Towards a systemicprofile of the Spanish MOOD.

BeatrizQuiroz University of Sydney 1 Introduction

The aim of this paper is to explore the MooD systemof the Spanishclause,as a region of interpersonal meaningswithin the framework of SystemicFunctionalLinguistics (hereafter,SFL). Given the paradigmaticperspective privileged in SFL descriptions, the focus here is on the choices underlying the different lexicogrammatical structures used by Spanish speakers in verbal exchanges, in particular,the resources available for the exchangeof information and goods and services in dialogue. The variety addressed in this accountis Chilean Spanish;the descriptivefocus is on the (simple) clause and the (verbal) group. Key interpersonal features are first addressedfrom the perspective of discoursesemantics, beginningwith the explorationof the key negotiatoryfeatures 'finiteness'. of the organisation of the clause,andnoving on to the realisationof 'subjecthood'and Subsequently, a generalMOOD systemnetwork is outlined, including discussionof the systemic contrastsmotivating its features and their structural realisation. Finally, a number of issues emergingfrom this discussion are raised. 2 Somegeneralconsiderations Within the Indo-Europeanlinguistic family, Spanishbelongs to the branch of Romance languages including modem French,Portuguese, Romanian,Catalanand Italian. As is well-known, all of these languages share their common origin in Latin, and thus inherit a number of morphological and grammatical features(Penny, 2002). 'bottom-up' syntagmatic Traditional typological characterisations of Spanish adopt a -- i.e. they focus on morphologicalfeatures perspective in and on the expectedorderingof elements the clause.In terms of morphologicalorganisation, Spanishhas been classifiedas syntheticon the analytic; basisof its rich portmaneau morphology- as opposed to say English,which is considered however there has been an ongoing drift in Spanishfrom synthesisto analysisover time, when compared to Latin. As for the ordering of elements, Spanishis traditionally classifiedamong SVO languages, in spite of the fact that this suggested reveals only a generaltendency in sequence discourse, sincethe ordering of elementsis also often described as rather'flexible'. Moreover,the 'S' element can be 'explicit' or 'implicit', with the verbal morphology taken as facilitating the recovery of an implicit'Subject'. 3 Typological considerationsfrom a systemicfunctional perspective taking as a SFL typological work privilegesa 'top-down' approach description, to language point of departurethe social functions that are enactedin the basic lexicogrammaticalunit, the in SFL clause(Martin, 1983; Caffarelet a1.,2004;Ghio and Fernnde2,2008). The assumption typology is that any given languagecan be locatedin the multidimensionalsemiotic spacedefined by the theory, stressing both similaritiesand differences at higher levels of analysis(Caffarelet al., 2004), In the light of the typological work conductedup to the present,SFL arguesthe casefor comprehensive descriptions which: ideationaland i) are metafunctionally interpersonal, diversified,i.e. that cover simultaneously textual meaning-making resources ; iD are primarily located in the lexicogrammatical stratum, as the key level interfacing the 'content' and 'expression'planes in language; iii) explore the realisationof lexicogrammatical meaningsalong the rank scalemoving from the clause, to the group/phrase, required); to the word (or to the morpheme,,as
' To appearin Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 4(l). @Author. Please do not cteor forward permission. wthout author's bqui83 28@ uni.sydney.edu.a u

iv) take the clauseas the point of origin of systemiclexicogrammatical description; v) interpret meaning-makingchoices at th clause as features organisedin systems(and subsystems), specifring their structuraloutput; vi) are data-oriented, so that the description ofthe overall systemis groundedon the resources found in naturally occurringinstances (or texts),in comparable registers. SFL typological work in different languages has suggested important descriptive generalizations in terms ofcross-linguisticconvergence appearto share Languages and divergence. property the of metafunctional diversification of meaning in interpersonal, ideational and textual lexicogrammatical systems.However, while primary choiceswithin each of these systemstend to be similar, their structural realisations show significant variation. For example, the structural realisation of interpersonal, ideational or textual meanings within the relevant systems can be locatedat differentpoints along the rank scale(i.e. clause,group or word). It also appears that more specifrc or delicate choices within systems show significant differences across languages (Matthiessen,2004). 3.1 Descriptionof lexicogrammatical systems in Romancelanguages present, Up to the researchfocusing on lexicogrammatical systemsin Romancelanguages includesa comprehensive accountof French(Caffarel,1992,2004,2006),as well as the exploration of specific lexicogrammatical (the TFIEME systemsin Portuguese system,in Gouveia and Barbara, 2001;theMooDsystem, in Gouveia, 2010,andFigueredo, forthcoming). As for researchspecifically addressingSpanishlexicogrammaticalsystems,this is more of recentand still showslimitations in scope.Studiesavailableincludea comprehensive description PeninsularSpanish,mainly oriented to contrastiveapplicationswith English (Ars, 2003, 2006, 2010; Arus and Lavid, 2001, Lavid and Ars, 2004; Lavid. Ars and Zamonno, 2010). Other approaches basedon Latin American varietiesof Spanish have focusedon the explorationof textual systemsfrom a discourse-semantic perspective,mostly in written academicregisters(Moyano, forthcoming; Ghio and Fernandez,forthcoming). In general,previous accountsof Spanishlexicogrammatical pattemsin systemicfunctional terms are heterogeneous in terms of their degreeof comprehensiveness and the extent to which they are oriented to discoursesemanticspattems. Most importantly, a fundamental systemic orientation to the descriptionof lexicogrammatical by descriptivework in resources, to the extent suggested English and other Romance languages(Martin, 1983, 1996a,2004; Caffarel, 2004; 2006) remains in early stages of development. 4 Interpersonalgrammar'fromabove'

The preliminary description the three presented hereis part ofa broaderstudy that addresses most generalSpanishlexicogrammatical ideationaland textual, favouring systems,interpersonal, the explorationof lexicogrammaticalmeanings'from above', i.e. from the stratum of discourse semantics. As pointed out within SFL typological work (Martin, 1983; Caffarel et al,2004), the study of the lexicogrammarof a given languagefrom a discoursesemanticperspectivemitigates against the imposition of the functional description developed for English on the functional organisationof other languages.Thus, following this general approach,this paper focuses in particularon the key lexicogrammatical resources for the negotiationof meaningsin dialogue as realised in the basic Spanish MooD system. 4.1 Choicesin verbal exchanges

Traditionally, grammaticaldescriptionsof Spanishhave obscuredthe resourcesused by speakersfor the enacting of social roles and the negotiation of meanings in dialogue. This is particularly true in relation to the study of languageuse in day-to-day social contexts and spoken modes,which until recently were not taken seriouslyin traditional grammaticaldescriptivework. But this is in fact the context in which the exploration of interpersonalmeanings in general,and the
@Author. Please permission. do not cteor forward wthout author's bqui83 28@ uni.sydney.edu.au 2

not only the MooD systemin particular,are especiallyrelevant,sincethey are crucial to understand but also their specificrealisationin specificinterpersonal choicesmadeby Spanishnative speakers verbalexchanges. An initial important considerationregarding interpersonalsystems is, accordingly, the choices made by speakersin assumptionthat such systemsat clause rank realise interpersonal of One startingpoint for the description discourse, which is modelledat higher levelsof abstraction. interpersonal systemsis therefore the exploration of resourcesfor the exchangeof goods-andservices,proposals,and the exchangeof information, propositions(Halliday, 1984, 198511994; Halliday and Matthiessen, 2004, Martin, 1992).At the discoursesemanticstratum,this distinction system, whose main variables are has been formalised in the form of the spsrcH FUNCTIoN presented below: function of speech Table L Fundamental systemicvariablesin systems
information g.r-vr_ng
demanding
J LdLClttelf L

nn^c Y vvsu

eaY\7i

^e

l1a

qt

I n

command

for the negotiation The variablesshown in Table I show the potentialavailableto speakers of roles (giving and demanding)and commodities(information and goods and services)at the relation betweenthesechoices discourse semanticstratum.Halliday (1984) proposes an interstratal is that each and their congruentrealisationin lexicogrammar.Specifically,the generalassumption MooD choices: specific by speech function variableis congruentlyrealised, in lexicogrammar, in lexicogrammar realisations TabIe2. Speech function variablesand their congruent
information giving statement:
!^^t --^+l--^ aalc f, qrrri.a<

