Modality and Polarity

In Systemic-functional Grammar, the definition of modality is closely associated with

polarity. Halliday argued that “modality was the area of meaning that lays between positive and
negative polarity, generally the intermediate ground of meaning between yes and no” (Halliday,
1994). Polarity refers to the choice made between positive and negative (is/ isn’t, do/don’t)
(Halliday, 2004). Why does modality can be seen as the intermediate area of meaning between
the two polarities? From the perspective of verbal communication, in the proposition sentence,
what both sides negotiate is the information. Therefore, the meanings of positive polarity and
negative polarity equal to absolute assertion and denial. Since it is so, positive polarity means “it
is so”, while negative polarity means “it isn’t so”. Between assertion and denial of a proposition
sentence, a speaker can express her/his possible judgment, namely, to what degree the
information may be so. The semantic meaning of such clauses that contain modality of
probability is always expressed between absolute assertion and denial. While in the proposal
sentence, we negotiate about acts or events, and about something that happens or does not
happen. Thus, the meanings of positive polarity and negative polarity are regulation and
prohibition. By that what positive polarity means is “do it”, negative polarity is “don’t do it”. In
this way, a speaker exerts different degrees of obligation on a hearer, making the hearer do
something or express his or her willingness to do something. All such clauses containing the
meaning of obligation and willingness of modality are also always expressed between the two
polarities: “do something” and “do not do something”. According to the above, modality
represents a speaker’s judgment and opinions on the possibility or necessity of a certain
proposition or proposal, the intermediate ground of meaning lying between absolute assertion
and denial, regulation and prohibition, which is called a modal space.

As we have seen above, the Finite expresses not only tense but also polarity and
modality. Any Finite is inherently positive or negative in polarity. It is true that the negative
forms have and identifiable added element (‘n’t’ or ‘not’) in relation to the positive, but this is a
reflection of the marked nature of negative meanings in general (we need a particular reason for
talking about what is not rather than what is). In terms of the interaction carried out by the
clause, polarity is a basic part of the meaning: as noted, there is a specific grammatical structure,
the yes/no interrogative, whose primary function is precisely to enquire about the polarity of a
message. Of course, polarity may also be expressed through Mood Adjuncts such as ‘never’ or
‘hardly’ (in which case, interestingly enough, the Finite is actually positive) – see
Figure 1.1

I Have Never Liked Him

I would Hardly say that
Subject finite Mood adjunct predicative Complement
Mood Residue
Figure 1.1 Mood Adjuncts expressing polarity
To go a step further, we can see that in fact the expression of polarity is not restricted even to the
Mood. In the first example below, the Finite ‘has’ is clearly positive, and there is no Mood
Adjunct: it is the Complement ‘nothing’ that expresses negative polarity.

He has said nothing to me about that.

He hasn’t said anything to me about that.

As we shall see with modality, this freedom of movement is typical of interpersonal meanings as
a whole: they tend to cluster around the Mood, but they are by no means confined to that part of
the message. This helps to explain why, Halliday has often argued forcefully against looking at
language only in terms of ‘constituents’ – that is, breaking clauses into groups and then groups
into words, and assigning each ‘bit’ an identify able meaning. As a rule, interpersonal meanings
are not inherently tied to specific constituents but are spread over the whole clause; and they may
well be cumulative, reinforced by being expressed at several points in the clause. The choice of
the particular place – or places – in the clause where an interpersonal meaning is expressed will
be significant, but the range of options is typically very wide.
In the discussion so far, polarity has been treated as if it were absolute, and in one sense, of
course, it is: a message is either positive or negative. The structural possibilities reflect this, in
that the Finite must be formally positive or negative.
However, semantically there are also intermediate stages – points between ‘yes’ and ‘no’ such as
‘maybe’ or ‘sometimes’ or ‘supposedly’ – that are expressed by modality.
A simple starting definition of modality is that it is the space between ‘yes’ and ‘no’.

Figure 1.2 illustrates this concept by giving some examples of modality with an informal gloss in
the right-hand column indicating the intermediateness of the proposition (note that the ordering
of examples in the ‘modal space’ is not intended to suggest that any of the example are closer to
the positive or negative poles).

+ She teaches Latin

Modal space She might teach Latin
She usually teaches Latin
She ought to teach Latin
She’ll teach Latin if you want
She can teach Latin if she
wants
She can teach Latin well
- She doesn’t teach English
perhaps yes, perhaps no
sometimes yes, sometimes no
at present no, but ideally in the
future yes
at present no, but in the future
yes if you want
at present no, but in the future
yes if she wants
in principle yes, at present
maybe yes or no
Types of modality
Halliday (1985: 335) defines modality as the part of finite elements. Modality refers to
the area of meaning that lies between „yes‟ and „no‟, the intermediate ground between positive
and negative polarity. Meanwhile, Butt (2001: 113) uses the term of modality to refer to all
positioning by speaker about possibility, usuality, typically, obviousness, obligation and
inclination. There are three ways to do modality; by modal finite, by an adverbial group or
prepositional phrase, as mood adjunct and by the interpersonal grammatical metaphor.
Modality can thus be seen as constructing a kind of interpersonal ‘aura’ of the speaker’s
attitude around the proposition.
If the commodity being exchanged is information, we can refer to the utterance as a proposition.
In such cases, the modality relates to how valid the information is being presented as in terms of
probability (how likely it is to be true) or usuality (how frequently it is true). Some of the basic
points on the probability scale are: possible/probable/certain; on the usuality scale, they include:
sometimes/often/always. If, on the other hand, the commodity is goods-&-services, we can call
the utterance a proposal; and then the modality relates to how confident the speaker can appear
to be in the eventual success of the exchange. In commands, this concerns the degree of
obligation on the other person to carry out the command (the scale for the demanded goods-&-
services includes: permissible/advisable/obligatory), while in offers it concerns the degree of
willingness or inclination of the speaker to fulfil the offer the speaker may signal:
ability/willingness/determination).
In order to distinguish these two basic types of modality, the first is called modalization,
whereas the second is referred to as modulation.

