Phân tích ẩn dụ liên nhân trong các bài diễn văn tuyên bố bằng tiếng anh theo quan điểm chức năng hệ thống

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST – GRADUATE STUDIES
*********

LÊ VÂN ANH

A SYSTEMIC – FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF
INTERPERSONAL GRAMMATICAL METAPHOR
IN ENGLISH ANNOUNCEMENT SPEECHES
Phân tích Ẩn dụ liên nhân trong các bài diễn văn tuyên bố
bằng tiếng Anh theo quan điểm chức năng hệ thống

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Linguistics
Code: 60220201

HANOI – 2017


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF
LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF
POST – GRADUATE STUDIES *********

LÊ VÂN ANH

A SYSTEMIC – FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF
INTERPERSONAL GRAMMATICAL METAPHOR IN
ENGLISH ANNOUNCEMENT SPEECHES

Phân tích Ẩn dụ liên nhân trong các bài diễn văn tuyên bố
bằng tiếng Anh theo quan điểm chức năng hệ thống

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Linguistics
Code: 60220201
Supervisor: Dr. NGUYỄN THỊ MINH TÂM

HANOI – 2017


DECLARATION
I, Lê Vân Anh, hereby certify that the thesis “A systemic-functional analysis of
Interpersonal Grammatical Metaphor in English Announcement Speeches” is the
result of my own research for the Degree of Master at University of Languages and
International Studies, Vietnam National University, and that the substance of the
thesis has not, partly or wholly, been submitted for a degree to any other universities
or institutions.
Hanoi, 2017
Signature

Lê Vân Anh

i


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my sincere thanks and gratitude to the people who
assisted and always made the best conditions and environment for me to complete

this thesis.
First of all, I would like to send my special thanks to Dr. Nguyễn Thị Minh
Tâm, who spent much of her valuable time supervising and guiding my study. This
paper would not be finished without her support and guidance. Her useful
suggestions and valuable critical feedback encouraged me during the process of
conducting this study.
I am also indebted to my lecturers in both under-graduate and post-graduate
faculties at University of Languages and International Studies for their precious
lectures in linguistics which help me to have the basic and necessary knowledge to
carry out this study.
Last but not least, I also owe many thanks to my family members for their great
encouragement, my friends and my colleagues for their support in completing this
thesis.

ii


ABSTRACT
This study investigates the realization and effects of interpersonal grammatical
metaphor in political announcement speeches made by five US presidents. The
analytical framework of the study is based on M. A. K. Halliday‟s Systemic
Functional Grammar theory of Interpersonal Grammatical Metaphor. The data of the
research is taken from the analysis of five announcement speeches made by 5 US
presidents: George H. W. Bush in 1991, Bill Clinton in 1999, George W. Bush in
2003, Barack Obama in 2016, and Donald Trump in early 2017. The results reveal
that metaphor of mood and metaphor of modality are realized in all the speeches but
not much. However, there is quite a balance in the times of metaphorical
occurrences in all the speeches in general and in each separate speech in particular.
In terms of metaphor of mood, all the three moods including declarative,
interrogative and imperative are employed metaphorically. In terms of metaphor of

modality, specifically the orientation, explicitly subjective forms of modality
overtake explicitly objective forms. Besides, concerning the type, modalization is
adopted metaphorically more than modulation. Despite the fact that interpersonal
metaphor is not frequently used in the announcement speeches, it has shown its
effectiveness and importance in the process of delivering the speeches.

iii


TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION........................................................................................................ i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...................................................................................... ii
ABSTRACT............................................................................................................. iii
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES........................................................................ ivi
PART A: INTRODUCTION................................................................................... 1
1. Rationale.......................................................................................................... 1
2. Purpose and significance of the study.............................................................. 2
2.1. Purpose of the study.................................................................................. 2
2.2. Significance of the study........................................................................... 2
3. Scope of the study............................................................................................ 3
4. Design of the study.......................................................................................... 3
PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND............................................ 4
1.1. Systemic Functional Linguistics............................................................... 4
1.2. Interpersonal Metafunction....................................................................... 5
1.3. Grammatical metaphor............................................................................ 11
1.4. Interpersonal Grammatical Metaphor..................................................... 12
1.5. Political discourse................................................................................... 16
1.6. Literature review..................................................................................... 17
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY.................................................................... 19