/rrinrr<\

demanding

rrqfr^. i nf rr^li rra

command:
imnor:j-iro

gmd;eErE

firfrdin

crclorir

*l
lI Srtttg

r*
I L- iqaiw

-'l

*o-.tito

-l L- dclrrriw

L- tcmcve

-+l

r-FL'
L-tn

l-- *'rg

SPEECHFLINCTTON

MMD

permission, @Author, Please do not citeor forward withoutauthor's bqui8328 @uni.sydney.edu.au

Figure 1. Interstratal relation betwdenspEECH and trooo systems FITNCTIoN This closerelation betweenthe generalsystemof spercu FLINCTIoN and the primary system of Ivtooo is supportedby data from a number of languagesother than English, suggestingthat the way in which these interpersonal discoursesemanticchoicesare realisedin the clausetend to be similar (Teruya et a1.,2007; Matfhiessenet al, 2008). Thus, propositions for the exchangeof information are congruently realised in the uooo system by indicative clauses (including declarativeand interrogativeclauses),whereasproposalsfor the exchangeof goods-and-services (Martin, 1990;Rose,2001; Caffarel,2006; Teruyaet are congruently realisedby imperativeclauses aI.20071' Matthiessen et al., 2008). Martin (1992) extendsthis speechfunction perspectiveon the interpersonalorganisationof discourse semantics and its relation to lexicogrammar in his exploration of the system of NEGoTIATIoN, a rank above the spgBcu FI-INCTIoN system. He points to the interplay between the structureof exchanges in English and the lexicogrammatical resources used in their resolution,In this analysis, the English Mood elementstandsout as the key structurefor the dynamic negotiation of interpersonalmeanings in exchanges:it realises, through the Subject function, the modal responsibility assigned- and dynamically negotiated- for the enactmentof propositions and proposals; at the sametime, it allows interlocutors, throughthe Finite function, to adjustPOLARITY, 'at risk' in the MODALITY and tBNsB. In Martin's interpretation, interlocutors centre the meanings Mood element,a process that is primarily aimedat efficiently resolvingverbal exchanges:
slnjE HTE do mult (rflt)

[replryMoodl
iflr6r:'rith;u lmrsttlbrpautarypo*Uar -lbs | I tynl

[edjustrornnvl llilslst'tansEmrem
-tts itb! -Holtlft

It
it it rEtt lt

lrft
'rs rrft srft cil cadt fse w.rft r't (dd) ft (-dl (ddl trrft

ladustrmA|nY]
-\fhl, rr argur:ntlsrftfu*canurdcdcr. -ltsrb. -f,Dhcrft

lubstltubSubjectl
-Yqrretheh*a*'bu:eitire*ry -llol*rnt Anrrutorr I Art | tor yor

lsubstituF part sf Resldue]

-lcrrclscfrragoodqgurrrrt -lloyurdfft YqqrnhelehrilillrnenL

[replace mpcttlon]
th*reherebrnr nErnert uruddm. tfl ar3uEfit -tllHl rr argrrrrrthrftfr*

Figure 2. Meaningsat risk in Englishnegotiation(from Martin,1992: 464-5).

permission. @Author.Please do not cite or forwardwithoutauthor's bqui83 28@ uni.sydney.edu.au

]leethbn
'nuat likElyt

[tKX]Ilfuncti*r)

fkanlryrt k
lirt !t r*kr

REFt/flf ADJUST

tod - unmde{tone

-+eHrylngHE
- tcre

Flnfte : *rH"t*trrpduluon
stbld Hdrp (Frts0 (ptopcltlon/popt!

SU4!flTUTE

rf*'

REPLACE
rhtlikr$

Figure 3. Negotiation,risk and Subjectselection in English (from Martin,1992:464) As seenin Figure 2, the structureof a Mood element in English turns out to be crucial for a better understandingof the resourcesused by native speakersin the dynamic dialogic negotiation of those meaningsmost meanings.Figure 3 shows what are, among the potential available to speakers, 'at risk' in verbal exchangesin English: the meanings centred in the Mood element, where the for the Subjectfunction realises i.e. the personheld modal responsible the 'nub' of the negotiation, proposal or proposition, whereas the Finite realises the 'terms' of the negotiation, i.e. key 'modality' and 'polarity'. interpersonal meaningsgroundingthe clausein termsof 'temporality', The resourcesused in the dialogic negotiation of meaningsarguably differ and are organised differently in languages other than English. In fact, drawing on samples from a number of languages, Teruya et al. (2007) proposea cross-linguisticexploration of the basic interpersonal structureand suggesta cline in which some Romance languages,as French and Spanish,would be locatedhalf-way:
floodS.d

\ -l en*" I lloo * nnre I Gatttrt I sutiect

t".*=-_-l
I Sucel t Finih |

'l + PhoticldaC

""ffi
Fnnch Sp.nft
Cft!

Sbjslt Fib ^ P]Erfic|tol Fin[e'Prudlcdor

Plcdor + Nogolletor
\ \ \ Prdcrb-bEGd

Tl,t, Vfdbflttott, Clfld.s.. Jtptn s

Figure4. Cross-linguistic structure(Teruyaef aL,2007) explorationof the basicinterpersonal In the cline proposed,languages which tend to negotiatemostly by meansof two distinct 'Mood and interdependent Subjectand Finite structuralfunctions,like English, are locatednear the realised pole, whereaslanguages element-based' by meansof the Predicator which tend to negotiate
permission. @Author.Please do not cteor forwardwithoutauthor's bqu8328@uni.sydney.edu.au 5

by the verbal group are locatednear the 'Predicator-based' pole. As seenin Figure 4 above,Teruya et al locateSpanish towardsthe lower sectionof the cline. Specificresearch on other Romancelanguages within the SFL framework,in particular,the work conductedon French by Caffarel (2006), has suggested an interestingconceptthat can be used for a better understanding of the specific way in which these languages organise central interpersonal meanings. In her approach to the Frenchinterpersonal systems at clauserank, Caffarel postulatesthe Negotiator as the key structural element for the negotiation of proposals and propositions. This function, analogous to the English 'Mood element',is realisedin particularways in the French clause,but also in other Romancelanguages, as work conductedin Portuguese has shown (Gouveia, 2010), In her interpretationof the negotiatory resourcesin the clause, the Predicator, realisedby the verbal group,plays a crucial interpersonal role. Indeed, this exploration of French addressing its basic negotiatory structureincludesthe Predicator in the definition of the negotiabilityor 'arguability' of the clause.This is the reasonwhy the Predicatoris groupedalong the Subjectand Finite functionswithin the Negotiator,and not in the Remainder(which, on the other hand,groupsComplements and Adjuncts at clauserankt. This contrasts with the interpersonal descriptionof the English clause,where the Predicatoris part of the Residue, the interpersonal element which does not play any central interpersonal role in the (Halliday 1985,1994;Halliday and Matthiessen, exchange 2004; Martin, 1992): Ert-ceque r
(irtttlut) M.{nt

voie
tga

l,Irure?
'thcmrlt'

Ittotor ttemelnder suJestI Fh/Pred ComFlnem Baalc negststory stilcturc n Frendl (Caflterd,20061

DoyanseetJpnoo

-&i,
TrcS'

h nois. F T $s llcptltor Subiect I Cditic I Finitfp6saro,

te. I * .

