A Systemic Functional Approach to 'Validity Assessment'

in English

HIROSHI FUNAMOTO

1. Introduction

A considerable number of studies have been dedicated to the descrip­

tion of a small set of items which is traditionally termed 'modal verb' in

English. The identification of these items as members of the single class,

i.e., 'modal verb', seems to be based on the syntactic properties of these

items, as proposed in Halliday's seven criteria for identifYing ten modal

verbs, including will, would, can, could, may, might, should, must, ought

to and need. 1 As the term indicates, however, these items are quite often

analyzed in connection with the concept of 'modality' at a conceptual

level, where meanings expressed in the 'modal verbs' are classified into

different types of 'modality'. Therefore, it would be more appropriate to

state that the study of 'modality' has been confined almost entirely to the

study of the 'modal verbs' in English. In Perkins' words, 'most linguistic

studies of modal expressions begin and end with an analysis of the

modals,.2 However, the fact is that there are various forms which are

semantically related to the modal verbs, and yet they seem to have

received less attention than the 'modal verbs' in the study of 'modality'.

The purpose of this paper is to describe the lexicogrammar of the

modal verbs and other semantically related forms of expression at the

levels of both meaning and form in the framework of Systemic Functional

Linguistics (SFL). In this paper, I particularly draw on a linguistic model

which is recently referred to as the Cardiff Grammar, as developed by R.

Fawcett and other scholars working in the COMMUNAL Project.3

CS1]

82

In this paper, I will focus on one of the major areas of meaning which

may generate the modal verbs in English, namely that of 'VALIDITY

ASSESSMENT' (or simply 'VALIDITY') in English.4 'Validity assessment'

is defined by Fawcett as:5

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 ofthe 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.

Thus the category of 'validity assessment' is roughly equivalent to

'epistemic modality' in traditional grammar. As we will see, however, this

study will explicitly show that the system for VALIDITY is not confined

to the classification of meanings expressed in the modal verbs, but it

incorporates meanings which generate other forms such as perhaps, be

sure to, it is possible that ... , etc., which are syntactically distinct from the

modal verbs yet semantically, and so 'systemically', related to these at

the level of meaning. In the subsequent sections, I will illustrate a func­

tional description of various forms of expression through a traversal of

the system network for VALIDITY ASSESSMENT, and show an explicit

analysis of syntactic structures of the examples given at the relevant

points for illustration.

2. Entering the system networks for validity assessment

Validity assessment mainly conveys the speaker's statement of his or

her level of confidence in the validity of the experiential content of the

event, as set out by reference to Fawcett's definition above. The initial

choice in the VALIDITY network is whether or not to express his or her

83

commitment to the validity meaning at all. If the speaker makes an

assertion with the absolute validity of the proposition, he or she says:

(1) 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:

(2) She may live here.

The system network for the initial choice is illustrated in Figure 1.

SYSTEM NETWORK

-{ validity unassessed ...

validity assessed ...

EXAMPLE

She lives here.

She may live here.

Figure 1: The initial choice for entering the VALIDITY network

If the feature [validity assessed] is selected, then the options that

should be considered next are those that distinguish types of validity

meaning in terms of whether it is integrated with the structure of the

clause or it is expressed in a higher clause, and the other clause which

conveys the substantive proposition is embedded in the Complement of

the higher one. The distinction between these two options is illustrated

in Figure 2.

84

SYSTEM NETWORK EXAMPLE

VALIDITY integrated ... He may be studying.

ASSESSMENT superordinated ... It is possible that he is working.

Figure 2: The first options in 'validity assessed'

2.1. Basic validity

Amongst many different ways of expressing one's assessment of the

validity, 'basic validity' is the most frequent type of the meaning. The

system network for 'basic validity' is entered if the feature [integrated] is

chosen in the system network in Figure 2. The system network for 'basic

validity' is illustrated in Figure 3.

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. For example, consider

the following example:

(3) Joe may have repaired the roof yesterday.