2.1. Data source............................................................................................. 19
2.2. Research questions.................................................................................. 19
2.3. Methods of the study............................................................................... 19
2.4. Analytical framework............................................................................. 20
2.5. Data analysis procedure.......................................................................... 22
CHAPTER 3: MAJOR FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION...............................23
3.1. Data analysis and major findings............................................................ 23
3.2. Discussion............................................................................................... 26
iv


PART C: CONCLUSION.......................................................................................

1.Summary and major findings ............................................................

2.Implications .......................................................................................

2.1.To the teachers ....................

2.2.To the students .....................
3. Suggestion for further studies .........................................................................
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................
APPENDICES ...........................................................................................................
APPENDIX 1 ...........................................................................................................
APPENDIX 2 ........................................................................................................
APPENDIX 3 ........................................................................................................
APPENDIX 4 ..........................................................................................................
APPENDIX 5 ........................................................................................................
APPENDIX 6 .......................................................................................................
APPENDIX 7 ......................................................................................................

APPENDIX 8 .................................................................................................

v


LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 1: Speech functions and responses................................................................................... 5
Figure 2: Relation of modality to polarity and mood.............................................................. 6
Figure 3: System of types of modality.......................................................................................... 6
Figure 4: System of types of orientation in modality.............................................................. 7
Figure 5: Expressions of probability............................................................................................. 7
Figure 6: Three values of modality................................................................................................ 8
Figure 7: Explicitly subjective modality as grammatical metaphor................................ 15
Figure 8: Explicitly objective modality as grammatical metaphor.................................. 15
Table 1: Modal operators................................................................................................................... 9
Table 2: Modal adjuncts................................................................................................................... 10
Table 3: Modality: examples of „type‟ and orientation combined.................................. 14
Table 4: The subtypes of interpersonal metaphor................................................................... 20
Table 5: The subtypes of modality and their realization...................................................... 20
Table 6: Realization of metaphor of mood................................................................................ 21
Table 7: Realization of metaphor of modality......................................................................... 22
Table 8: Metaphor of mood in five announcement speeches............................................. 24
Table 9: Metaphor of modality in five announcement speeches...................................... 25
Table 10: Metaphor of mood and metaphor of modality in five announcement
speeches.................................................................................................................................................. 27
Table 11: Metaphorical decorative mood in five announcement speeches...................28
Table 12: Metaphorical interrogative mood in five announcement speeches..............30
Table 13: Metaphorical imperative mood in five announcement speeches..................31
Table 14: Explicitly subjective and explicitly objective forms of modality in five
announcement speeches................................................................................................................... 33

Table 15: Modalization and Modulation in metaphor of modality in five
announcement speeches................................................................................................................... 36
Table 16: Mood and Metaphor of mood in five announcement speeches..................... 38
Table 17: Modality and Metaphor of Modality in five announcement speeches.......39
vi


PART A: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale
Systemic-Functional Linguistics (SFL) is an approach to language developed
mainly by M.A.K. Halliday in the U.K. during the 1960s, and later in Australia. The
approach is now used world-wide, particularly in language education, and for
purposes of discourse analysis.
While many of the linguistic theories in the world today are concerned with
language as a mental process, SFL is more closely related to Sociology: it explores
how language is used in social contexts to achieve particular goals. In terms of data,
it does not address how language is processed or represented within the human
brain, but rather looks at the discourses we produce (whether spoken or written),
and the contexts of the production of these texts.
Because it is concerned with language use, SFL places higher importance on
language function (what it is used for) than on language structure (how it is
composed).
Halliday mentioned three kinds of metafunctions of language including
ideational metafunction, interpersonal metafunction and textual function. Among
these, interpersonal metafunction is the one that shows us communication purposes
the most clearly – that is, to establish and maintain appropriate social links between
people. Therefore, the researcher has decided to choose five announcement
speeches to analyze how effective interpersonal metaphor is.
Announcement speeches at meetings or conferences, especially at political
events are always presented by influential English speakers who tactfully use their

wordy power to attract their audience. Therefore, announcement speeches play a
very important part in orienting, inspiring, and persuading the listeners. Clearly, the
success of an announcement speech is the successful communication between the
speaker and the listeners. To achieve this interaction, many language skills have
been employed in the addresses.

