eds.). New Concepts in
Natural Language Generation. London: Pinter, pp.114-186.
Fawcett, R.P. and G. Huang. 1995. ‘A functional Analysis of the enhanced theme construction in
English’. Interface: Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10.1, pp.113-144.
Fawcett, R.P. and G.H. Tucker. 2000a. ‘The System Network and Realization Rules for MOOD’,
COMMUNAL WORKING PAPERS No. 12. The Computational Linguistics Unit, Centre for
Language and Communication, Cardiff University.
Fawcett, R.P. and G. Tucker. 2000b. ‘The System Network and Realization Rules for Time and
Modality’, COMMUNAL WORKING PAPERS No. 13. The Computational Linguistics Unit,
Centre for Language and Communication, Cardiff University.
Fawcett, R.P. and M. Tatsuki. no date. A Systemic Functional Grammar for Japanese.
Floyd, R. 1996. ‘Experience, certainty and control, and the direct evidential Wanka Quechua
questions’. Functions of Language 3-1, pp.69-93.
Girle, R. 2000. Modal Logics and Philosophy. Teddington: Acumen.
Greenbaum, S. and G. Nelson. 1999. ‘Elliptical clauses in spoken and written English’. In P.
Collins and D. Lee (eds.). The Clause in English: In Honour of Rodney Huddleston.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 111-125.
- 242 -
Greenberg, J.H. 1966. ‘Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of
meaningful elements’. In J.H. Greenberg (ed.). Universals of language: Report of
Conference Held at Dobbs Ferry, New York, April 13-15, 1961, Second Edition. Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press, pp.73-113.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1961. ‘Categories of the theory of grammar’. Word 17, pp.241-292; Reprinted
in part in M.A.K. Halliday (edited by G. Kress). (1976). System and Function in Language,
London: Edward Arnold, pp.52-72.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1969. ‘Options and functions of the English clause’. Brno Studies in English. 8.
no.137, pp.81-88; Reprinted in F.W. Householder (ed.). (1972). Syntactic Theory 1:
Structuralist. Harmondsworth: Penguin, pp.248-257, and in M.A.K. Halliday and J.R. Martin
(eds.). (1981). Readings in Systemic Linguistics. London: Batsford, pp.138-145.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1970a. ‘Language structure and language function’. In J. Lyons (ed.). New
Horizons in Linguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin, pp.140-65.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1970b. ‘Functional diversity in language, as seen from a consideration of

modality and mood in English’. Foundations of Language 6, pp.322-361. Reprinted in
part in M.A.K. Halliday (edited by G. Kress). (1976). System and Function in Language,
London: Edward Arnold, pp.189-213.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1973. Explorations in the Functions of Language. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1974. ‘Discussion’. In H. Parret (ed.). Discussing Language. The Hague:
Mouton, pp.81-120.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1976. System and Function in Language: Selected Papers by M.A.K. Halliday
(ed. by G. Kress). London: Oxford University Press.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1977. ‘Text as semantic choice in social contexts’. In T.A. van Dijk and J.S.
Petöfi (eds.). Grammars and Descriptions. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp.176-225.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and
Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1979. ‘Modes of meaning and modes of expression: Types of grammatical
structure, and their determination by different semantic functions’. In D.J. Allerton, E.
Carney and D. Holdcroft (eds.), Function and Context in Linguistic Analysis. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp.57-79.
- 243 -
Halliday, M.A.K. 1981. ‘Text semantics and clause grammar: Some patterns of realization’. In
Seventh LACUS Forum. Columbia: Hornbeam Press, pp.31-59.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1982. ‘The de-automatization of grammar: from Priestley’s An Inspector Calls’.
In John M. Anderson (ed), Language Form and Linguistic Variation: Papers Dedicated to
Angus McIntosh. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. pp.129-159.
Halliday, M.A.K., 1984. ‘Language as code and language as behaviour: a systemic-functional

interpretation of the nature and ontogenesis of dialogue’. In R.P. Fawcett, M.A.K. Halliday,
S.M. Lamb, and A. Makkai (eds.) The Semiotics of Culture and Language, Vol 1: Language
as Social Semiotic. London: Pinter, pp. 3-35.
Halliday M.A.K. 1992. ‘Some Lexicogrammatical Features of the Zero Population Growth Text’.
In William C. Mann and Sandra A. Thompson (des.). Discourse Description: Diverse
Linguistic Analysis of a Fund-raising Text. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 327-58.
Reprinted in Jonathan Webster (ed.). (2002). Linguistic Studies of Text and Discourse
(Volume2 in the Collected Works of M.A.K. Halliday). London: Continuum, pp. 197-227.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1993. ‘Systemic Theory’. In R.E. Asher (ed.-in-chief) Encyclopaedia of