In (3), 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 realize some MOOD mean­

ing, such as a 'polarity seeker', as in:

(4) May Joe have repaired the roof yesterday?

basic

SYSTEM NETWORK

-[ ,imp!,

conclusion { d'M ,"oog { ::~":: . {Unmarked

tentative re-enforced

possibility { clear

{

unmarked tentative

quasi-ability

prediction

85

REAUZATION

o <must

X<have,I<to

x < have, XEx < got, I < 1

o <should

0< ought to

O<may

o <might

o <could

O<will

Figure 3: The system network for 'basic validity'

Another characteristic which may be worth noting is that any of the

ten modals, including will, would, can, could, may, might, shall, should,

must and ought (to), cannot be combined with each other. So for instance

we cannot have:

(5) *Joe may must have repaired the roof yesterday.

Example (5) demonstrates the basic principle that THERE MUST BE

ONE AND ONLY ONE OPERATOR IN A CLAUSE IF IT IS TO OCCUR.

The analysis of (3) is illustrated in Figure 4.

86

Cl

S 0 X M C A

~ D!J~ ~ D Joe may have repaired the roof yesterday.

Key to additional terms: Cl = Clause, S = Subject, 0= Operator, X = Auxiliary Verb, M = Main Verb, C = Complement, A = Adjunct

Figure 4: The Operator as an element of the clause

In the subsequent sections, we will look at the more delicate system net­

works for each type of 'basic validity' in detail.

2.1.1. 'Conclusion' meaning

We will begin with considering features which are dependent on 'con­

clusion' as shown in Figure 3 above. The 'conclusion' meaning indicates

that the speaker is able to draw a conclusion from what he or she has

already known or observed. If the speaker enters the system network for

'conclusion', there are two major options of either [clear] or [tentative].

The difference between the two options derives from the degree of the

speaker's confidence about the veracity of the evidence that he or she can

draw on. The 'clear' meanings are more confident than the 'tentative'

ones.

If the speaker chooses [clear conclusion], there are further two options,

i.e., either [simple] or [strong], and the latter opens up even further

choices between [unmarked] and [re-enforced]. The [simple] meaning is

expressed in the modal verb must, as illustrated in the following exam­

ple:

87

(6) Rena must be kind to anyone.

The modal verb must in (6) is regarded as an item which expresses the

'simple' meaning as a type of 'clear conclusion', because it functions as

the Operator, which is a 'core' element in the clause structure in the

sense that it may contribute to realizing several distinct meanings simul­

taneously, such as MOOD, TIME, POLARITY as well as VALIDITY

ASSESSMENT.

The two options, [unmarked] and [re-enforced], on the other hand,

which are dependent on a 'strong conclusion', are not realized by the

Operator. Note that in British English the 'strong' types of meaning are

far less likely to occur than a 'simple' conclusion, as Palmer points out.6

The followings are examples of these two types of meaning:

(7) Rena has to be kind. [strong: unmarked]

(8) Rena has got to be kind. [strong: re-enforced]

According to Quirk et aI, have to and have got to are referred to as

'semi-auxiliary' and 'modal idioms', respectively.7 However, despite the

fact that they defined these forms in terms of several formal criteria,

they do not show a detailed analysis of the internal structures of these

different types of 'auxiliaries'. In this paper, I propose that these should

be regarded as a complex of Auxiliaries, comprising the Auxiliary (as

indicated as 'X') and, only with (8), its Extension ('XEx'), followed by an

Infinitive Element ('I'). The analysis of the structure in (7) and (8) is

illustrated in Figure 5.

88

Cl

S XXEx MC

fjDD~ ~ ~ (7) Rena (8) Rena

has to has got to

be

be

kind.

kind.

Key to additional tenus: XEx = Auxiliary Extension

Figure 5: Clauses with a strong validity

So far, we have considered features which are dependent on the feature

[clear conclusionl.

In comparison with 'clear conclusions', the meanings of 'tentative con­

clusion' are less frequent options in English. Consider the following

example:

(9) The students should be at school by now.

Should in (9) is weaker than must in terms of the conclusion drawn by

the speaker, and the broad implication of should is '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:

(10) The students ought to be at school by now.