1


Realizing the importance of announcement speeches and the skillful
communication skills of the speakers, the researcher decided to choose five
announcement speeches as the object of the research. Through studying these
speeches, the researcher realizes that interpersonal grammatical metaphor is a
linguistic feature of addresses or speeches. It plays a significant role in the
achievement of various communicative purposes such as making the speeches more
convincing, attracting the audience‟s attention or calling for agreement from others.
In the light of Halliday‟s view of interpersonal grammatical metaphor, the
analysis is carried out from the realization means of metaphor of mood and
metaphor of modality.
2. Purpose and significance of the study
2.1. Purpose of the study
The purpose of the research is to study, identify and investigate metaphor in the
expression of mood and modality in five announcement speeches. Simultaneously,
the researcher would like to see how effective the metaphor of mood and metaphor
of modality are used in these speeches. The investigation is guided by the research
questions:
 How is metaphor in the expression of mood and modality realized in the
announcement speeches?

What are the effects of interpersonal grammatical metaphor in the

speeches?
2.2. Significance of the study
This research, which aims to investigate the realization of mood and modality in
some authentic announcement speeches, elaborates how language forms are
combined with language functions to achieve various communicative purposes.
Therefore, a functional analysis of interpersonal grammatical metaphor can provide
a new perspective for various discourse analyses.
Another point is that the research of interpersonal grammatical metaphor in
discourse can also benefit English teachers and learners in better understanding and
employing target language and thus improving the communicative competence

2


more effectively. Furthermore, the research shows how the good exploitation of
these means can support the development of learners‟ language skills and boost
their understanding and better ability to flexibly use mood and modality in speech.
3. Scope of the study
In this minor thesis, in the light of systemic functional grammar, the focus of the
investigation is on metaphor of mood and metaphor of modality in political
announcement speeches. The materials are five announcement speeches made by 5
US presidents: George H. W. Bush in 1991, Bill Clinton in 1999, George W. Bush in
2003, Barack Obama in 2016, and Donald Trump in early 2017.
4. Design of the study
The structure of the study is based on the basic design of a scientific research
which includes three main parts. Part A – INTRODUCTION presents the rationale,
purpose and significance, scope, and design of the study. Part B – DEVELOPMENT
comprises three chapters. Chapter 1 shows the theoretical background of the study.
Chapter 2 is about methodology of the study. Chapter 3 presents the major findings
of the study in terms of metaphor of mood and metaphor of modality – the

realization of interpersonal grammatical metaphor in all five announcement
speeches with some possible explanations about the types of metaphor of mood and
metaphor of modality used and the discussion about their effects on these
announcement speeches. Part C – CONCLUSION summarizes the findings and
points out the implications of the study. Some suggestions for further studies are
also included in the last part.

3


PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
1.1. Systemic Functional Linguistics
Systemic-Functional Linguistics (SFL) is a theory of language centered around
the notion of language function. It is a grammar model developed by Michael
Halliday in many of his works, especially in his Introduction to Functional
Grammar (1985 and 1994). SFL is an approach to language which focuses on how
people use language in social contexts. That means it places the function of
language as central in preference to more structural approaches, which place the
elements of language and their combinations as central.
Taking the functional approach in studying languages, SFL conceives of
language as being organized in terms of three general functional components, which
are called metafunctions. The ideational metafunction has to do with the way in
which we construe our human experience in and of reality through language. This
experience is seen as being encoded in language through processes, participants in
these processes, and circumstances, or through entities and qualities (Halliday,
1994).
The interpersonal metafunction has to do with the way in which we enact
interpersonal relations and create intersubjective positionings through linguistic
interaction. The working of the interpersonal metafunction can most clearly be seen

