Interpersonal metafunction

Another dimension that contributes to the shaping of privacy into a shared reality between members of the discourse/social community is the interpersonal metafunction. Under the interpersonal metafunction, a clause is considered as a social exchange whereby the speaker negotiates meaning with the addressee through the semantic system of SPEECH FUNCTIONS (statement, question, offer and command). At the lexicogrammatical level, speech functions are realized by different types of mood (declarative, interrogative and imperative) and modality (modulation and modalization). In this study, I will focus on the deployment of propositions (giving and demanding information) and proposals (giving and demanding goods and services) that realize the speech functions and speech acts that shape the social reality of privacy (see Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014:135).

Speech functions and interaction strategies

Under the semantic system of SPEECH FUNCTIONS (see Halliday &

Matthiessen, 2014:135-139), when a speaker/writer initiates a move in a language event, s/he adopts a particular speech role of either giving or demanding commodity in the form of information or goods-&-services. In so doing, s/he assigns the addressee a complementary role that carries out the desired response to the four primary speech functions of offer (giving

goods-&-services), command (demanding goods-goods-&-services), statement (giving

are realized by the MOOD system. When congruent, statement is realized by declarative, question by interrogative and command by imperative moods.

Offer does not have a dedicated grammatical system of realization and can be manifested in different mood types. Table 3-4 presents the options within speech functions and the respective realizations and responses.

Table 3-4 Speech functions and responses (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014: 137 Table 4-2)

Of particular interest in this study are the different speech roles enacted and assigned by the speaker through the realization of speech functions.

Interaction strategies in terms of propositions, which is the giving or demanding information by means of language in the form of statement and question, and proposals, the giving and demanding goods-&-services by means of language in the form of offer and command, are investigated from a systemic contrastive perspective to identify cross-linguistic variation between Japanese and English in enacting the different tenor relations with the addressee in the three socio-semiotic processes under study. In what follows, I will discuss the systems of MOOD and MODALITY, which are the major interpersonal systems that realize speech functions, as well as the systems of HONORIFICATION and POLITENESS, which are salient interpersonal systems that enact social roles in the Japanese discourse community.

The system of MOOD

In English, the different mood types are distinguished by the Mood element that consists of Finite and Subject, which makes the clause ‘negotiable’. In a declarative clause, Subject is followed by Finite (Example 3-7), whereas in a

clause of interrogative mood, Finite is followed by Subject (Example 3-8).

That is, the order of Subject and Finite is different between the declarative and the interrogative. The interrogative has two sub-types: yes/no interrogative and wh-interrogative. Example 3-8 is a clause example of yes/no interrogative mood type.

Example 3-7 declarative mood (English)

The duke has given that teapot away

Subject Finite

Residue Mood

Example 3-8 yes/no interrogative (English)

Has the duke given that teapot away?

Finite Subject

Residue Mood

Imperative is the mood for exchanging goods-&-services, it realizes commands by jussive imperative subtype or offers by oblative e.g. let me do it or by suggestive e.g. let’s do it. In an imperative clause, the speaker uses language as a means to either demand the addressee to get something done or get the addressee to accept an offer, in the case of “giving” goods-&-services.

The Subject is therefore restricted to ‘addressee’ or ‘speaker’ or ‘speaker-plus’, if we take the “second person”, ‘you’, as the base form. In an unmarked positive imperative, the clause typically consists of the Residue only with no Finite or Mood element, and the Subject ‘you’ is elided as demonstrated in Example 3-9. In the unmarked negative imperative, the clause typically consists of a Finite such as Don’t followed by the Residue as in Example 3-10.

Example 3-9 positive imperative (English) positive Walk!

Residue

Example 3-10 unmarked negative imperative (English)

negative Don’t run!

Finite

Residue Mood

In its congruent form, a clause in declarative mood realizes a statement, interrogative mood realizes a question and imperative mood realizes a command. However, the speaker can also choose to represent the speech function of command incongruently or metaphorically, for example, using a declarative clause that is modulated for ‘obligation’ as in you should think carefully about what you are making public to issue the command in an indirect manner. Figure 3-6 presents a network diagram of the English MOOD

system.

Figure 3-6 A network diagram of the English MOOD system (adopted from Halliday

& Matthiessen, 2014:185)

Similar to English, the primary options of the MOOD system in Japanese (Figure 3-7) are indicative and non-indicative, where indicative is further categorized into explanative, declarative and interrogative, and non-indicative includes options of imperative and optative. Moreover, compared to the English MOOD system, the Japanese MOOD system has more options for both the indicative and non-indicative subtypes. Under the indicative, there are two subtypes: explanative mood, which can be marked or unmarked, and declarative mood, which has two further options: conclusive or suppositive. The interrogative mood in Japanese is similar to English with two options: elemental and yes/no. Under the imperative, there are four subtypes, i.e. jussive, suggestive, prohibitive, requestive and optative (see Teruya, 2007:161-195 for a detailed description of Japanese Mood type and examples).

Figure 3-7 A network diagram of the Japanese MOOD system (adopted from Teruya, 2007:171)

However, unlike English, there is no distinct Finite element in the interpersonal structure of the clause in Japanese that can be tossed around to realize declarative and interrogative distinction. In Japanese, the Predicator plays a central role in the realization of interpersonal meanings such as mood, modality, polarity and honorification, and is positioned towards the end of the clause as exchange. Example 3-11 below presents a clause in an unmarked declarative mood of the conclusive type. Here, the mood is realized in the Predicator that is morphologically marked in the conclusive form. In Example 3-12, by adding the conjectural daroo to the Predicator, the experience is assessed as a supposition in an imaginary world as opposed to the actual world in the conclusive subtype, adding a sense of ‘objective uncertainty’

(Teruya, 2007:168). In Example 3-13, the yes/no interrogative mood is realized by Predicator + Negotiator realized by a question marker ka.