What is common to both cases is that the speaker acknowledges that

there might be something wrong with the conclusion that 'the student

89

"ought to" be at school by now', and there is a room for the speaker to

explicitly deny or doubt the validity of the conclusion.

2.1.2. Possibility

In the system network for 'possibility', two kinds of meaning should be

distinguished. As with the case of the distinction between must and

should / ought to, the distinction here is made between [clear possibility]

and [tentative possibility]. The system network for 'possibility' is illus­

trated in Figure 6.

SYSTEM NETWORK

possibility { clear

{

unmarked tentative

quasi-ability

REALIZATION

o <may

o <might

o <could

Figure 6: The system network for 'possibility'

As the system network in Figure 6 shows, the feature 'clear possibility'

is expressed by may, of which basic property is that it concerns the 'rea1'

situation. In other words, may conveys the possibility of 'actualization' of

the situation at hand, as in:

(11) Joe may be right.

On the other hand, if the speaker refers to the situation in a hypotheti­

cal meaning, can is used instead ofmay.8

(12) Even God can make a mistake.

90

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, there­

fore, this type of meaning is referred to as 'quasi-possibility from circum­

stances'.

If the speaker selects 'tentative possibility' from the network in Figure

6 above, it leads to further choices between [unmarked] and [quasi-abili­

ty]. If the speaker chooses [unmarked], it is expressed by might, which

indicates a little less certainty than may as in:

(13) 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 (14):

(14) In France, furniture could be up to 20 times as expensive as that in

Japan.

2.1.3. Prediction

A typical way of expressing a 'prediction' meaning is to use the modal

verb will. As the following example demonstrates, the use of will in a

'prediction' sense is not necessarily related to futurity.

(15) Find him - he will know who killed the President.

Note that when the speaker uses will, the speaker is no less confident

than similar utterances to must, and what differentiates will from must

is the absence of a clear conclusion that is drawn from what the speaker

has known or observed.

91

2.2. As pseudo-quality of subject theme

Now we turn to considering another set of options in the 'validity' net­

work that are expressed by an Auxiliary Verb with its various

Extensions, which reveal a significant pattern of structure in an English

clause. Consider the following examples:

(16a) He is sure to be kidding.

(16b) He is likely to be kidding.

(16c) He is certain to be kidding.

(16d) He is bound to be kidding.

(16e) He is set to be kidding.

(16f) He is supposed to be kidding.

From a functional point of view, we consider how a given form of

expression contributes to realizing a particular function. Compare the

following examples:

(17a) He must be kidding.

(17b) He has got to be kidding.

(17c) He is bound to be kidding.

As these examples clearly show, there is a functional similarity of the

meanings in the three bold portions. In other words, the semantic paral­

lels between these three suggest that it is more desirable to regard them

as the markers of very similar meanings to each other (i.e., the slightly

different types of 'conclusion' meanings in the VALIDITY network). In

light of a functional view, (16a - f) and (17b) are all analyzed in the same

way as illustrated in Figure 7.

92

Cl

S OIX XEx X M

D D D ~ ~ D (l6a) He is sure to be kidding.

(16b) He is likely to be kidding.

(16c) He is certain to be kidding.

(16d) He is bound to be kidding.

(l6e) He is set to be kidding.

(161) He is supposed to be kidding.

(17b) He has got to be kidding.

Figure 7: A functional syntax of the structure of 'pseudo-quality of subject theme'

As this Figure illustrates, the elements that contribute to expressing

the relevant 'validity' meaning are integrated within the structure of the

clause that expresses the substantial proposition, and all of these items

are regarded as the direct elements of the clause - the complex struc­

ture of the Auxiliary (X) and its Extension (XEx) followed by the

Infinitive Element (I). Notice that in this construction, the relevant valid­

ity meaning, such as 'likelihood', is expressed in 'XEx' rather than the

Auxiliary Verb. It should also be noted that an adjectival exp~ession in

'XEx', such as sure in (16a), does not specify the quality of the Subject

Theme, but it expresses the relevant 'validity' of the proposition as a

whole expressed in the clause, and this is the reason why we label this

type of meaning as 'pseudo-quality of subject theme' in the 'validity

assessment' network in English.