in language in the expression of subjective meanings through evaluative language,
but it is also present in the system of modality, by which different degrees of
certainty are expressed. Another area of language which is regarded as part of the
interpersonal component in SFL is the grammar of mood including declarative,
interrogative and imperative mood. For instance, the speakers argue about
propositions like asking or give information by means of a question or a statement,
respectively and negotiate about actions to take place such as expressing a
command by means of the imperative.

4


The ideational and interpersonal metafunctions are complementary and
constitute the major components of language. They are further supported by a third
metafunction, the textual metafunction. Textual metafunction has to do with the
textual organization of language and deals with, for example, the positioning of new
and given information in a stretch of spoken or written language.
1.2. Interpersonal Metafunction
1.2.1. Mood
Mood expresses the speech function; the underlying pattern of organization here
is the exchange system – giving or demanding information or goods-&-services,
which determines the four basic speech functions of statement, question, offer, and
command (Halliday, 1994).
Commodity
exchanged

Information

Goods-&Services

Figure 1: Speech functions and responses (Halliday, 1994)

Congruent relationship between mood and speech function:
•

Interrogative  question

•

Declarative  statement

•

Imperative  command
5


1.2.2. Modality
Semantically there are intermediate stages – points between “yes” and “no” such
as “maybe” or “sometimes” or “supposedly” – which are expressed by modality
(Thompson, 1996). A simple starting definition of modality is that it is the space
between “yes” and “no”.

Figure 2: Relation of modality to polarity and mood
(Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004)

Figure 2 shows four kinds of modality: probability, usuality, obligation and
inclination. Halliday and Matthiessen (2004) refer to probability and usuality
together as modalization, which they associate with propositions (statements and
questions). Meanwhile, they refer to obligation and inclination as modulation,

which is associated with proposals (offers and commands).

Figure 3: System of types of modality (Halliday, 1994)

6


Halliday‟s concept of modality, in short, can be seen through the three variables
which modality is subject to. The first is the above-mentioned distinction between
the two main types of modality: modalization and modulation.
The second is what Halliday (1994) refers to as “orientation” in modality. He
clearly indicated that ““orientation” is basically used to distinguish the subjective
and objective modality, or the explicit and implicit variants” (Halliday, 1994).

Figure 4: System of types of orientation in modality (Halliday, 1994)

These are four which either subjective-explicit (I think Mary knows) or
subjective-implicit (Mary will know) on the one hand. On the other hand, it could be
either objective-explicit (It‟s likely Mary knows) or objective-implicit (Mary
probably knows).
Category
(1) subjective
(2) objective
Figure 5: Expressions of probability (Halliday, 1994)

Finally, the third variable is what Halliday calls the values attributed to modal
forms and these can be low, median, high (Halliday, 1994). In that sense,
modalization would include various intermediary degrees of probability (possible/
probable/ certain) and usuality (sometimes/ usually/ always), while modulation
would cover different degrees of obligation (allowed/ supposed/ required) and

inclination (willing/ keen/ determined) (Halliday, 1994). These correspond
respectively to the low, median, and high degrees. (See figure 6)
7


Figure 6: Three values of modality (Halliday, 1994)

1.2.2.1. Modalization
(i) The notion of modalization
Modalization is seen to reflect the speaker‟s judgment to proposition
(information commodity: statement and question).
Halliday (1994) further subdivides modalization into two sections depending on
two kinds of intermediate possibilities: degree of probability (possibly/ probably/
certainly) and degree of usuality (sometimes/ usually/ always).
In other words, the modality relates to how valid the information is in terms of
probability (how likely it is to be true) and usuality (how frequently it is true).
(ii) The realization of modalization
Modalization can be typically realized by finite modal operators in the verbal
group (such as might, will) and/ or modal adjuncts of probability and usuality (such
as certain, probably) and other subtypes (Halliday, 1994).
Modality is first realized by finite modal operators or modal auxiliary verbs and
polarity. In terms of degree, there are three levels including high, median, and low.
In terms of polarity, he shows the two poles that are positive and negative (See
Table 1).

