A Functional Analysis of Interpersonal GM in Political Debates

1. A Functional Analysis of Interpersonal GM in Political Debates 政治辩论语篇中的人际语法隐喻功能分析 Presented byZhang Zhixiang

2. The Significance of the Study 1. The functional analysis of interpersonal GM could enable us to understand the interpersonal meaning of the political debate from a new perspective, which elaborates the subtleties of language use in this kind of genre and helps us have a better understanding of it. 2. This study demonstrates that Systemic Functional Grammar, characterized by its multi-level and multi-function, could provide us with a theoretical framework for genre analysis. 3. Through the functional analysis, we find that language form is consistent with its function. Therefore, such a study suggests that similar analysis could also benefit English learners in their improvement of English listening, speaking and writing so that they can develop their communicative competence more effectively.

3. Introduction • This thesis is a case study of the First Bush-Kerry Presidential Debate in 2004. In light of Halliday’s point of view on grammatical metaphor, this thesis first identifies interpersonal GM in the debate and then analyzes their various pragmatic functions.

4. The Concept of Grammatical Metaphor Grammatical metaphor is an incongruent realization of meanings involving transference of grammatical units from one domain to another, either from a basic domain to a subdomain, or from one subdomain to another subdomain.

5. The Concept of Interpersonal Grammatical Metaphor • The grammar also accommodates metaphors of an interpersonal kind, in the expression of mood and modality, which is interpersonal grammatical metaphor. Mood expresses the speech function; and Modality expresses the speaker’s judgment or evaluation.

6. The Concept of Metaphors of Modality • Modality refers to a speaker’s attitude towards, or opinion about the truth of a proposition expressed by a clause. It also extends to his/her attitude towards the situation or event described by a clause. • 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 .

7. The Concept of Metaphors of Mood • The system of mood involves four speech functions: offer, command, statement and question. The incongruent transference in the process of the realization of these functions is metaphor of mood • One speech function can be realized by various moods, and one mood can realize different speech function as the following Table shows.

8. Typical and metaphorical realizations of speech functions in mood types

9. Identification of Interpersonal GM in Political Debates • Identification of Metaphors of Modality in Political Debates • Identification of Metaphors of Modality through Clause • Identification of Metaphors of Modality through Nominalization • Identification of Metaphors of Mood in Politic Debates • Identification of Metaphors of Mood by Desired Response • Identification of Metaphors of Mood by Contextual Hints

10. Identification of Metaphors of Modality through Clause • There is an example of a very common type of interpersonal metaphor, 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. • To the congruent form it probably is so corresponds with the metaphorical variant I think it is so, with I think as the primary or ‘alpha’ clause (Halliday, 2000: 354). The reason for regarding this as a metaphorical variant is that the proposition is not, in fact, I think; the proposition is it is so.

11. Identification of Metaphors of Modality through Nominalization • Nominalization that could be used to express modality include: possibility, probability, likelihood, certainly, unusualness, regularity, typicality, intention, desire, determination, need, obligation, regulation, compulsion and so on. By means of these nominalizations, modality is construed as an unquestionable fact i.e. modality is expressed explicitly with objectivity.

12. Identification of Metaphors of Mood by Desired Response • In interacting with another person, the speaker will inevitably enact one of the speech roles: anything he says will be intended and interpreted as a statement, or a question, or a command or an offer. By acting out a role, he is simultaneously creating a desired role for the other person (even if the other person does not in turn carry out that role): in asking a question, for example, the speaker creates the role of answerer for the other person. However, the speaker may also project a role onto himself or herself or the other person by the way s/he talks about them. It’s the speaker’s strategy, by using metaphorical forms, to achieve his purpose, such as persuading or evaluating.

13. Identification of Metaphors of Mood by Contextual Hints • One important implication of the functional view of language is that context and language are interdependent (Thompson, 2000:68) . • The wording alone itself carries no explicit signal of being an instance of this or that specific category. The context of situation, is the immediate environment in which a text is actually functioning (Halliday, 1978: 28).

14. Functional Analysis of Interpersonal GM in the First Bush-Kerry Presidential Debate • Functions of Metaphors of Modality in the First Bush-Kerry Presidential Debate • Functions of Metaphors of Mood in the First Bush-Kerry Presidential Debate • Functions of Nominalization in the First Bush-Kerry Presidential Debate

15. Functions of Metaphors of Modality in the First Bush-Kerry Presidential Debate 1. To highlight the firmness of one’s attitude or belief 2. To disguise the subjective nature of one’s arguments 3. To express relevant connotative meanings 4. To help optimize one’s presentations for one’s goals

16. To highlight the Firmness of One’s Attitude or Belief • Debaters sometimes would like to emphasize the subjectivity of their points of view so as to make one’s statement more assertive; and the most effective way of doing that is to dress it up as if it was this that constituted the assertion (‘explicit’Ithink)(Halliday, 2000:362). The subjective nature of the assessment is reinforced by the modality in a separate clause.

17. To Disguise the Subjective Nature of One’s Arguments • Halliday (2000:362) points out that one of the most effective ways of creating objectivity is through the use of explicitly objective form of modality. By using it, the speaker can make his or her point of view appear to be a quality of the event itself because this objectification is clearest in cases where the modality is expressed in a separate clause, namely in explicitly objective form.

18. To Express Relevant Connotative Meanings • Explicitly subjective modality in negative form can be used to express some emotional meanings, such as sarcasm.

19. To Help Optimize One’s Presentations for One’s Goals • In a presidential debate, any candidate is expected to present information in favor of himself and against his rival, so whether the presentation is to one’s interest is of great importance. In Bush-Kerry’s debate, we find both candidates are very skillful in manipulating explicitly subjective and objective modalities.

20. Functions of Metaphors of Mood in the First Bush-Kerry Presidential Debate 1. To persuade the audience implicitly into accepting the debater’s arguments 2. To shorten the social and psychological distance between the debater and the audience 3. To induce the audience’s participation in the intended dialogue 4. To make one’s views sound more authoritative 5. To make one’s tone more emphatic or more euphemistic

21. To Persuade the Audience Implicitly into Accepting the Debater’s Arguments • As Thompson (1996:68) explains, “an interrogative in written text may clearly not be expected to give rise to a response in reality, but its response-demanding function remains and is part of the reason why the writer has chosen an interrogative rather than a declarative at that point.”

22. To Shorten the Social and Psychological Distance between the Debater and the Audience • Both Bush and Kerry use declarative mood to metaphorically realize a command instead of the typical use of the imperative mood. Therefore, their speech tone is softened and the social distance between them and the audience is shortened so that they are more likely to get the audience’s understanding and support.

23. To Induce the Audience’s Participation in the Intended Dialogue • Sometimes, a speaker plays both of the roles of speaker and audience. He asks a question, and then he answers it himself; thus statements metaphorically realized in the interrogative mood instead of their typical realization in the declarative mood. And this makes the debate sound as natural and vivid as if it were a dialogue with the audience. Therefore, the audience is much likely to accept his argument.

24. To Make One’s Views Sound More Authoritative • When both Bush and Kerry want to explain something, they usually use the clause let me…, that is, an imperative tone upon a simple statement. In other words, the declarative meaning is metaphorically realized through the imperative structure let me…. This kind of structure serves to make the speaker’s presentation sound more authoritative.

25. To Make One’s Tone More Emphatic or More Euphemistic • In the presidential debate, it is found that debaters sometimes replace declarative mood with imperative mood for the sake of emphasis. • The replacement sometimes can play a stronger effect – to express a threat, though the words are said euphemistically.

26. Functions of Nominalization in the First Bush-Kerry Presidential Debate • The use of nominalization may serve as a means of both disguising the source of modality and making it more difficult to query. • The most important function of nominalization in interpersonal metaphor might be to objectify opinion, especially in persuasive text, so as to make it more difficult for the reader or the hearer to disagree.

27. Major findings 1 1. In political debates, explicitly subjective metaphors of modality could help to highlight the firmness of the debater’s attitude or belief so as to win the audience’s support and understanding. 2. Explicitly objective metaphors of modality could disguise the subjective nature of the debater’s decisions so that he could shirk the responsibility for his wrong doings. 3. In certain contexts, explicitly subjective metaphors of modalities, especially those in the negative form, could convey relevant connotative meaning, such as sarcasm. 4. Queclarative, a metaphor of mood formed by replacing declarative mood with the interrogative mood, could implicitly persuade the audience to accept the debater’s arguments and induce their participation in the intended dialogue.

28. Major findings 2 5. A metaphor of mood formed by replacing imperative mood with declarative mood could shorten the social and psychological distance between debater and the audience so as to get the audience’s understanding and support; by contrast, another kind of metaphor of mood, with declarative mood replaced by imperative mood, could make the debater’s tone more emphatic or more euphemistic, depending on the situation. In addition, the structure let me/us… could enable a debater’s arguments to sound more authoritative. 6. In political debates, nominalization of modality can also serve as a means to mask the subjective nature of the debater’s arguments or decisions as if they were facts which don’t allow any challenges or suspicions.

29. Limitations • Due to the lack of reference materials and time limitation, it is difficult for the investigation to be comprehensive and exhaustive and many aspects of the functions of interpersonal GM in political debates remain untouched. • The First Bush-Kerry Presidential Debate is only a small part of political debates. It may not be typical enough to represent the political debate genre. • The data comes from the author’s own calculation, which may involves some margin of errors.

30. . Thanks!