SFL is an approach to language promoted by Halliday (1985) and Halliday & Matthiessen (2004, 2014) which views language as a relationship between text and context (Coffin & Donohue, 2012, p.2; Gardner, 2012, p.52; Schleppegrell, 2004, p.46) and one in which ‘genre’ is key. Genre is seen as ‘a class of communicative events, the members of which share some set of communicative purposes’ (Swales, 1990, p.58) and as ‘a category that describes the relation of the social purpose of text to language structure’ (Cope & Kalantzis, 1993, p.2). Understanding language from a functional perspective means, therefore, that it is not possible to consider linguistic form and structure on its own. For that reason, it has been applied to the analysis of many real-life situations, one of which is academic learning and teaching (Coffin & Donohue, 2012, p.2).
SFL was developed from the basis of a number of inter-related literacy projects developed in the 1980’s in Sydney, Australia, to develop school-based curricula, with a genre approach to writing at its core, with children in socially disadvantaged areas of the city (Cope & Kalantzis, 1993; Coffin, 1996). The underlying belief of the genre-approach was that ‘the essence of good writing lies essentially in the overall structure of a text, its development and cohesion and whether or not it is written in language appropriate for its intended purpose and audience’ (Walsh et al. 1990, p.17). Reports from teachers responsible for the teaching of the curriculum in participating schools of the projects reported that ‘it gave the children clear direction in how/what/why to write’ resulting in ‘a changed attitude of the children to writing tasks’ (p.13). This in turn resulted in higher success rates overall, transforming the learning opportunities of the children in the participating schools when compared to non-participating schools in less disadvantaged areas. The achievements of the projects have been instrumental in the spread of genre-based literacy pedagogy into other areas of academic life including higher education and where research into EAP has been able to challenge 'the widely held assumption that academic conventions are universal and independent of particular disciplines' (Hyland & Hamp-Lyons, 2002, p.6). Genre-based textual analysis has generated insights into how 'participants draw on knowledge of prior texts to frame messages in ways which appeal
to appropriate cultural and institutional relationships' (Hyland & Hamp-Lyons, 2002, p.5). It is with this context that modality will be framed within this research.
Figure 2.1 shows that, within SFL, each social context (genre) is composed of the variables of field (what the text is about), tenor (the relationship between the people in the interaction) and mode (how the text should be organised) and each variable is aligned to a corresponding ‘metafunction’, namely ideational, interpersonal and textual, respectively.
Adapted from Matthiessen, Slade, & Macken (1992, p.183)
Figure 2.1 Genre in SFL (lexicogrammar, register and metafunctions)
Modality in SFL exists within the interpersonal metafunction at the level of ‘clause as exchange’, that is to say, it operates where language ‘exchanges’ propositions and proposals,
where propositions exchange information, and proposals exchange ‘goods and services’
(Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004, pp.146-147). This occurs within the middle ground between the limits of polarity: the space between the ‘is’ and the ‘isn’t’ or the ‘do’ and the ‘don’t’ etc. Between these limits, there are choices of intermediate degrees: what Halliday and Matthiessen refer to as forms of ‘indeterminacy’ and there are many routes into how modality is expressed. This definition may seem overly simplistic, but unlike other interpretations of modality, it is dynamic and flexible, and embraces cultural diversity with all its possibilities of modal meaning and expression. As the remaining discussion shows, it is from this starting point that learners can be taught what elements of language need to be considered, and how they combine into a system of simultaneous decision making processes.
Thompson (2014) calls the area of language that modality occupies ‘modal space’ (p.70). He depicts it with examples to demonstrate some of the scope of meaning-making
potential that exists between the affirmative and negative poles together with informal glosses of the modal expressions (see Table 2.2 below). It should be noted, however, that he does not imply that the relative positioning of the modal expressions suggests closeness to either of the poles.
Table 2.2 Modal space
+ She teaches Latin
M od al S pa ce
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
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 - She doesn’t teach Latin
Adapted from Thompson (2014, p.70)
As well as occupying the modal space between polarity, modality also operates across a whole clause, ‘constructing a kind of interpersonal “aura” of the speaker’s attitude around the proposition’ (Thompson, 2014, p.70). This is one pathway into modality, expressed via ‘modalization’, an actualisation of language within propositions presenting expressions of probability (how true something is) and usuality (how frequent something is true). An alternative route into modality is by means of proposals expressed via ‘modulation’ that take the form of offers and commands, noted by the meanings of obligation and willingness/inclination.
The sense groupings within modalization and modulation operate within scales of commitment from low to high. For example, probability expresses meanings of what is ‘possible’, ‘probable’ and ‘certain’, and in a similar way, usuality is scaled with meanings of ‘sometimes’, ‘often’ and ‘always’. The scales of degree of obligation are ‘permissible’, ‘advisable’, or ‘obligatory’, while offers of degree of willingness/inclination are ‘ability’, ‘willingness’ and ‘determination’ (Thompson, 2014, p.71). The scales of degree, or values (see Table 2.3) represent the speaker’s commitment to the validity of what is being said, either expressing it more strongly or leaving it more open to doubt. This is important for contexts such as academic writing where a writer needs to carefully judge the extent to which they wish to promote their point of view (Thompson, 2014, p.73). Although Halliday & Matthiessen (2004, pp.180) formalise the use of the three-point scale, they insist that they are not absolute categories and there are more delicate distinctions between them.
Table 2.3 Modal values (Modal commitment)
Modalization Modulation
HIGH That must be John. You must ask someone.
MEDIAN They should be back by now. You should invite her.