Do
ilooddnil Finite

GG tfu

Subiect

noor? ReCdue Frcdlcatr I Comflrnent

-Yeq

do. Ibloodclmrart

5.rbl'sst Fnite

lr

B6icnestatory structure h Engllsh

Figure 5. Basic negotiatory structures in Frenc h and English

As discussed by Caffarel (2006: l2I ff), the resolutionof dialogue in French involves the replay of this basicnegotiatorystructureconsistingof Subject,Finite and Predicatorfunctions.This structure may includeclitics -- particleswhich index recoverable and given entitiesand that arethus included in the negotiationwithin the domain of the verbal group realising the Finite/Predicator function. In addition, these key interpersonalfunctions at clause rank, within the Negotiator, are crucialforthe realisationof Irlooo selections (Caffarc\,2004,2006). in lexicogrammar This generalisation assigninga major interpersonal role to the vefbal group within the basic negotiatorystructureof the clausecn be applied to Spanish.Example I below shows a Spanish
@Author. Please do not citeor forward withoutauthor,s permission. bqui8328@uni.sydney.edu.au 6

translation for the Monthy Python sketch analysedby Martin (1992: 464--465), cuffently available (Englishback translationbelow eachclause): in YouTube2 Example 1. Spanish versionof Monthy Python's argumentsketch
: o j oa I Fs.fo this no es -:_-_--::_ not una discusin argument be an PRS,/ IND 3ps an argument'

'heyl Bl.

rnrs isn't

si -lo yes it ACC 3ps

tvac lifl

es be PRS,/IND 3ps
;q th2f

son solo
ha ^nl r'

contradicciones
^^ntradi , nnq

P R S/ I N D
Jvv

| (fhcv) r.u
z

Arc

onlv

eontradictions'

no i.o son not it be ACC PRS/IND

t/fhattl

,.]-

ara

n^f

that'

AJ

s1 g yes be PRS / IND 3pp

\raq lftrar\ ror

bJ

no Lo not it ACC 3ps

I /L^,,1

son be PRS/IND 3pp

^-^ ^^, tl-r/

A4

: 7n <nn t=:___::-'

it ACC 3ps
rry

be PRST,/IND 3pp
ara fhaf | |

| /fhatl

me acaba

de contradecir!

me finish contradi-ct ACC PRS/IND ]NF 1ps 2ps lvottl insf annfradicted me! try

B4

no i.o
not it ACC
?y n "c. y " . rlTl

he hecho
do PST_PRS/IND
1 nq r"la ift

hatanrt

Af,

Lo hizo ! do it ACC PST,/IND 3ps 2ps

| ltttl AiA if |,r_v:J____v:v___: t

bf, AO

no no no no no l-o acaba de hacer

at finish P R S/ I N D 2ps no, do INF did at

de nuevo
^^-t^

'(
EO

no

son TONTERTAS be stupid things PhS / IND 3pp

@Author.Please do not citeor forwardwithoutauthor's oermission. bqui8328@uni.syd ney.edu.a u

'no no, t A7

s nonsense'

E S T oe a basura this be rubbish PRS / IND 3ps Itis is rubbish' no -o es not it be ACC PRS/IND 3ps 3ps '(it) is not that' entonces rhen tthen deme un buen arqumento gr-.re-ae a gooci argumenE PRS/SUBJ-DAT 2ps lps (vou) qive me a good argument'

B'7

A8

B8

me ha dado un buen arqumento ustBp no you good argument not me gve a PRON DAT PST.P/IND 1-ps 2ps tYou ( y o u ) h a v e n ' t q+yen rne a good argument

A9

DrscurrR y coNTRADEcTR !9_Sg fo mismo not be the same argue and contradict lNF PRS/IND INF 3ps 'To eRcuu (it) is not the same' AND To coNTRADtc't
nrrala E:::=___________ m:rrl qr l^.a

B9

MD/PRS,/IND INF
vtsv t / i f l a n h a t

AL0

nof Dor

no not

puede! can P R S/ I N D 3ps

a^ ^flt

rna

/ifl

DISCUTIR ES dAT give argue be ]NF PRS,/IND INF 3ps 'to aaglre (it) is ta give nn:
a

scric
ear ae

d vvc
aF-

n n vy i Jn i o n e s
ani ni nnc

nar

for to
btu

^ lrnA oprnaon arrive opinion to a INF reach a cornmon opinion'

I Ian:r

comun coInmon

no Lo es

FEe
ACC PRS/IND 3ps 3ps rit is not thatt
All

:-^ yr
rvcq

si

Lo es
rL uE

ACC PRS/IND 3ps 3ps

/l-t i< fhalt

no es
nt

nada

ms

contradecir

he nofhino PRS,/I.ND 3ps

more contradct INF

@Author.Please permission. do not cite or forwardwithoutauthor's bqui8328@un.sydney.edu.au

( ifl |

=:J____::___:::_:

is

nnf

isf

t-a contradiCt'

B11

ml.re
l-a" K PRS/SUBJ

2ps
| l tta tl t!vqt l aal, 1vv'

si discuto con usted if ;;with vorr PRS/IND PRON lps 2ps

tif (Tl tre arotte wifh vou,

tengo que tomar have that take MD/PRS/IND ]NF

1a Iposicin] contraria the position contrary

'(r)

have

take

fh

.^nfrarrr

nn<i

fi

'

pero no
l-\rrf fL r r^v

es solo
l \ u. v ^ l r, v rrry

decir
Ddy

"que no"
rL-r LrrqL h^r rruL

PRS/IND
?n c ve rhtr /i I l i a n^f ^1

INF
\, r^ aa\, tfhat n^t'

'that

ves'

A13
813

que no 'that notf

LA DrscusrN g un proceso intelectualthe argument be a process intefectual P R S/ 3 p s 'en encwer (it) process' is an inteLfectuaf CoNTRADECT eR s
.^f rr.li ^f l.\a

sofo
a l r

deCir

l-O COntrario
f ho

- . ^ -- , - . , - - - v
.^nf rr

INF PRS/IND INF ' r o c o N r R A D r c r( i t ) is just to opooste' A14

say

the

no -lo es not it be ACC PRS/IND 3ps 3ps

| /ar\ tLL/ l^ L^^+ L-l

814

si -lo es yes it be ACC PRS,/IND 3ps 3ps

1.,^^ yco /:r\ trL/ : ^ rp rL-+, LttaL

AIf,

ahora mire... 'now (you) fook...'