93

2.3. As perception

If the speaker chooses [validity as perception] in the system network

for VALIDITY ASSESSMENT, you must choose one ofthe three options

of either [unmarked], [foregrounding appearance] or [from report], whose

realizations in syntax will be quite tricky to some.

SYSTEM NETWORK

r unmarked

validity as perception 1 foregrounding appearance

from report

REALIZATION

X < seem to

x < appear to

x < sound to

Figure 8: The system network for 'validity as perception'

As Figure 8 shows, each feature is realized by an item that is thought

to belong to the class of 'verb' in traditional grammar, while the present

analysis suggests that it expounds the 'Validity Auxiliary' plus the

Infinitive Element to, which are the direct element of the clause. An

example of 'unmarked validity as perception' is (18).

(18) Rena seems to be happy.

In the Cardiff Grammar, seem in (18) is regarded as an item that

expounds the Validity Auxiliary, as illustrated in Figure 9.

94

Cl

~ S X I M C

!Jhj 6 tJ Rena seems to be happy.

Figure 9: Seem as the Validity Auxiliary

The analysis illustrated in Figure 9, in which seem is treated as an

Auxiliary Verb ('X'), will be sustained by looking at the very close rela­

tionship between (19) and (20).

(19) Rena is likely to be happy.

(20) Rena seems likely to be happy.

(20) is slightly less confident than (19), 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.

If the speaker decides to choose [foregrounding appearance] it is

expressed by appear as in (21):

(21) He appears to be bored.

The third option, [from report], generates a pattern of structure which

is similar to those for [unmarked] and [foregrounding appearance] dis­

cussed above. (22) would be a typical example of [from report]:

95

(22) His advice sounds to be useful.

2.4. As report

The system network for 'validity as report' provides three major

options, i.e., those of [saying], [thought] and [feeling]. These meanings

are concerned with what is sometimes termed as a 'hearsay modality',

which presupposes some source of 'evidence,. 9 Figure 10 illustrates the

system network for 'validity as report'.

SYSTEM NETWORK

of saying

of thought ...

validity as report

of feeling

REALIZATION

x < be said!reported etc

x < be knownlbelieved! thought/understood! sf;en/assumed!judged acknowledged! recognized

x < felt

Figure 10: The system network for 'validity as report'

I will show some typical examples for each type of meaning below:

(23) He is said I reported to have repaired the computer. [of saying]

(24) He is known I believed I thought to be the ideal leader. [of thought]

(25) He is felt to be rude. [offeeling]

3. Adjunctival validity

'Adjunctival validity' expresses meanings in the system network for

ADJUNCTIVAL VALIDITY ASSESSMENT, in which the speaker must

choose two options simultaneously; one that decide the type of adjuncti-

96

val validity meaning expressed, and the other that specifies the position

of the Adjunct in the clause. IO There are a number of options which dis­

tinguish the different types ofthe 'adjunctival validity', which is illustrat­

ed by the system network for ADJUNCTIV AL VALIDITY ASSESSMENT

in Figure 11, in which I show typical examples which are generated from

the relevant options in this network.

The items that express these types of meanings are analyzed as a

Validity Adjunct, whose characteristic is that it can occur at different

positions in the clause, as in:

(26) <Certainly> Joe is <certainly> rich <certainly>.

Here the angle brackets indicate 'mutual incompatibility' with each

other. The position where the element exactly occurs in a clause is decid­

ed by choosing a relevant features, such as either of [thematized], [inte­

grated], [potentially new] and [supplementary information]. They are:

(27) Almost certainly Rena loves Joe.

(28) Rena quite definitely loves Joe.

(29) Rena loves Joe quite definitely.

(30) Rena loves Joe, quite definitely.

