Misrepresenting Modality Metaphor And Misunderstanding Negotiation

Doran, Martin & Zappavigna (2025: 46):

In addition to one supporting and the other noting what is being tendered, there is a second difference between (27) and (28).

Looking grammatically, in (28) there are two clauses being given – a ranking clause It is possible… and an embedded clause there was an invasion. This means that there are two possibilities for rendering. For example, one may reject that there was an invasion by saying No, there wasn’t; or alternatively, one may reject the possibility that there was an invasion by saying No, it isn’t. This indicates that (in the absence of a modality metaphor; (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014, pp. 686-687)), there are in fact two positions being tendered here, which is shown in the analysis – one by the ranking clause it is possible…, and one by the embedded clause there was an invasion, the latter of which is being rendered by the it is possible.

In (27), the probably does not tender a position separate to that of I’ll be home (i.e., we cannot negotiate probably independent of the whole position without tendering something new – something like It’s not only probably, but definitely). Thus, there is only one position being tendered. This is a distinction in Halliday’s terms between what he calls explicit objective modality (e.g., it is possible) and implicit objective modality (e.g., possibly).

Reviewer Comments:

[1] This is misleading because it is untrue. The authors claim this is “in the absence of a modality metaphor,” but what they describe is in fact a classic example of one. As Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 698) make clear:

The explicitly subjective and explicitly objective forms of modality are all strictly speaking metaphorical, since all of them represent the modality as being the substantive proposition.

That is precisely what we see in (28), where “It is possible” realises the modality not congruently but metaphorically, as a projecting clause.

What the authors call “two positions being tendered” in context are actually the two propositions (semantics) construed via this grammatical metaphor. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 688) explain:

What happens is that, in order … to claim explicitly that the probability is objective, the speaker construes the proposition as a projection and encodes … the objectivity (it is likely), in a projecting clause.

This is not a contextual issue of “positioning,” but a semantic issue of projection and modality metaphor.

[2] This is misleading because it is untrue. The authors claim that probably in (27) does not “tender a position” separately from I’ll be home, implying that it cannot be negotiated independently. But in SFL, the arguability of a proposition derives from the Mood element, and probably — as a mood Adjunct — is part of that Mood element. It is available for negotiation: an interlocutor can challenge it directly (“Probably?”) without needing to construct a new proposal.

As Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 143, 150) clarify:

… if anything it is the Mood element that embodies the proposition rather than the remainder of the clause.

… the Mood element has a clearly defined semantic function: it carries the burden of the clause as an interactive event.

Once again, the authors collapse distinctions across strata and metafunctions, confusing a semantic projection structure with a contextual positioning move.