Example 3-14 is a command realized by direct imperative verbal mood of the jussive type.

Example 3-11 declarative: conclusive (Japanese)

(Watashi-wa) hon o yonda

(I WA) book O read-pst-inf

Subject Complement Predicator: declarative: conclusive

“I read the book”

Example 3-12 declarative: suppositive (Japanese) (Watashi-wa) hon o yomu daroo

(I WA) book O read-CONJ-inf

Subject Complement Predicator: declarative: suppositive

“I will read the book”

Example 3-13 yes/no interrogative (Japanese)

(Anata-wa) hon o yonda ka

(You WA) book O read-pst-inf KA

Subject Complement Predicator Negotiator

“Did you read the book?”

Example 3-14 imperative: jussive (Japanese) Yome

Read-IMP

Predicator: imperative: jussive

“Read!”

The system of MODALITY

Another major grammatical resource employed to enact interpersonal meaning is the system of MODALITY. “Modality refers to the area of meaning that lies between yes and no – the intermediate ground between positive and negative polarity” (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004: 618). It is the dimension of assessment: “modality construes a region of uncertainty where I can express, or ask you to express, an assessment of the validity of what is being said” (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014:144). Modality is further broken down into two sub-systems namely modalization, the semantic category of propositions with two options: usuality and probability; and modulation, which refers to the semantic category of proposals with two options:

obligation and readiness (the latter with further subtypes: inclination and ability). Semantically, modulation refers to the goods-&-services of proposals, but all modalities are realized in propositions in the indicative mood. Proposition is something that can be argued about – “something that can be affirmed or denied, and also doubted, contradicted, insisted on, accepted with reservation, qualified, tempered, regretted, and so on.”

(Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014:138). With varying degrees of polarity, the different modality types together with different mood types construct commands that can be categorized under different values (Halliday &

Matthiessen, 2014:691-697). Figure 3-8 presents the relation between modality, polarity and mood.

Figure 3-8 Relation between Modality, Polarity and Mood (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014: 691)

As shown in Figure 3-8, the value of modality is associated with modal judgement of the speaker in relations to the cline of polarity. For instance, within the modality of obligation, the value of modality H=high (e.g.

required), M=median (e.g. supposed) or L=low (e.g. allowed) shifts along the cline of polarity “do” and “don’t’. Hence, ‘you must do it’ is a metaphorical expression of command with high value in obligation and ‘you can do it’ one with a low value of modality of readiness. In English, modality is usually realized in modal verbs such as must, shall, will, may and can. Figure 3-9 presents a system network of modality in English. The type of modality can be further classified based on distinct values within the domain of modality

as shown in Figure 3-9 below, that is with respect to ORIENTATION, VALUE

and POLARITY. Modality can also be expressed subjectively or objectively, explicitly or implicitly under the semantic category of ‘orientation’. For example, I think Mary knows is classified as subjective explicit whereas Mary probably knows is classified as objective implicit⁷.

Figure 3-9 System network of Modality in English (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014:

182)

Similar to English, Japanese operates with the system of MODALITY

(Teruya, 2007:205) where the speaker makes assessments about propositions with reference to ability, usuality, obligation, necessity and etc. (Teruya, 2007:205). The system of MODALITY in Japanese also consists of further options, for example, under modulation there are five options of necessity,

7For a detailed description and examples of different types of modality orientation, please

obligation, permission, expectation and inclination (Teruya, 2007:215). As in English, boundaries of ‘obligation’ and ‘necessity’ are sometimes less sharply defined and may be alternatively construed experientially as an indirect command in a relational clause e.g. pasuwaado settei ga hitsuyoo to narimasu ‘the setting of password has become necessary’. It is worthy to note here that unlike in English where there are modal verbs and auxiliaries such as shall, can, may to realize modality, in Japanese, modality is usually realized in a morphologically complex verbal group e.g. [[suru]] koto ga dekiru “lit. that [[do…]] is able/possible”, which is downranked from a clause to serve as a modalized verbal group (cf. Teruya, 2007:210).

Figure 3-10 System network of Modality in Japanese (adopted from Teruya, 2007:218)

The systems of HONORIFICAITON and POLITENESS

In Japanese, social hierarchy and social distance are grammaticalized through the systems of HONORIFICATION and POLITENESS and/or system of SPEECH LEVEL (cf. Matthiessen et al. 2008:175).

The Subject person in Japanese is ‘modally responsible’ for the Predicator (Teruya, 2004:198) through which various interpersonal meanings such as modality are realized. The interpersonal identity of subject-hood may be made explicit through the system of HONORIFICATION, which has three options including ‘humble’, ‘neutral’ and ‘honorific’. This system interacts with the Politeness system, which calibrates the social distance between the interactants. For example, Predicator realized by a verbal group mairimasu

“go [humble: formal]” indicates that the Subject is the speaker and that it is in an inferior social status compared to the addressee according the socially-conceived hierarchy. This also explains why the Subject may be made implicit when the clause in question is marked in honorification because the grammatically implicit Subject is in fact “semantically explicit” (Teruya:

2004:200; see also “cohesion” in Halliday & Hasan, 1975).

Contrary, social hierarchy is not grammatically explicit in English.

However, politeness may be enacted through various expressions in spite of the absence of the grammaticalized politeness system as in Japanese. For example, modal adjunct please in imperatives indicate a polite request.