Languages and Linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp. 4905-8.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd ed. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1998. ‘Things and relations: Regrammaticising experience as technical

knowledge’. In J.R. Martin and Robert Veel (eds.). Reading Science: Critical and
Functional Perspectives on Discourse of Science. London: Routledge, pp. 185-235.
Halliday, M.A.K. and C.M.I.M. Matthiessen. 1999. Construing Experience through Meaning: A
language-Based Approach to Cognition. London: Cassell.
Hasan, R. 1987. ‘Grammarian’s dream: lexis as the most delicate grammar’. In M.A.K. Halliday
and R.P. Fawcett (eds.). New developments in Systemic Linguistics, Volume 1: Theory and
Description. London: Frances Pinter, pp. 184-212.
Hasan, R. and J.R. Martin. (eds.). 1989. Language Development: Learning Language, Learning
Culture (Meaning and Choice in Language: Studies for Michael Halliday). Norwood: Ablex.
Henrici, A. 1981. ‘Some notes on the systemic generation of a paradigm of the English clause’.
In M.A.K. Halliday and J.R. Martin (eds.). Readings in Systemic Linguistics. London:
Batsford, pp. 74-98.
Hermerén, Lars. 1978. On Modality in English: A Study of the Semantics of the Modals. Lund:
- 244 -
Gleerup.
Hintikka, J. 1972. ‘The semantics of modal notions and the indeterminacy of ontology’. In D.
Davidson and G. Harman (eds.). Semantics of Natural Language, 2nd ed. Dordrecht: Reidel,
pp.398-414.
Hodges, W. 2001. Logic: An Introduction to Elementary Logic, Second Edition. London: Penguin.
Hood, M. 1997. Validity: Towards a Computer Model of the Decisions Realized in Expressions of
Validity in English. Msc. Dissertation, Department of Psychology, Cardiff University.
Hori, M. 1995. ‘Subjectlessness and honorifics in Japanese: A case of textual construal’. In R.

Hasan and P. Fries (eds.). On Subject and Theme: A Discourse Functional Perspective.
Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp.151-185.
Hoye, L. 1997. Adverbs and Modality in English. London: Longman.
Huang, G. 1996. ‘Experiential Enhanced Theme in English’. In M. Berry, C. Butler, R.P. Fawcett
and G. Huang (eds.). Meaning and Form: Systemic Functional Interpretations. Norwood,
N.J.: Ablex, pp.65-112.
Huang, G.. and R. P. Fawcett. 1996. ‘A functional approach to two “focusing” constructions in
English and Chinese’. Language Sciences 18 (1-2), pp.179-194.
Huddleston, R.D. 1965. ‘Rank and depth.’ Language 41, pp.574-586.
Huddleston, R.D. 1976. ‘Some theoretical issues in the description of the English verb’. Lingua
40, pp.331-383.
Huddleston. R.D. 1980. ‘Criteria for auxiliaries and modals’. In S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J.
Svartvik (eds.). Studies in English Linguistics: For Randolph Quirk. London: Longman,
pp.65-78.
Hudson, R.A. 1974/81. ‘Systemic generative grammar’. In M.A.K. Halliday and J.R. Martin
(eds.). Readings in Systemic Linguistics. London: Batsford, pp. 190-217.
Hughes, G.E. and M.J. Cresswell. 1968. An Introduction to Modal Logic. London: Methuen.
Joos, Martin. 1968. The English Verb: Form and Meanings, Second Edition. Madison and
Milwaukee: The University of Wisconsin Press.
- 245 -
Kripke, S.1972. ‘Naming and necessity’. In G. Harmann and D. Davidson (eds.). Semantics of
Natural Language. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp.253-355.
Krug, Manfred G. 2000. Emerging English Modals: A Corpus-Based Study of Grammaticalization.

Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kuteva, Tania. 2001. Auxiliation: An Enquiry into the Nature of Grammaticalization. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Lampert, Günther and Martina Lampert. 2000. The Conceptual Structure(s) of Modality: Essences
and Ideologies. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Leech, G.N. 1969. Towards a Semantic Description English. London: Longman.
Leech, G.N. 1987. Meaning and the English Verb, 2nd ed. London: Longman.
Leech, G.N. and G. Coates. 1980. ‘Semantic indeterminacy and the modals’. In S. Greenbaum, G.
Leech and J. Svartvik (eds.). Studies in English Linguistics: For Randolph Quirk. London:
Longman, pp.79-90.
Leech, G.N., P. Rayson and A. Wilson. 2001. Word Frequencies in Written and Spoken English:
Based on the National British Corpus. Harlow: Longman.
Lemke, J.L. 1998. ‘Resources for attitudinal meaning: Evaluative orientations in text semantics’.
Functions of Language 5-1, pp.33-56.
Lightfoot, David. 1979. Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lightfoot, David. 1999. The Development of Language: Acquisition, Change, and Evolution.
London: Blackwell.
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics, Volume 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Major, D. 1974. The Acquisition of Modal Auxiliaries in the Language of Children. The Hague:
Mouton.
Mann, W.C. and C.M.I.M. Matthiessen. 1985. ‘A demonstration of the Nigel text generation
computer program’. In J.D. Benson and W.S. Greaves (eds.). Systemic Perspectives on
Discourse, Vol. 1. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, pp.50-83.
- 246 -
Mann, W.C. 1985. ‘An Introduction to the Nigel text generation grammar’. In J.D. Benson and
W.S. Greaves (eds.). Systemic Perspectives on Discourse, Vol. 1. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex,
pp.84-95.
Martin, J.R. 1987. ‘The meaning of features in systemic linguistics’. In M.A.K. Halliday and R.P.
Fawcett (eds.). New Developments in Systemic Linguistics, Volume 1: Theory and Description.
London: Pinter, pp.14-40.
Martin, J.R. 1992a. English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Martin, J.R. 1992b. ‘Macro-proposals: Meaning by degree’. In W.C. Mann and S.A. Thompson
(eds.). Discourse Descriptions: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-Raising Texts.
Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp.359-395.
Matthews, Richard. 1991. Words and Worlds: On the Linguistic Analysis of Modality. Berlin:
Peter Lang.
Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. 1995. Lexicogrammatical Cartography: English Systems. Tokyo:

International Language Sciences Publishers.
Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. and J. Bateman. 1991. Text Generation and Systemic-Functional

Linguistics: Experiences from Japanese and English. London: Pinter.
Miller, G. and D.M. Kwilosz. 1981. ‘Interactions of modality and negation in English’. In A.K.
Joshi, B.L. Webber and I.A. Sag (eds.). Elements of Discourse Understanding. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp.201-216.
Myhill, J. 1996. ‘Can and future meaning’. Functions of Language 3-1, pp.31-68.
Neale, A. 2002. ‘More Delicate TRANSITIVITY: Extending the PROCESS TYPE system
network for English to Include Full Semantic Classifications’. Ph.D. Thesis, Cardiff
University, Cardiff, Wales, U.K.
Palmer, F.R. 1980. ‘Can, will, and actuality’. In S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvik (eds.).
Studies in English Linguistics: For Randolph Quirk. London: Longman, pp.91-99.
Palmer, F.R. 1986. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Palmer, F.R. 1990. Modality and the English Modals, 2nd edition. London: Longman.
Palmer, F.R. 2001. Mood and Modality, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- 247 -
Papafragou, A. 2000. Modality: Issues in the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface. Amsterdam:
Elsevier.
Patten, T. 1988. Systemic Text Generation as Problem Solving. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Perkins, M.R. 1983. Modal Expressions in English. London: Pinter.
Searle, J.R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Simpson, Paul. 1990. ‘Modality in Literacy-Critical Discourse’. In Walter Nash (ed.). The
Writing Scholar: Studies in Academic Discourse. London: Sage, pp.63-94.
Stubbs, M. 1996. Text and Corpus Analysis. London: Blachwell.
Steiner, E. and R. Veltman. (eds.). 1988. Pragmatics, Discourse and Text: Some
Systemically-inspired Approaches. London: Pinter.
Sweetser, Eve E. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of
Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Teich, E. (1999). Systemic Functional Grammar in Natural Language Generation: Linguistic

Description and Computational Representation. London: Cassell.
Thompson, G. and J. Zhou. 2000. ‘Evaluation and Organization in Text: The Structuring Role of
Evaluative Disjuncts’. In Suzan Hunston and Geoff Thompson (eds.). Evaluation in Text:
Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
pp.121-141.
Toolan, M. 1998. Language in Literature: An Introduction to Stylistics. London: Arnold.
Traugott, E. 1995. ‘Subjectification in frammaticalisation’. In Dieter Stein and Susan Wright

(eds.). Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp.31-54.
Traugott, E. and B. Heine. 1991. Approaches to Grammaticalization, Volume 2. Amsterdam: John