The example above shows that the translator chose to replay interpersonal meanings including PERSoN, TENSE, MoDALITv and poLARtTy mainly through the use of pro-verbs. The meaningsat risk are centred in the verbal group, including polarity markers and clitics. Clitics allow the inclusion of more than one participant into the negotiation -- in other words, they speciff the person and number of participants different from the one indexed in the verbal morphology realising modal responsibility. While in these subtitles meanings are replayed and adjustedby meansof pro-verbs,in Spanishdialogue is also possibleto replay the full Process,as shown in Example2 below: Example2. Replayingthe Negotiatorin Spanish dialogue

@Author.Please do not cite or forwardwithoutauthor's permission. bqui8328@u ni.syd ney.edu.au

acaba de me finish A C C P R S , /I N D 1ps 2ps 8/

contradecir contradict INF

(you) iust

contradicted

me!

no Lo
ACC 3ps

he contradicho
PST_PRS/IND 1os

/T\

htrant

^^1-rli

ari

rarr

9l

me contradijo!
^^f r.li -f

lrnrr\

li d

cnntrdiCted

me

ACC PST/]ND 3ps 2ps IO'

no no no no no

no no no no no

The examplesaboveindicatethat in Spanish dialogue: (i) the 'nub' of the negotiation, including the participant modal responsiblefor the at proposition,is mostly replayedby meansof the verbal affrxation coding PERSON 'secondary' 'nub', participants realised word rank. This however,may involve other by clitics (accusativeand/ordative) at group rank; (ii) the 'terms' of the negotiation, i.e., meanings grounding the clause in terms of 'temporality' 'modality' and 'polarity', are mainly replayed, again, through the , 'nub'. In verbal morphology, in which they are realisedconflated along with the 'terms' 'nub' other words, in Spanishdialoguethe and of the negotiation,i.e,, the meanings most at risk, are centredin the verbal group itself. The following extracts taken from a service encounter on the phone (cable tv technical supportr)illustratehow thesebasiccomponents realisedby the verbal group are also crucial for the congruentrealisationof spEECH FUNCTIoNS selectionsin lexicogrammar(in the Spanishoriginal, verbalgroupsappearunderlinedand the verbalmorphologyin bold face):
E5

!_C6[f qlfud
bf GfiID frd*rl

lcenrler
trr-rt

ftlddhctedEilEb mlffir0Hrq4dE!

15

!E Eh tf ,J pltAru ildltf

lscrndr trd

rlcgrrtrdlrml D!Ebrl'?

(lt lctnt Ernc?

drtr

thr dnrrrb lr: mn

l t rilttr Ed !t rr/t drF . zs*d qwrffirnrrfdrt)

06

no

Irtc filrg0dryofwtsrrrt OFrffitt&tdqdv+ sr#

ryrtmc lrfdEtt lsrrl
FIEffi@rchtrqr)

A:.ti crENldhtr lrtrtd'rdrylt}ffi FsrtilD

ldiq

ct5
At5

grlto

ilq||nqr
'dLdl*trl,

lEcrt?

Prru
!rft

cr6 tlocc||qntr y qtro mlrutsrcrdoca

rumdr'

tuNr lty J? mlnutr$ ttrrtu Hd

rEr: ut EH ruthdry hbdd k rup uh.4 Ef lrrrErd! rDlttdc.u.t lrrod. l.iSltldprrr

fidr!

ru.

in Spanish Figure6. Extract from dialogue1: the realisationof statements and questions Figure 6 showsthe congruent-realisation by meansof an indicative clause of a STATEMENT, (C5) as well as the congruent realisation of eUESTIoNS by means of polar and non-polar
permission. O Author. Please do not cteor forward withoutauthor's bqui8328@ uni.syd ney.edu.au

l0

interrogativeclauses(A5, Al5, ,{16). The participants forthe propositions held modal responsible involved are realisedsolely by the verbal morphology coding 'person'. The contrastbetweenthe congruentrealisation of sratrtrgNrs and eUESTIoNS does not involve the sequencingof elements, but only intonational patternsand the presenceor absence of an interrogative element (see systemic considerations below). As for the realisation on coMMANDS, the following pattern can be observed in an extract from a seconddialogue from the sametype of service encounter.In it, the interlocutor talks on the phone with someone else at home (whose interventions cannot be heard) in order to give them instructions: h[r
!!$E lrCr bdds ttd Htrf trrmcd PrqrE PnrHtE l|trr Hfrt|H

dadnbr 0l mrd fhr fpttttn otrth'rtso h Irrrrthn t|trorlnlugmonrt brdrwu lllffil ratftqlEfrr |re ro dec(| rurrrofnrnt hilrdwdr

dlrCradrmlnr
rffiq.E!ffi lrbd
hd fftmaf trffi.d PSN! PHSI lr ld*rftgr{cll

g
trnqf |ltF

Ccabh
thcd

fFlrn mtftrcbk Jtrl mroilrntrlirdwdrr

trrddd
dlsdo trtbd derltrsrud mfr 4ladc ldeytodo
trnd |ltP rdldll

rrthstrudtlsn
delplecr tdttE rne Inna bsrtlr qr uFCtrlE brdun
IcrrHl

(Frltm ane telh nd!l ffirltflnrrndrr o*. tfe

rr?hdry In Hi fra rrH trd. rt |t|| t|H

yrdro
.E rrU tu.p urlh4 ild Ff Flrt Egi lD Hs

Fr

tfui

ie

Figure 7.Extract from dialogue2: the realisation of commandsin Spanish This extractshowsa seriesof commands by rangesfrom 'non-congruent', whoserealisation 'congruent', meansof indicative clauses,to by meansof imperative clauses.In them, the verbal morphologyrealisessimultaneously to a singularaddressee both the modal responsibilityassigned (e.g. '2"o personsingular-non-formal' morphology)and a specific 'verbal mood' at word rank (e.g. 'imperative verbal mood')*. meanings Again, as seenin previous examples,crucial interpersonal are centeredin the verbal group, involving the use of a specific range of verbal morphology at word rank for the realisation of coMMANDS (see detailed systemic considerations below). What is important to highlight at this point is that the presenceof a structural Subject and/or Finite is not decisivefor the realisationof spBBcH modal responsibilityfor FUNcTIoN choicesin lexicogrammar: both propositionsand proposalsis realisedby the verbal affrxation coding 'person', along with otherimportantinterpersonal distinctionsrealisedconflatedin the verbal morphology.' Theseshort extractsshow that both the 'nub', i.e. the modally responsible person,and the 'terms' of the negotiation are realisedin Spanishlexicogrammarwithin the domain of the verbal group, and not by a function grouping a structural Subject and Finite as in English (and French). In other words, from the perspectiveof discoursesemantics, these clausefunctions are not required within the basicstructureof the Neeotiator:

@Author.Please permission. do not cite or forwardwithoutauthor's bqui8328@uni.sydney.edu.au

ll

do codiftrdou he fu&'

m h

tEcttl

'nrHof thlnilrthr Itnodrltrrpdbb pNoill

ffiofnrstHcl $.rbnrpcrlff
"nodd|tf|
Io. *'
rha
;tF

mh

hdblrftC

ttc&'

mnt*f
tHrluldt5tuffi +GFrrdlr t*trHrd -fFEtarerl
*SFratfl|f -T:ilEr

llllftlr

f,rmhdr lqD

t
l[

mmhlrnr?

nq;

Ddc lfltr arq/anrit\ drr rd|t ElHtt 1 rrrttHDrl[ ^ nofdCtlctrrrb'

Figure 8a. Basicstructureof the Negotiatorin Spanish The analysisin Figure 8a shows the basic interpersonal structureof the Spanishclause,in which the Negotiator is realised by the verbal group, which may include the negative polarity marker 'no' leadingthe sequence, The relevantfunctionsthat make the Spanishclausearguableare realisedat group rank (here labelledNeg and Terms).However, like French,other participants can be includedinto the Negotiator in the form of accusative (Clitic), and/ordative clitics as illustrated by Figure7b below:
rEut

FrdFtdEr thron hfrdln rrbl dlHon

No
H' tl'

tHtr

tdror
bluF

rt

lr fl Ol*\trrnrrrhtrt nt; \lrcc lhrrr \te J,twup

IlrfclqnAG'

EI: nn#qiLffi .#E-rf*

#Frrrlr *ffiffird *sdprtsl -*cFrrIf -fplfpr$-7:ll1

Figure 8b. Basic structureof the Negotiatorin Spanish, with clitics

Unlike Frenchand Portuguese (Caffarel,2006;Gouveia,Z0l0), a structuralSubjectis not proposed hereas part of the Negotiator6, nor a discrete Finite,sincein strict interpersonal terms
O Author.Please do not cteor forwardwithoutauthor,s permission. bqui83 28@ uni.sydney.edu.a u

t2

there are no such functions at clause rank defining the arguability of the clause. Thus, in this 'terms' -- in other interpretation of the basic Spanishnegotiatory structure, both the 'nub' and the words, both 'subjecthood' and 'finiteness' -- are realisedwithin the domain of the verbal group alone. 'subjecthood' is not interpretedhere in relation to the nominal group controlling agreement with verbal morphology (the so-called 'explicit subject', in traditional terms); in contrast,this with structuralelementis assumed to realisemeaningsin other metafunctions, a claim consistent tracking of the with associated presence is rather evidenceshowing that its in spoken Spanish non-SFL in other (including what is labelled participants in discourse or with textual considerations 'discourse functional researchas resourcesfor 'topicalization', 'focus', 'switch reference' and reference'; see Silva-Corvaln, 2003; Bentivoglio, 2003; Cameron and Flores-Ferrn,2004; Comajoan,2006; Amaraland Schwenter, 2005).In systemicfunctionalterms, sucha nominal group is not realisinga meaningthat is interpersonal in nature. meaningsreplayedand As for the 'terms' of the negotiation,i.e. other key interpersonal 'polarity', 'temporality', 'modality' Finite by a separate realisation their and adjusted,including at function elementis unmotivatedin Spanish,since it is not possibleto single out such a distinct 'finiteness' group is realisedby the verbal to considerthat clauserank7.It seemsmore appropriate as shown in Figure 7c below: realisingthe Negotiatoras whole, even in complextenses, Ih
f*E' f lE

Eido td'

a aicl .b'ltt'*d'

tEs

nr
rrdtouF
dlc

nrrhdr
lu|{rCsE|!

rr\
Irr
lE$tlftlDtLg

Errrt \
l

P F

c
In'qd

'nUoflfr nAdrtbn fnrtnprlth Frnctl

thrrdoffinptHct llr.rbmpcrlff' htlltfl

roc
tre

rcp

*rldl*afrr'

br
-G

hr
Y

cnlido

W' Iltthf

ttil'

tl v
rnnhaltf rrlhdbf (sfintrrbhrtlrtrl

a]

||!rc rl

utrlgou il ld|E
|lt.

r{ffift
lE9lilUllc

rcc Ns
3m

lrrrt crlF cP

ntlrahrJrfr'

complextense Figure 8c. Basic structureof the Negotiatorin Spanish, Unlike French (Caffarel, 2006), no interpolation (eg. by negative or modality markers) can be usedto recosnisea Finite function:

@Author.Please do not cite or forwardwithoutauthor's oermission. 28@ bqui83 uni.sydney.edu.a u

1a

IJ

Ie

ne ,t F"neE

le it

lul
him

FftbaHerErit n c'
.fr!d

Fr
fof

donn
gnct

t
$bEEt

furg
nite

A.net

PrEdiEtor

Frendt lCffer!,2(tr61

ItbAotetor

lrEry.fdrt e{tftta ,trr proEblement:

f'

no
,Ff H

lo

hG

dado xfrf

ttr I
Cllllc

T:m EEnt
.mlndsl

Itl:ollrtor f rffiy fal:nt gfil, f ts fm.

spenbh
he do
'trl EcEnl

prohblemente

no nat
llEf

lo

,r&r"
tlrrlnd.? ,ptary

frjm lIf Clltl*

lrr Trrms

HlEtl|lor

ftrrrt 3{\rtr ft l! rrfi f .

Figure 9. Modal and Polarity Adjuncts in French and Spanish Figure 9 above shows that the Modal Adjunct 'probablemente'('probably') can either precedeor follow the verbal group (and, in this case,it is analysedas part of the Remainder,unlike the French),whereasthe negative marker 'no', consideredpart of the verbal group, always precedes (e.g. clitics or inflected verb). Thus, the following clausesin which a first elementin sequence discreteFinite would be separatedfrom a Predicator are either rarely found in highly spontaneous language, as in (1), or are completelyungrammaticals, as in (2) and (3):
\I probably no havenft se 1o given he have it to him' dado (nann) qiven

(1) (21 (3)

probablemente probably

not hin it * se 1o he hn it * se lo hin it

no dado have not given he probablemente have probabTv no dado not qiven

Extending this argument, it is also important to note that in dialogue the main element replayed is the Negotiator realised by the whole verbal group, and not just the element realising primary tensee;this again implies that a separate Finite element cannot be picked up independently from the verbal group involved, for example,in the response to a confirmation question:
(4) No cambia los canales? not it-change the channels rdoesn't t change the channeLs?' -No (l.os cambia)

no (them it-change) ' N o l j t d o e s n ' t c h a n o " et h e m ) ' (5) Has prendido el- cable? 14

permission. @Author. Please do not citeor forward withoutauthor's bqui8328@ uni.sydney.edu.au

you-have 'have you *S yes tYes

turned turned

on the on the prendido turned it

cable cabfe?, ) on on)'

(-lo he it (I l-have have

turned

In addition, what can be consideredanalogousto 'tags' in English does not argue for the presence of a Finite function in Spanish,since they involve particles realising polarity, but not replayingother dimensions of the termsof the argument(i.e. modality or tense):
(6) Me contradijo, cierto? / verdad? / / true? / no es asi? / no?, etc \You contradicted me, right? isn' t that so? / not?', etc

Finally, unlike English and, to some extent,French,the sequencing of elementscannotbe polar] involve usedto motivate a Finite function: in Spanish, the feature findicative:interrogative: intonation alone; whereas the realisation of non-polar interrogativesis achieved through the presence of an interrogativeelement(seesystemicconsiderations below). The interpretation of the Spanish clause offered here suggeststhat key interpersonal meanings at stakein Spanishare centredin the Negotiatorrealisedby the verbal group, and not in a 'Subject+Finite' structure(or Mood element)as for English (Martin, 1992). This implies that in Spanishboth 'subjecthood' and 'finiteness' are realisedby the verbal group, within which the 'nub' and verbal morphology significantly contributes, at word rank, to the distinctionbetweenthe the 'terms' of the negotiation. Therefore,the SFL approach'from above' introducedso far has a number of consequences when the interpersonalorganisationof the Spanish clause is compared with the interpersonal grammarof English (Halliday, 1,985,1994; 2004): Halliday and Matthiessen, 'subjecthood'in English has been characterised 'from above' in relation with the element i) held responsible for the propositionor the proposal.In Spanish, a structuralSubjectfunction is immaterial to the realisationof modal responsibility,which is realised by the verbal morphology indicating 'person' and 'number'. The extracts from dialogue analysed for demonstrate that the verbal morphologysignalsby itself the personmodally responsible the same is generally the proposition,i.e., the speaker,the addressee or a non-interactant; applied to the realisation of proposals, unlike English (see below choices under ii) Iimperative]). in general, 'finiteness' is associatedin SFL descriptions with the arguability of the proposition(Halliday, 1985, 1994).Seenin this light, arguabilityis realisedin English by a 'probes' as the discreteFinite function, which can be singled out through a number of 'polarify' 'temporality', 'modality' af clause rank. In the structural element coding and explorationof Spanish,there is no evidencedemonstrating that such a discretestructural 'temporality', Finite function is used at clause rank to ground the clause in terms of 'modality' and 'polarity'; in fact, it seemsmore appropriate to claim thesekey interpersonal meaningsare realised within the Negotiator through selectionsmade at group and word ranklo.

In sum, it is suggested that the Spanish Negotiator,primarily realisedby the verbal group,is In the function at clauserank encodingthe key interpersonal meaningsat stakein verbal exchanges. 'finiteness' 'subjecthood' (defined particular,both in (definedin terms of modal responsibility)and terms of the meaningsgroundingthe clause)are realisedsimultaneously within the domain of the verbalgroup as a whole. 4.2 Towards a systemicdescriptionof the interpersonalgrammar of Spanish

shows As discussed above,SFL typologicalwork conducted so far in a nmberof languages that the specific systemic orgnisaiion of the interpersonal system of trooorr in the
permission. @Author. Please do not citeor forward withoutauthor's bqui83 28@ uni.sydney.edu.a u 15

function, lexicogrammatical of choicesin speech stratumis primarily motivatedby the organisation choices FUNCTION at discourse semantics. that SPEECH In terms of systemicdescriptionthis means are congruently realisedby primary featuresin the trooosystem:

imner*lw

mqiorclrure A
- indcttiuE-+l irri*.rl-'*-*
L [rtenogcthiE
Figure 10. Primary MooD choicesacrosslanguages This network suggests regardless that speakers, of the languageinvolved, give and demand goods-and-services congruently through imperative clauses, whereas they give and demand variation informationthrough indicativeclauses. As alreadymentioned, the locus of cross-linguistic is expectedto be in more delicate choices of specific subsystems, as well as in the structural realisationof systemicchoicesoverall (Teruya et a1.,2007;Matthiessenet al., 2008, Matthiessen, 2004). that As for the structuralrealisationof interpersonal choices, SFL theory has established featuresof interpersonalsystemsin general are associatedwith prosodic types of realisation; 'particulate' interpersonal meaningsin other words are 'spreadout' acrossthe clause,in contrastto 'periodic' ideationalmeanings,and textual meanings(Martin, 1992;Martin I996b, Caffarel,et al., 2004; Teruya et a1.,2007;Matthiessenet al. 2008). At the sametime, any given type of structure allows different 'media of expression' (Matthiessen,2004). Thus, prosodic meanings can be (sequential In and/orsegmental). expressed by phonological(intonational)or grammatical resources in different otherwords,the samechoicewithin an interpersonal systemcan be structurallyrealised, of a specific segment,or the languages, by specific intonationalpatterns, or presence the absence particular sequencingof elements.A good example of this variation is the way in which MooD by Caffarel as demonstrated choicesare realisedinthe structureof the English and Frenchclauses, (2004,2006): in French,the distinctionbetween[declarative] is only sometimes and fintenogative] realised by the sequencing of elements; in fact in everyday conversation French includes intonational as well as segmental marking strategiesfor the contrast between [interrogative] and the choice being mainly motivatedby discursivefactors (cf. SpanishMooD system, [declarative], below). Theseconsiderations are importantwhen turning to the systemicexplorationof the Spanish asfeaturesneedto be based MooD, sincethe descriptionof the choicesavailableto native speakers of the generalsimilarities on the specifrcrealisationof such choicesin structure.Thus, regardless that, in principle, may be found in primary choicesacrosslanguages, a close look to the specific realisationof relevant interpersonalmeaningsas well as their organisationwithin the clause is fundamental for a better understandingof the way in which Spanish speakersnegotiate roles and commodities in discourse. 4.2,1 Primary delicacy systemiccontrasts in Spanish In the systemicdescriptionof the English MooD, Halliday (1985, 1994) shows that a first fundamental contrast is motivated by the presenceof an obligatory Finite function in structures of a realising[indicative] and its generalabsence realising [imperative].The absence in structures Finite function may entail, by extension, of a full-fledgedMood element,including the the absence Subjectfunction.
. permission. @Author. Please do not citeor forward without author's u8328@uni.syd bq ney.edu.a u 16

In Spanish, as already mentioned, a structural Finite function is not involved in ltooo selections. In fact, when looking at the fist distinctionbetween[indicative] and [imperative],other considerations involve, unlike English, a number of emerge.Indeed,the realisationof CotrMANos of the proposaldistinctionsassociated for the enactment with the personheld modally responsible Thesedistinctions the one in chargeofproviding the good(s)or service(s) requiredby the speaker. 'person' and, in are basically coded at word rank by meansof the verbal morphology indicating 'presenlsubjunctive mood' most imperative clauses,by means of what is traditional known as morphology (rns/sun)l2. At group rank, the positioning of clitics plays a major role, since in positiveimperativeclauses to the verbal group, as seenin Figure 10 they are obligatorily postponed below (verbalmorphologyunderlined,clitics in italics):
Fn:d FETTE drl - lrr ilft tftE drrherF frnrl 'fffi48

fr-efr
0jf,!

na{firof tnn'-blr-=
IFff*E E "b

'!n' r* lf rt'If lfE tt$r Xf tlk il b

e) pttl It{rr \*"*/

ftEror4: tffi flr|rl

Filnfi;r{ol tL'Frf-t tlltlUtrr*E H lr.:b

Trmllorfrl'