[thematized]

[integrated]

[potentially new]

[supplementary information]

Notice, however, that (29) is different from (30) by the absence of the

punctuation in the clause if it is written. ll

ADJUNCTlY AL VALIDITY

ASSESSMENT

SYSTEM NETWORK

validity assessment specified

---f unre-enforced

with certainty re-enforced

doubly re-enforced

. -[Virtual with near certainty some

seeking confirmation

-1 much

hopefully great with probability

considerable

simple

_. JmuCh

with possibility L considerable

simple

-[

conceivable

with slight possibility very slight

very slightly conceivable

~ same information unit

1 thematized ..- -----L

separate information unit

[

same information unit integrated ------1

separate mfonnatlOn umt

potentially new

supplementary information

validity assessment unspecified

EXAMPLE

certainly / definitely J doubtless undoubtedly I unquestionably etc most! quite I very certanly etc

97

absolutely j completely certainly ete

virtually I almost certainly etc

fairly certainly etc

surely e.g. He's there, surely?

very probably

most probably

quite probably

probably! apparently

very possibly

quite possibly

possibly J perhaps J maybe

conceivably

just possibly

just conceivably

Almost certainy Ike loves Ivy.

Almost certainly, Ike loves Ivy.

She quite definitely loves him.

She, quite definitely, loves him.

She loves him quite definitely.

She loves him, quite definitely.

Figure 11: The system network for ADJUNCTIV AL VALIDITY ASSESSMENT

4. The major 'superordinated' options for validity assessment

In Section 2, we have seen that the speaker has to choose one of the

options of either [integrated] or [superordinatedl at the initial step into

the traversal of the system network for VALIDITY ASSESSMENT. As I

have mentioned at that point, the major characteristic in the 'superordi­

nated' validity meanings is that it is expressed in a higher clause and the

substantial clause is expressed in an embedded clause that fills the

98

Complement of the higher clause. Figure 12 shows the major options that

are dependent on [superordinated].12

-{

as quality of attribute

as qualifier of abstract thing superordinated

as report ...

as event

Figure 12: The major options for 'superordinated' clause

The system network for 'superordinated validity' in Figure 12 shows

that there are four different types of meaning which are in turn

expressed in four different patterns of structure. Let us begin with look­

ing at the meaning of 'quality of attribute'. This option, as the term

implies, is expressed in an adjective, such as possible, as in:

(31) It is possible that Rena loves Joe.

The structure of the clause in (31) is analyzed as illustrated in Figure

13.

Cl

Sit OIM C/At

It is possible

CICa

Cl

~ B S M C

D DDtJ that Rena loves Joe.

Key to additional terms: Sit = Empty Subject At = Attribite Ca = Carrier B = Binder

Figure 13: An analysis of a clause with an embedded clause

99

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, as illustrated in (32).

(32) There is a possibility that Rena loves Joe.

Figure 14 shows an analysis of (32).

100

Cl

~ 8th OIM C/Ca

ngp

dq

There is a

h

possibility

q

Cl

~ B 8 M C

~ DDD that Rena loves Joe.

Key to additional tenns: Sth = Empty there Subject ngp = nominal group dq = quantifing detenniner h = head q =qualifier

Figure 14: An analysis of a clause with a 'qualifier of abstract thing'

Thirdly, if the speaker chooses the feature [as report], it enters to

another dependent system, where [personalized] and [depersonalized]

are distinguished, as illustrated in Figure 15.

{

personalized as report

depersonalized

Figure 15: The distinction of [personalized] vs. [depersonalized]

[Personalized] explicitly indicates the 'reporter' in the clause with a rel­

evant verb expressing the 'report' meaning, such as say:

101

(33) 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 'pas­

sivized', as in:

(34) It is said that Rena loves Joe.

The analyses of (33) and (34) are illustrated in Figure 16.

Cl

~ S M C/Ph

Cl

~ B S M C

D DD6

Cl

~ Sit OlXpa M C/Ph

Cl

~ B S M C

DDD6 (33) They say that Rena loves Joe. (34) It is said that Rena loves Joe.

Key to additional terms: Ph = Phenomenon Key to additional terms: Xpa =Passive Auxiliary

Figure 16: A clause expressing 'report' meanings

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

paper 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. (35) is an example of this type of meaning:

(35) it goes without saying that Rena loves Joe.

102

The analysis of (35) is shown in Figure 17.

Cl

Sit M MEx CICa

Cl Cl

~ ~ B M B S M C

L !J 6 DDD It goes without saying that Rena loves Joe.

Key to additional teTIns: MEx ~ Main Verb Extension

Figure 17: A clause with a Main Verb and its Extension expressing a validity meaning

5. Summary and conclusion

This paper has examined a large area of meaning that is concerned

with the expressions of 'validity assessment', by looking at the lexi­

cogrammatical patterns of the various forms expressing 'validity assess­

ment' at the levels of both meaning and form. The description that I have

presented in this paper is, by and large, based on the works in the frame­

work of the Cardiff Grammar, as developed in the COMMUNAL Project

under the direction of Robin Fawcett and other scholars.

As we have seen, the modal verbs, which would have been particularly

studied by a great many linguists in the previous works on 'modality', 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 modal

verbs in English, these may be generated from four areas of meaning,

103

i.e., those of some 'MOOD' meanings, some 'time' meanings, 'validity

assessment' and 'control and disposition', of which VALIDITY ASSESS­

MENT is the focus of the present study. Moreover, we have seen that

each of these areas of meaning is not confined to the generation of the

modal verbs. We have observed that at least adjective, noun, verb and

adverb should be involved in the description of the lexicogrammar of the

expressions of 'validity assessment', yet no one has in fact provided us

with a satisfactory account for these expressions from a systemic func­

tional viewpoint. This study can be said to be an attempt to provide a

fully detailed and explicit account of the lexicogrammatical structures of

the expressions regarding 'validity assessment' at the levels of both form

and meaning in English.

Notes

1 Halliday, M.A.K. (1970) 'Functional diversity in language as seen from a

consideration of modality and mood in English', Foundations of Language 6, p.

330.

2 Perkins, M.R. (1983) Modal Expressions in English. London: Frances

Pinter, p. 25.

3 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.1l4-186.

4 The areas of meaning which are associated with the generation ofthe modal

verbs include those of some 'TIME' meanings, some 'MOOD' meanings, and

what is referred to as 'CONTROL AND DISPOSITION' in the Cardiff

Grammar, as well as the VALIDITY network. Thus, the modal verbs are

obtained from four different system networks in the model which I propose. A

fuller description of the modal verbs in terms of these four areas of meaning

can be seen in my ongoing Ph.D. research.

5 Fawcett, R.P. 1997b. 'Notes on Validity Assessment for text description', ms.

104

6 Palmer, F.R. 1990. Modality and the English Modals, 2nd edition. London:

Longman, p.56.

7 Quirk,R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvik (1985) A Comprehensive

Grammar of the English Language, London: Longman, p. 137ff.

8 In formal English, however, the use of can is sometimes avoided. Instead,

may is preferred for both meanings.

9 Palmer, F.R. 1990. Modality and the English Modals, 2nd edition. London:

Longman, p.12.

10 For a fuller analysis of the lexicogrammar of Adjuncts in English in the

framework of the Cardiff Grammar, see Ball, F. (2002) 'A Functional

Approach to Adjuncts in English: A Lexicogrammatical Analysis of Corpus

Data', a doctoral thesis, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, U.K.

11 In a spoken text, different intonation patterns will play the role of distin­

guishing the two functions which are symbolized by the slash (I) indicating a

'falling tone':

(36a = 34) Rena loves Joe quite / definitely.

(36b = 35) Rena loves / Joe I quite / definitely.

The vertical line in (36b) indicates the boundary oftwo 'tone units', which lead

to the interpretation of the portion of the Validity Adjunct as expressing a

'supplementary information'. However, it is beyond the present study to exam­

ine the intonation systems of English. For fuller analysis of the phenomena in

SFL, see Tench, P. (1997) The Intonation Systems of English, London: Pinter.

12 The system network is based on Abunowara, A. (1996: 211) '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. Cardiff: School of English, Communication and Philosophy, Cardiff

University, Cardiff.