Benjamins.
Traugott, E. and R.B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
- 248 -
Tucker, G.H. 1997. ‘A functional lexicogrammar of adjectives’. Functions of Language 4-2,
pp.215-250.
Tucker, G.H. 1998. The Lexicogrammar of Adjectives: A Systemic Functional Approach to Lexis.
London: Cassell.
Ventola, E. 1997. ‘Modalization: Probability - an exploration into its role in academic writing’. In
A. Duszak (ed.). Culture and Style of Academic Writing. New York, Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter, pp.157-179.
Weerasinghe, A.R. and R.P. Fawcett. 1993. ‘Probabilistic Incremental Parsing in Systemic
Functional Grammar’. In H. Bunt and M. Tomita (eds.). Proceedings of the Third
International Workshop on Parsing Technologies (IWPT ’93), sponsored by the Association
for Computational Linguistics Special Interest Group on Parsing (SIGPARSE). Tilburg,
Netherlands: Institute for Language Technology and Artificial Intelligence. University of
Tilburg, pp.349-367.
Winograd, T. 1983. Language as a Cognitive Process, Volume I: Syntax. London: Addison-Wesley.
Whorf, B.L. 1945/1972. ‘Grammatical categories’. Language, vol..21, pp.1-11; Reprinted in F.W.
Household (ed.). (1972). Syntactic Theory 1: Structuralist. Harmondsworth: Penguin,
pp.103-114.
Yamaguchi, N. and H. Kakehi. 2001. Kinoo Bumpoo Gaisetsu: Halliday Riron e no Izanai (An
Introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd Edition), a Japanese translation of Halliday (1994a).
Tokyo: Kuroshio Publishers.
Zhu, Y. 1996. ‘Modality and modulation in Chinese’. In Margaret Berry, Christopher Butler,
Robin Fawcett and Guowen Huang (eds.), Meaning and Form: Systemic Functional
Interpretations. Norwood: Ablex.
- 249 -

A Systemic Functional Analysis of Modal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Systemic Functional Analysis of Modal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Systemic Functional Analysis of

Modal Verbs and Other Related Expressions in English:

Interviewed and approved by

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1

CHAPTER TWO: AN OVERVIEW OF APPROACHES TO ‘MODALITY’ 8

CHAPTER THREE: AN OVERVIEW OF SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL

3.2 Levels of language 45

CHAPTER FOUR: HALLIDAY’S TWO APPROACHES TO MODALITY 58

CHAPTER FIVE: AN OVERVIEW OF THE CARDIFF MODEL OF A

CHAPTER SEVEN: VALIDITY ASSESSMENT 127

CHAPTER EIGHT: CONTROL AND DISPOSITION 168

1.1 Problems of ‘a study of modality’

The purpose of this thesis is to present a thorough description of a range of

1.2 Motivation behind this thesis

This thesis is motivated quite directly by Halliday’s two treatments of ‘modality’

1.3 Scope of this study

The purpose of this chapter is to provide a brief overview of some approaches

2.2 Basic concepts

As Perkins (1983:25) points out, studies on what is widely known as ‘modality’

(1) Her parents must be under fifty.

‘Epistemic modality’, which is derived from ‘epistēmē’ meaning “knowing” in

(3) Joe may be swimming in the pool.

(4) Perhaps Joe is swimming in the pool.

2.2.2 ‘Deontic’ modality

‘Deontic modality’, which is roughly equivalent to Halliday’s ‘modulation’

(7) You may go now.

(9) You are permitted to go now.

If we compare the lexical and/or grammatical patterns of the semantically related

in a modality de dicto necessity (or possibility) is attributed to a

2.2.3 Mood and modality

Rena will come home tomorrow.

Figure 2.1: Mood structure in the English clause

(12) You may go now.

Another concept which is often considered in connection with or as an essential

2.3 Syntactic properties of the expressions of ‘modality’

(a) Negation: Jo can’t come.

MODAL VERB PRIMARY VERB FULL VERB

*to may to have to eat

(g) No 3rd person inflection

You must You like

(h) Abnormal time reference

I think he may / might retire next May.

(c) modal idioms had better, would rather/sooner,

(d) semi-auxiliaries have to, about to, be able to,

(e) catenatives appear to, happen to, seem to,

2.3.2 Other classes of items expressing ‘modality’

(a) adverbs (as the direct element of the clause)

(d) be plus so-called ‘participle’ and a preposition as an extension of it

2.4 Review of the literature: descriptive and theoretical approaches

2.4.1 Philosophical approaches to ‘modality’

This sub-section gives a brief survey of logical approaches to ‘modality’, and I

Among various sub-fields of philosophy, ‘modality’ is discussed in terms of logic,

(18) The President of Japan is bald.

2.4.1.2 Types of modality and negation in modal logic

To take an example of ‘alethic’ modality, statements with ‘possibility’ and

(i) Mp (stands for ‘it is possible that p’ or ‘possibly p’ or ‘p might be true’)

2.4.1.3 Lyons (1977)

Lyons’ (1977) major concern is the logic-based characterization of ‘modality’

(20) Alfred must be unmarried.

This sentence can be glossed either as:

(21) “I (confidently) infer that Alfred is unmarried”.

(23) Alfred is obliged to be unmarried. (objective)

However, he argues that ‘deontic’ modality is distinguished from logical and

(25) You should have gone to the meeting yesterday.