8


MODAL OPERATORS
Degree of

Modality

Polarity

Table 1: Modal operators (Halliday, 1994)

According to Halliday (1994), modal adjuncts “are those which express the
speakers‟ judgment regarding the relevance of the message.” He subdivides modal
adjuncts into two categories that are mood adjuncts and comment adjuncts. All these
two types of modal adjuncts as well as their wordy realization are summarized in
the table below.
Type

Su

Pro

Us

Ty
Mood
adjuncts

Re

Ob

Tim

Ob

Int


9


De

Op

Ad

Pe

En

Pre

De

Comment

Re

Adjuncts

Va

Ev

Pre

Table 2: Modal adjuncts (Halliday, 1994)

1.2.2.2. Modulation
(i) The notion of modulation
Modulation is a subjective consideration to proposal (goods and services
commodity: offer and command) (Thompson, 1996).
If the commodity is goods-and-services, the modality relates to how confident
the speaker can be in the eventual success of the exchange. According to Halliday
(1994), modulation can be subdivided into two types: the degree of obligation on
the other person to carry out the command and the degree of inclination or
willingness of the speaker to fulfill the offer.
(ii) The realization of modulation


10


Halliday (1994) suggests that modulation is typically realized by: first, the
modal operators; second, a passive verb predicator; and third, an adjective
predicator.
An example that modulation is expressed by a modal operator can be: “You
should know that; I‟ll help them” (Halliday, 1994).
The table of modal operators is presented in Table 1.
Modulation is expressed by the selection of passive verb predicators which can
be seen in the following examples:


You are required to do the job. (Obligation – Obligation/ High)



You are supposed to find a good solution. (Advice – Obligation/ Median)



I am determined to do the job. (Determination – Inclination/ High)

Some examples which illustrate the type of realization – an adjective predicator can
be:


I am willing to do the work. (Willingness – Inclination/ Low)



I am keen to do the job. (Desire – Inclination/ Median)



I am certain to do the research. (Determination – Inclination/ High)

1.3. Grammatical metaphor
Halliday‟s approach relies on the fact that there are different choices of
grammatical structures, congruent and incongruent ones. Grammatical metaphor is
conceived as an incongruent realization of a given semantic configuration in the
lexicogrammar (Halliday, 1985).
The concept of grammatical metaphor depends on the idea that there is a direct

line of form to meaning to experience. As far as Halliday is concerned, the
lexicogrammar is a natural symbolic system. This means “...that both the general
kinds of grammatical pattern that have evolved in language, and the specific
manifestations of each kind, bear a natural relation to the meanings they have
evolved to express” (Halliday, 1985).

11


1.4. Interpersonal Grammatical Metaphor
1.4.1. Metaphor of Mood
One main type of interpersonal metaphor is that associated with Mood.
Normally, Mood expresses the speech function and the congruent relationship
between mood and speech function (Halliday, 1994). Specifically, declarative mood
is realized by statements, interrogative by questions and imperative by commands.
Nevertheless, in terms of Metaphor of Mood, there is a mismatch between Mood
and speech roles. The fact that mood choices and speech roles do not always
coincide can be seen as a kind of grammatical metaphor and it can be identified in
the expression of mood meanings. In Mood metaphor, things are different; a
statement or a question can be used to make commands...
As with other cases of metaphor, metaphor of mood involves the use of one
linguistic form to express a meaning that is not its most natural function.
Furthermore, the meaning comes from the combination of both form and function.
For example, questions are most congruently associated with interrogative
mood, but questions can be asked with a declarative mood choice like “So you are a
student?”
Another example is “Would you mind closing the window?” This is a demand
for an action of closing the window but it is worded as a question. Therefore, the
effect is to soften the demand.
A declarative mood can be inferred from a question like “Who knows?” Actually,

the congruent form of the question is “I don’t know”.
“There is no reason not to follow your heart” (Steve Job, 2005) is a case of using
metaphor of mood. The metaphorical form is a statement but it functions as a
command “Let’s follow your heart”. This makes the command gentler and
reasonable because the listeners will feel that the speaker does not require them to
do something, instead, he just gives his opinion. But the opinion is stated firmly
(high modality value), so it can strongly affect the listeners.