If we restrict ourselves for the moment to modality in Mood, there are a number of ways in
which it can be expressed. The most obvious – and one of the main structural justifications for
including modality as a function of the Mood in English – is through modal verbal operators.
This implied that tense and modality were alternative points of reference; but in fact it would be
truer to say that, with a modal operator, tense is normally neutralized because the operator is
inherently present tense. In most cases, a modal operator expresses the speaker’s attitude at the
time of speaking. This emerges clearly in forms such as the following where we have secondary
tense after the Finite:

He must have inspected the cottage.

This can be paraphrased as ‘My best guess as I speak is that he inspected the cottage’
–which makes it clear that the ‘pastness’ signalled by ‘have’ relates to the event being talked
about, but that the modality signalled by ‘must’ refers to the speaker’s present opinion. This
neutralization of tense explains why Forms such as ‘might’ and ‘could’, which historically are
past tense forms (of ‘may’ and ‘can’), typically do not function as past tense signals in modern
English. In the following sentence, for example, ‘might’ could be replaced by ‘may’ with little
difference in meaning:

Modalization operates on propositions, in the space between ‘It is…‘and ‘It isn’t…‘There are

“two kinds of intermediate possibilities: (i) degrees of probability [and] (ii) degrees of usuality”
(H & M, p.147).

Probability is concerned with “'either yes or no', that is, maybe yes, maybe no, with different
degrees of likelihood attached. This degree of likelihood may be construed as being either
subjective or objective.
1.  Subjective
Here is a quote from Bill O’Reilly, cited on Huffington Post:
I may be an idiot.

This expresses a Low subjective opinion that implicitly admits to the possibility of it being true.
We can change this, of course, to High:

I must be an idiot.

We have, then, three values of implicit subjective probability:

High: She must know.

Medium: She’ll know.
Low: She may know.
We can also make the Medium and Low values softer by creating metaphorical distance through
the past tense: She’ll know → she’d know and she may know → She might know.
We can also, however, make this subjective opinion more explicit with grammatical metaphor.
Here, being concerned with opinions and statements, we most commonly use mental Processes:
High: I know she knows.
Medium: I think she knows.
Low: I guess she knows.

2.  Objective
Here is an overheard conversation
Lady: How much is this metal hat stand?

Vendor: $260. It’s Victorian.

Lady: Well you must mean it comes from Melbourne, because it’s certainly not that old.

After subjective hedging to imply ‘it’s just my opinion’ (you must mean), the speaker offers an
objective assessment regarding the age of the hat stand (it’s certainly not that old) that is also
construed as being ‘obvious’, or implicit. Again, we can have three values:
High: She certainly knows.
Medium: She probably knows.
Low: She possibly knows.
We can also construe it as being an explicit objective opinion, metaphorically separate from the
speaker:

High: It’s certain that she knows

Medium: It’s probable that she knows.

Low: It’s possible that she knows.

Usuality is “equivalent to ‘both yes and no’, that is, sometimes yes, sometimes no, with different
degrees of oftenness attached”.  Here is a description of Koala feeding patterns from Australian
Wildlife:
They will feed at any time of day, but usually at night.

This demonstrates the two types of orientation for the system of usuality.
1.  Subjective (implicit)
High: It (does) rain.
Medium: It will rain.
Low: It may rain.
2.  Objective (implicit)
High: It always rains.
Medium: It usually rains.
Low: It sometimes rains.
Unlike probability, there is “no systematic form for making the subjective orientation explicit”
(H & M, p.619) but it is possible to make the objective orientation explicit with items such
as, It’s common for it to rain; It’s usual for it to rain.
The Degree of Modalization Realizations in English (Halliday, 1985: 337)

Modulation
Halliday (1985: 89) refers modulation as the way speakers express their judgments or
attitudes about actions and events. When people interact and exchange goods and services one to
another, their clause of communication takes the form of proposal. It has two types, inclination
and obligation.
Inclination represents the tendency of speakers in doing something, and the capability from his
or her own feeling.
For example: And I need to do it again.

Obligation occurs when the speaker give command, suggestion, demand, and advice to the
listener.
For example: You should have read the fine print.

Modulation is not always represented by command and structure clause. As a part of

interpersonal realization, modulation always deals with demanding, direction, advice,
permission, undertaking, or capability. For example: You could have a sale. Modulation deals
with the expression of asking, directing or expression of our willingness to get somebody to do
something. These can be realized into asking for someone, offering declarative statement, advice
statement, or even direct imperative statement. Each category above is also divided into three
values or degree. They are high, medium, and low degree.
The Degree of Modulation Realizations in English (Halliday, 1985: 337)
Thus, the whole system of interpersonal metafunction can be understood from the table below: