7/27/2019 Towards a Systemic Profile of the Spanish MOOD

1/25

Towards a systemicprofile of the Spanish MOOD.BeatrizQuirozUniversity of Sydney

1 IntroductionThe aim of this paper s to explore he MooD systemof the Spanishclause,as a region ofinterpersonalmeaningswithin the frameworkof SystemicFunctionalLinguistics(hereafter,SFL).Given the paradigmatic erspective rivileged n SFL descriptions,he focushere s on the choicesunderlying the different lexicogrammaticalstructures used by Spanish speakers n verbalexchanges,n particular, he resources vailable or the exchangeof information and goodsandservicesn dialogue.The variety addressedn this account s Chilean Spanish; he descriptive ocus is on the(simple) clause and the (verbal) group. Key interpersonal eatures are first addressed rom theperspective f discourse emantics, eginningwith the explorationof the key negotiatory eaturesof the organisation f the clause,andnoving on to the realisation f 'subjecthood'and finiteness'.Subsequently, generalMOOD systemnetwork is outlined, ncluding discussionof the systemic

contrastsmotivating its featuresand their structural realisation. Finally, a number of issuesemerging rom this discussion re aised.2 SomegeneralconsiderationsWithin the Indo-European inguistic family, Spanishbelongs o the branch of Romancelanguagesncludingmodem French,Portuguese, omanian,Catalanand Italian. As is well-known,all of these languagesshare their common origin in Latin, and thus inherit a number ofmorphologicaland grammatical eatures Penny,2002).Traditional typological characterisations f Spanish adopt a 'bottom-up' syntagmaticperspective- i.e. hey focus on morphological eatures nd on the expected rderingof elementsnthe clause. n terms of morphologicalorganisation, panishhas been classifiedas syntheticon thebasisof its rich portmaneaumorphology as opposedo say English,which is considered nalytic;however here has been an ongoing drift in Spanish rom synthesiso analysisover time, whencomparedo Latin. As for the ordering of elements,Spanishs traditionallyclassifiedamong SVOlanguages,n spite of the fact that this suggested equenceeveals only a general endency ndiscourse, ince he orderingof elementss also often described s rather'flexible'. Moreover, he'S' elementcan be 'explicit' or 'implicit', with the verbal morphology taken as facilitating therecovery f an mplicit 'Subject'.3 Typological considerations rom a systemic unctional perspectiveSFL typologicalwork privilegesa 'top-down' approach o language escription,akingas apoint of departure he social functions hat are enacted n the basic lexicogrammatical nit, theclause Martin, 1983;Caffarelet a1.,2004;Ghio and Fernnde2,2008).he assumptionn SFLtypology s that any given language an be located n the multidimensional emioticspacedefinedby the theory,stressing oth similaritiesand differences t higher evelsof analysis Caffarelet al.,2004), n the light of the typologicalwork conductedup to the present,SFL argues he case orcomprehensiveescriptionswhich:i) are metafunctionally iversified, .e. hat coversimultaneouslynterpersonal,deational ndtextualmeaning-makingesourcesiD are primarily located n the lexicogrammatical tratum, as the key level interfacing he'content'and expression'planesn language;iii) explore he realisationof lexicogrammaticalmeaningsalong the rank scalemoving fromthe clause,o the group/phrase,o the word (or to the morpheme,,asequired);' To ap pear n Linguisticsand the Human Sciences, (l).@Author. leaseo notcte r orward thout uthor's ermission.

bq i8 3 8@ ni.sydney.edu.a

7/27/2019 Towards a Systemic Profile of the Spanish MOOD

2/25

iv) take he clauseas he point of origin of systemic exicogrammatical escription;v) interpret meaning-makingchoices at th clauseas features organised n systems andsubsystems),pecifring heir structural utput;vi) are data-oriented,o that he description fthe overallsystem s groundedon the resourcesfound n naturallyoccurring nstancesor texts), n comparableegisters.SFL typological work in different languages has suggested mportant descriptivegeneralizationsn termsofcross-linguisticconvergence nd divergence. anguages ppear o sharethe property of metafunctional diversification of meaning in interpersonal, deational and textuallexicogrammaticalystems.However, while primary choiceswithin eachof thesesystemsend tobe similar, their structural realisations show significant variation. For example, the structuralrealisation of interpersonal, ideational or textual meanings within the relevant systems can belocatedat differentpointsalong he rank scale i.e.clause, roupor word). It alsoappearshat morespecifrc or delicate choices within systems show significant differences across languages(Matthiessen,2004).

3.1 Descriptionof lexicogrammatical ystemsn Romance anguagesUp to the present, esearchocusing on lexicogrammatical ystemsn Romance anguagesincludesa comprehensive ccountof French Caffarel,1992,2004,2006),as well as he explorationof specific exicogrammatical ystems n Portuguesethe TFIEMEystem, n Gouveiaand Barbara,2001;theMooDsystem,n Gouveia, 010,andFigueredo,orthcoming).As for researchspecificallyaddressingSpanish exicogrammatical ystems, his is morerecentand still shows imitations n scope.Studies vailable ncludea comprehensive escription fPeninsularSpanish,mainly oriented o contrastiveapplicationswith English (Ars, 2003, 2006,2010; Arus and Lavid, 2001, Lavid and Ars, 2004; Lavid. Ars and Zamonno, 2010). Otherapproaches asedon Latin Americanvarietiesof Spanish ave ocusedon the explorationof textualsystems rom a discourse-semanticerspective,mostly in written academic egisters Moyano,forthcoming; Ghio and Fernandez,orthcoming).In general,previousaccounts f Spanish exicogrammatical attems n systemic unctionaltermsareheterogeneousn termsof their degreeof comprehensivenessnd the extent o which theyare oriented o discoursesemanticspattems.Most importantly, a fundamental systemicorientationto the descriptionof lexicogrammaticalesources,o the extent suggested y descriptivework inEnglish and other Romance anguages Martin, 1983, 1996a,2004; Caffarel, 2004; 2006) remainsin earlystages f development.4 Interpersonalgrammar'fromabove'

The preliminarydescription resented ere s partofa broader tudy hat addresseshe hreemost generalSpanish exicogrammatical ystems, nterpersonal,deationaland textual, favouringthe explorationof lexicogrammaticalmeanings from above', i.e. from the stratum of discoursesemantics.As pointedout within SFL typological work (Martin, 1983; Caffarel et al,2004), thestudy of the lexicogrammarof a given language rom a discourse emanticperspectivemitigatesagainst he imposition of the functional descriptiondeveloped or English on the functionalorganisationof other languages.Thus, following this generalapproach, his paper focuses nparticularon the key lexicogrammaticalesourcesor the negotiationof meanings n dialogueasrealisedn the basicSpanishMooD system.4.1 Choices n verbal exchanges

Traditionally, grammaticaldescriptionsof Spanishhave obscured he resources sed byspeakers or the enactingof social roles and the negotiation of meanings n dialogue.This isparticularly true in relation to the study of languageuse in day-to-day social contexts and spokenmodes,which until recently were not taken seriously n traditionalgrammaticaldescriptivework.But this is in fact the context in which the exploration of interpersonalmeanings n general,and the@Author. leaseo notcte r orward thout uthor's ermission. 2

bqui838@ ni.sydney.edu.au

7/27/2019 Towards a Systemic Profile of the Spanish MOOD

3/25

MooDsystem n particular,areespecially elevant, ince hey arecrucial o understand ot only thespecific nterpersonal hoicesmadeby Spanish ative speakers ut also heir specific ealisationnverbalexchanges.An initial important consideration egarding interpersonalsystems s, accordingly, heassumption hat such systemsat clause rank realise nterpersonal hoicesmade by speakersndiscourse, hich is modelledat higher evelsof abstraction. ne startingpoint for the description finterpersonal ystems s therefore he exploration of resourcesor the exchangeof goods-and-services,proposals,and the exchangeof information,propositions Halliday, 1984, 198511994;Halliday and Matthiessen, 004, Martin, 1992).At the discourse emanticstratum, his distinctionhas been formalised in the form of the spsrcH FUNCTIoN ystem,whose main variablesarepresented elow:

Table L Fundamental ystemic ariablesn systems f speechunctioni n format ion n n ^ c c e a Y \ 7 i ^ eY v v s u

g.r-vr_ng J L d L C l t t e l f Ldemanding l 1 a q t I n command

The variablesshown n Table I show the potentialavailable o speakersor the negotiationof roles (giving and demanding)and commodities informationand goods and services)at thediscourse emantic tratum.Halliday (1984) proposes n interstratalelationbetween hesechoicesand heir congruent ealisation n lexicogrammar.Specifically,he generalassumptions that eachspeechunctionvariable s congruently ealised, n lexicogrammar, y specificMooD choices:TabIe2. Speechunctionvariablesand heir congruentealisationsn lexicogrammar

i n format ion a a l c f , q r r r i . a