12


From the examples above, it can be seen that there is a “mismatch between
wording and function, and the possible reasons for it” (Thompson, 1996: 175).
1.4.2. Metaphor of Modality
The other main type of interpersonal metaphor is that associated with Modality.
Although modality is mainly expressed by modal verbs (can, could, should...) or
adverbs (possibly, hopefully, certainly...), they are not the only means for that.
Clauses (It is likely that, it is obvious that...), nouns (probability, certainty,
likelihood...), verbs (think, believe, hope...) and prepositional phrases (in my
opinion, in all probability...) can be employed to express modality. However, the
difference between these two means is that while the former is regarded as
congruent form, the latter is considered incongruent form or it is called metaphor of
modality.
Metaphor of modality is based on the semantic relationship of projection. In this
type the speaker‟s opinion regarding the probability that his observation is valid is
coded not as a modal element within the clause, which would be its congruent
realization, but as a separate, projecting clause in a hypotactic clause complex.
For instance, “I think it’s going to rain” (Halliday, 1994: 354) is regarded
metaphorical while the congruent form is “It’s probably going to rain”. The reason
is that the proposition is not “I think” but “it’s going to rain”. The metaphorical

variant can be seen clearly by the tag “I think it’s going to rain, isn’t it?”, not “I
think it’s going to rain, don’t I?”. As in the example, the speaker‟s opinion about
the probability is not included in the main clause but separated in a projecting clause
“I think”.
Halliday (1994) claims that the basic distinction that determines how each type
of modality will be realized is the “orientation”: the distinction between subjective
and objective modality, and between the explicit and implicit variants. These
combine with all four types of modality; however, there are gaps here. Specifically,
there are no systematic forms for making the subjective orientation explicit in the
case of usuality or inclination. “This is a systematic gap; these particular

13


combinations would represent semantic domains where the speaker cannot readily
pose as an authority” (Halliday, 1994: 358).

Modalization:
probability

Modalization:
usuality

Modulation:
obligation
Modulation:
inclination
Table 3: Modality: examples of ‘type’ and orientation combined
(Halliday and Matthiessen, 2004)

As pointed out by Halliday (1994), “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”. Therefore, modality
14


expressed explicitly is the metaphorical realization of modality. In other words,
congruent realizations express modality implicitly while metaphorical realizations
express modality explicitly. Therefore, to study interpersonal grammatical
metaphor, types and orientation in modality need to be realized.
Explicit subjective modality is regarded as a kind of metaphor. “The wording is
metaphorical in that there is a tension between the grammatical dominance of the
modal clause and the semantic dominance of the „reported‟ clause” (Thompson,
1996: 173).
I
Senser
„probably
Figure 7: Explicit subjective modality as grammatical metaphor (Thompson, 1996)

Explicit objective modality is essentially metaphorical.
you

„re

Carrier

Pr: R

„You

proba

Senser

Pr: M

Figure 8: Explicit objective modality as grammatical metaphor (Thompson, 1996)

The examples reveal that the clauses in explicitly subjective type are all
expressions of mental processes, and they emphasize the subjectivity of the
speaker‟s judgment or suggestions. While the projecting clause in explicitly
objective type, as the realization of a part in relational process clause, is posed as a
proposition with some attribute; thus, highlighting the objectivity of the speaker‟s
opinion or assertion.
Besides, nominalization of modality can also be employed to express the
objective explicit orientation. “Nominalizing is the single most powerful resource
for creating grammatical metaphor. By this device, processes (congruently worded
as verbs) and properties (congruently worded as adjectives) are reworded

15