Filtl 'na' r*'lbr'lf xr tEE Rgrfl

115 r llt'lErj'|ts ilT D '!C Fttl 'trr' lft#tE

.Errr (l'dtr ffiuf S*r rtrrl

TttrFS (oft TttFS

lurf

lllnhl tnrttt'-t nrgrt{rrtr,

b lt

Fnnfu*l
tr+khlillrtH.'lt' NsflJUff 'E.b IlE

rlf,tltmfu ihr|rrrl'

tl5
lI:

uF

f||ffi EPttr!ilu

'lbilFrJlt'ftrnd

-l

b Ftrl Qrr ry*rJt'tmst' [tr .G,ESrf,

l b

lQr m
t|thnrhlhf,, trll

r N lr

bFl 'nrct' IEBIIDI t ffil

t|'ffi'lFrt'lf Qrm qt |i| H fE

(+trI

l$r m utrd'lf
4r l

b prr 'rrur'
EPltlf Lb

'Lrtrtht Itl' Ef

l'trit'trqf E EEffirll|tl

rFr: rEU.mrdurh,

in Spanish clauses Figure11.'Turn on thecable for me': imperative decoder

ctltE ll ltlq, tlr

at mayspecify, As in indicative groupagreeing clauses, with theverbalinflection a nominal a positioning of such rank,the participant likewise, the clause held responsible for the proposal; groupat clause nominal rankis asflexibleasin indicative clauses. Consequently, by most non-SFLfunctionalapproaches consistent with what is maintained of grammarl3, for the realisation to Spanish this language allows a numberof possibilities for an coMMANDS, all of them centredin the verbal group. Unlike English, the motivation [imperative] feature is based on the specific range of choices involved at word rank polarity, ('presenVsubjunctive' positioning of cliticsin positive morphology) alongwith thespecific at group rank. In a systemicinterpretation, the generalchoicesunder [imperative]are thus arow, by a slanted represented indicated as follows (in the systemnetwork,structural realisations belowthe corresponding feature):

permission. @Author.Please do not cite or forwardwithoutauthor's bqui8328@uni.sydney.edu.au

t7

trcalin

| \.o,u,*
-rqui* | \r*rptot tl rpolt. -! r
I

I
I i -

sgdertds (tt{iuel

\+N: rppms/SIJBI
mfrrE du6ee \ 0tE6trs) \-lN:fo ffipay (fE)

nd dcsp

TypE

-J

r-ffi
r*

\ *ar'nn
hfld

| I r-

\r ro-rits lumegddo

\+x:A'"nsmnr

\
tEt d.drH

IN: SglES/SrBI; I QrC; #^'ftC^l

+ I
li ID'F

ptlr tuif,rtt

ltcfrCEcd f tEEry H tEnH atrorhr tEqlrrt Fur ld,' I!d| h3|E,.E"r le'tEs hineti:uld nd. Mcsbrl

md,

cE

Figure 12. Choicesunder [imperative]in Spanish 'negotiability' of the clause: The system network proposedsuggests as a first feature the both imperative and indicative clausesrequire a Negotiator, which is minimally realisedby an inflected verb at word rank, with clitics and negative markers as optional elements at group rank. participantand polarity are open This reflectsthe fact that in dialogueboth the modally responsible to negotiation through the verbal group, both in indicative and imperative clauses. However, imperativeclausesdo not allow for further negotiabilityin terms of rBNsBor MoDALITv,which is reflectedby the restrictedset of choicesavailableat word rank. Accordingly, imperative clauses require a Negotiator which, at group rank, is consideredhere non-finiter4(i.e. it does not allow further distinctionsbeyond the set of choicesfor modal responsibility,which are relatively limited when compared to the finite Negotiator realising the feature [indicative]). In addition, the to positioningof clitics is also relevant,since positive imperativeclausesrequire their attachment the verbal morphology when they are present. 'finite' By implication, the choice [indicative] is realised in Spanish by means of a Negotiator,i.e., one showing contrasts in terms of rpNsg and uotaLttY, along with a wider range of distinctions in terms of modal responsibility, as seen in Examples 2 below (Negotiator underlined, verbal morphology in bold face): 'aspect'and 'verbal Example2. Indicativeclauses, including distinctionsin 'person', 'tense', mood'.
(1)

No ha dado un buen argumento 2ps - f ormaI / PST-PRS,/ IND Siempre Recin 5]9g r. buen argumento. 1 p s , / P R SI/N D u. buen argumento lps /PST/IND un buen argumento.

(You) haven't

given

a good argument.

(2)
/?\

(I)

always give

a good argument'

/T\ -l-11

irref I "" "

^.1

rrrmj-

(4)

No daremos Siempre

(We) won't

give

a good argument,

lps,/FUT,/ IND

(s)
(6)

daban un buen argumento. 3Pp/Psr. IMPRF,/rND

(They)

always

gave a good argument.

Nunca has dado un buen argumento.

/va,, \ hrra _t_i_::t_-:i:-:-:

orz r ^^" "a "'

ni -'en L

gOOd argument

@Author. Please do not citeor forward without author's oermission. bqui8328@ uni.syd ney.edu.au

t8

2ps /PST.PRS/ IND

Ojal Tal

haya dado un buen argumento 3 p S/ P S T - P R S / S U B J

/r '.'i ch\ e /ha _.t_:____::i:ji_t :-lji:-L

hl

-iven

good

argument.

vez demos un buen argumento. 1 p s/ P R S / S U B J un buen argumento.

Mo :J r u vh sa

/wa\ \wu/

u wrti r fI

ai\ttr Yrvu

-^^r guuu

or9u(srrL.

Nunca dara
tne

_t_:l_ji:_l----

/ c /ha \

r,,r't t narrar
: "''--

.live

gOOd

argument

/r'NI/TNn

features is 'fused' in the verbal Example2 showsthat the realisation of severalsimultaneous inflectionalmorphology of indicative clauses. Traditional morphologicallabels, in fact, reveal the conflation of a number of simultaneous meanings realised by the verbal affixation, including person,number, tense, aspect,and 'verbal mood' (e.g. in clause 2(5) above, the conflation of 'secondpersonsingular formal', 'presentprimary tense' and 'indicative verbal mood' meaningsin the verbal affixation). What this complex labelling revealsis, in tum, the syntheticrealisationof multiple meaningsrealised at word rank, a property that Spanishshareswith Romance languagesin general.In this regard, the SFL typological generalisationsuggestingthat imperative and indicative clausescontrast in terms of the range of possibilitiesthat are open to each choice, is certainly applicable to the Spanish Ivtoot choices(Matthiessen,2004). as seenin As for clitics, they generallyprecede the inflected verb in indicative clausesl5, Example3 below (Negotiatorunderlined,including accusative clitics in italics; verbal morphology in bold face): with clitics Example3. Indicativeclauses adjustingmeanings
No Lo ha dado. ACC 2ps-formal/PST-PRS/IND Siempre Recin -lo doy. ACC 1ps,/PRS/IND Lo di. ACC 1ps,/PST/IND No -Z.odaremos, ACC lpp/FUT,/IND Siempre lo daban.
lYor)
drwdyr 9avs L. /f\ w

lYorr\ haren'f

oiven

il.

dfwdyD

-t --^ 9rvE

I + L.

i,r<f Jsvv

^\a it-Y:_i-:___::.

(Vfe) won't

give

ACC 3pp,zPST,/IMPRF/IND Nunca Lo has dado. ACC 2psIPST-PRS/IND

Ojal -lo haya dado.
lT wi sh\ s,/he hacl oiven t. hawe ncver oiven it.

ACC 3ps,/PST-PRS,/SUBJ

Tal

vez

-Zo demos,
al- 1 nn c / D.P .J/ '^"JUbJ

Maybe

rrill

airo

if

Nunca -l.o dara.