LOW I may be quite wrong. You can help yourself to a drink.
Adapted from Thompson (2014, p.72)
Within the SFL framework, there is an additional level of complexity which contributes further to the development of the reader-writer relationship. In addition to indicating a writer’s commitment to their assertion by altering the ‘values’ of the utterances, they can also position their assertions along two intersecting clines of ‘subjectivity versus objectivity’ and ‘implicitness versus explicitness’ (Thompson, 2014, p.75), examples of which are summarised below in Table 2.4. Subjective orientations involve the speaker or writer being overt about the source of their utterances and involve a level of self-attribution to their claims (see examples 1a, 1b, 2a and 2b). Objective orientations, on the other hand, aim to mask the identity of the source (see examples 3a, 3b, 4a and 4b). On the second cline, implicitness in modality indicates that the modal element of the utterance is maintained within the same clause (see 2a, 2b, 3a and 3b); however, explicitness in modality extends the actualisation beyond the limits of the clause into its own clause (see 1a, 1b, 4a and 4b)) (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004, pp.181). Therefore, orientations help to identify the source of the modality and how much responsibility the writer is willing to accept in the judgement expressed by it (Yang, Zheng & Ge, 2015, p.3).
Table 2.4 Modal orientations (Modal responsibility)
Modalization Modulation
Explicit subjective
1a. I’m sure we should sell this place.
1b. I don’t advise you to drink it.
Implicit subjective
2a. She might have written to me. 2b. I mustn’t go there anymore.
Implicit objective
3a. We probably won’t repay it. 3b. A cathedral is supposed to be
old. Explicit
objective
4a. It’s likely that they’ve heard by now.
4b. It’s essential that you leave at once.
Adapted from Thompson (2014, p.75)
It should be noted that modal verbs, the most frequently used lexicogrammatical resources for expressing modality, the main source of attention for the teaching of modality to learners of English, and the resources which tend to be relied upon heavily by ‘lower-ranked writers’ (Takahashi, 2009, p.9) are inherently ‘subjective’ and implicitly so. In choosing to use modal verbs, it is the speaker or writer who is ‘responsible’ for the assessment of modal meaning (probability, usuality, inclination and obligation). Their finite position within the clausal structure (i.e. located between the subject and the main verb) prevents the projection of the ‘aura’ of modality extending beyond it (Eggins, 1994; Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004; Martin, et al., 1997). An alternative to the use of congruent (i.e. unmarked) expressions of modality, which modal verbs, and by extension modal adjuncts/adverbs, represent, is to express modality ‘metaphorically’. In this case the finite modal operators (modal verbs and modal adjuncts/adverbs) are realised as clauses (Eggins, 1994, p.181). Examples of this can be seen in 4a and 4b, above, where, in each case, the expression of modality is expressed metaphorically. In congruent form, these examples could be rewritten as 4a(i) ‘they will have heard by now’ and 4b(i) ‘you must leave at once’. However, the speaker or writer has chosen an approach that permits modality to be expressed within their own clauses. In occurrences such as these, the modal constituents are said to be ‘masquerading as…adjunct[s]’ (Eggins, 1994, p.181). What would normally be described in subjective terms is now enabled through the use of grammatical metaphors. The pseudo-clause structure of ‘it is … that’ allows the writer to ‘hide behind an ostensibly objective formulation’ (Eggins, 1994, p.182) and effectively distance themselves from their propositions or proposals, suggesting that they were stated by someone other than themselves (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004, p.630). This is a useful device that broadens a speaker or writer’s linguistic repertoire of possible choices.
Given the array of language choices available to every writer at any given point, it is clear that learners of English who have become proficient in the aural interactive regime of
General English classes, which value informality and colloquial expressions, will also need to master an additional layer of complexity to be able to develop a ‘student’ academic voice based on genres which are ‘non-interactive, lexically dense and impersonal’ (Liardét, 2018, p.64).
All of these features combined describe what is known as the system of modality (See Figure 2.2), and represent the simultaneous choices that are needed when expressing this language feature.
Adapted from Thompson (2014, p.77), based on Halliday & Matthiessen (2004) Figure 2.2 The simultaneous system of modality
The slanted lines in Figure 2.2 represent values on a cline and therefore are not completely separate. Halliday & Matthiessen (2004, pp.695) calculate that once combined, there are a total of 144 categories of modality; however, with more delicate analysis, it could be shown that there are many others.
When contrasted with other methods of description of modality, the flexibility and dynamism of SFL is clear to see. It goes beyond the limitations of the approaches noted above, in that, not only does it analyse the use and meaning of modality in texts in general, but it also accepts that modality is integrated into the functions of the texts themselves, and into what language is appropriate (in lexicogrammar, semantics and pragmatics) given the communicative purposes of the texts and who the intended readers are. To understand what modality is, therefore, is to accept that it is also a representation of all of the elements noted above, and that the decisions made by the writer are carried out simultaneously. This concurs with Aijmer’s (2015) assertions that ‘modality should be studied both formally and functionally and, additionally, function should be able to explain the distribution of forms’ (p.3). This may
look like an additional complication in the discussion on what modality is, however, taken through the lens of SFL, it is a definition that can be applied for pedagogical purposes, as it can be broken down into stages, within which the skills in understanding each element can be developed over time. For this reason, it is the definition that will be adopted to form the basis of analysis of all stages of this research project and one what will be used when discussing the implications.
In understanding the theoretical background of the topic, it is now necessary to review how modality in learner writing has been researched and, in particular, how it relates to learner writers in an academic context.