ACC 2psICND/IND

1S/hc)

u n r ' lr i n e r e r

oive

it,

Moving on to more delicatechoicesunder [indicative],the contrastsinclude [informative] (as found by for the realisationof sTATEMENTS, and [interrogative] for the realisationof QUESTIoNS, Caffarel in French, 2004,2006). However, as summarised by Cid et al. (2000), further contrasts under [interrogative]in Spanishare basicallyrealisedby rising intonation for [polar] (graphically of a in writing by the use of doublequestionpointsenclosingthe clause)and the presence expressed possibilities number of for (cf. offers a interrogative which clauses French, Qu-element [non-polar] for the realisationof[polar], Caffarel,2006):

Please permission. @Author. do notclteorforward wthout author's bqui83 28@ uni.sydney.edu.au

l9

(7)Me has dado un buen argumento

mo rnlr-haro: nnnri rrrml-

'You
I i f

have
nrmf

given
i za'lo

me a good argument'
l ar^ti r,l
/ . , ^ \ j ^ ^

(B) Me has
me you-has

uouu

\ya/

un buen argumento?
a good argument? (already) ?'

given

(al-ready)

'Have you given Iinterrogative:

/ Q \ : rr nrr-inf rT^1hrt aa it-i ie c rrn ^

me a good argument polar]

l.rrra annd
Y v v Y

a ratrmantn? rnrrmoni.
e 4 Y e . ! ! e ^ e .

nnnri

ar1rmaf?t nnn-nnl rl

ti nf arrn:tire.

As for the feature [informative: exclamative],this is realised by the presenceof a prominent exclamative element,'Qu-ex', leadingthe sequence:
(10) i Qu wnat Qu-ex \what (11) Qu !{hat Qu-ex 'lihat a
nrJ ernrrmcnl-

buen argumento
nnd Yvvs irrrf

me
DAT
l n" c. Y *F

has
rznrr-harzc

dado !
di \n

PRS/TND
?nq

PRTCP
I r

naA
Y v v s

q ! Y l 4 r L !

r,rmaf

1r^rr

ha

ni

rran

f n

ma

buen argumento
ooor'l ronmenf

es!

if-is P R S , /I N D
?ne
t "

it

i9!t

as follows: Thus systemicchoicesunder [indicative]can be represented

-[ffiL _rnrbnrdur t cStnrtlw

-l - idicrlirrr I \ {qq#'fta

ruu | \+u:

I r prt -intrmrriYrl_ff
\ +oq*^+ar

rrNir HooDrl chD TfPE-l

|

r+x+rc

I nrgdrbta -1
I
I Lrprrp
\+l{:mdb

I L mnnqntrlta
Ef ludrrw +lrt' / ||

ftrrfrltanf trld ldctfd

hlg

Figure 13. Choicesunder [indicative]in Spanish

permission. @Author.Please do not cite or forwardwithoutauthor's 28@uni.sydney.edu.a bqui83 u

20

the positioning primarilyrealised Based on thekey contrasts by the verbalgroup,including MooD is for the Spanish of clitics and selections at word rank, the following systemnetwork proposed:
dectsllre

nqrrHe I r+ltl*t t*
I
lrElor chs

\l+4#Afrt rptsr Ctffis (ltoco

-t *Lnon+nsnr'eimrdiYr

\+u: rrrn
#rl*o.0trd!Js)

\ix,*e*

\nw'rr l_thlrd prH(optllwl

\+t: fnmt +'(!ud; $tr(!u'N

El Irr + T

tr.r5frrry
tEf hE fiilrr Er
lFn ||.'ll F |lf,--

|
a

*r1F

ml r,t]

tiltsJ LlFrEHrd.H:ril

Figure 14. A trooo systemnetwork for Spanish

Discussion

In this paper,key interpersonal meaningsin the Spanishclausehave been exploredfrom a used by perspective, discoursesemantic i.e. which takes as the point of departurethe resources between the The comparison native speakers in the negotiationof meaningsin verbal exchanges. basic negotiatory structures in Spanish and English reveals that central meanings at stake in 'terms' at play in verbal dialogue,i.e. 'subjectchood'and 'frniteness'understood as the 'nub' and whereasinterlocutorsin English replay and exchanges, are realiseddifferently in both languages: adjust these meaningsin the Subject and Finite functions at clauserank (the Mood element),in Spanishthis is achievedthrough the Negotiator function, which groupsthesemeaningswithin the domain of the verbal group. Furthermore, the Negotiator proves to be crucial in the interstratal relation between spEECH FUNCTIONS choices, at discoursesemantics,and trooo selectionsin lexicogrammar:the negotiation of roles and commodities in discourseis enactedin the clause through the specific organisationof meaningswithin the verbal group realising the negotiatory functionproposed. The perspective adopted has proven to be useful in this characterisation of lexicogrammaticalmeanings,especially in the analysis of key interpersonalfunctions such as Subjectand Finite. These,as described in English,seemto be especiallyproblematicwhen loosely 'finiteness' can be applied to Spanish; nonetheless,'from above', both 'subjecthood' and reconsideredin the light of the resourcesthat critically contribute to the organisation of interpersonal meaningsat group and word rank. In Spanish,the verbal group seemsto define the 'arguability' of the clause on its own right, as well as the particular ways in which key tvlool choicesare structurally motivated.
permission. @Author.Please do not cteor forwardwithoutauthor's bqui8328@u ni.syd ney.edu.a u 2l

As a result, against the background of a long descriptivetradition, the inclusion of a structural Subject function in the interpersonalcharacterisation ofthe Spanishclausedoes not seem 'subject' justified. to be The traditional syntagmatically defined as the nominal group controlling verb agreementin the clause appearsas interpersonallysuperfluous.The proposal here, then, is that such a nominal group realises a different metafunction, in a different system (arguably, in SFL terms, systemsorganising textual and/or experiential meanings),as already suggestedby evidence from non-SFL approaches addressinggrammaticalresourcesin spoken Spanish(Silva-Corvaln, 2003; Bentivoglio, 2003; Cwneron and Flores-Ferrn,2004; Comajoan, 2006; Amaral and Schwenter,2005). The same general considerationapplies to the analysis of 'finiteness': the Negotiator appearsto ground the clause in terms of TEttsE,MoDALITYand polarutv through the along the rank verbal group as a whole, in particular,through distinctionsrealisedsimultaneously scale(i.e. the positioningof clitics at group rank, and morphologicaldistinctionsat word rank). Given the major role played by the verbal group in the realisationof key interpersonal meanings,a close exploration of it systemic and structural organisationis crucial for a better understanding of the Negotiator as the central function realising MooD choices, as well as the interplaywith other interpersonal i.e. trooallry and poLAPtY. systems, References AlarcosLlorach, E. (1994) Gramticade la LenguaEspaola.Madrid: Espasa-Calpe. Amaral, P.M. and Schwenter, S.A. (2005) Contrast and the (non-) occurrence of subject pronouns. In D. Eddington (ed.) SelectedProceedings of the 7th Hispanic Linguistics 116--127Sommerville,MA: CascadillaProceedings Project. fonline: Retrievedon April I 1 20 10 from http ://www. lin gref.com/cpp/hls/7I p aper I 092.pdfl Ars, J. (2003) Hacia una Especificacin de la Transitividad en el Espaol: Estudio Contrastivo con el Ingls.UniversidadComplutense de Madrid: PhD dissertation. Revista Ars, J. (2006) Perspectiva sistmico-funcionalde los usos de 'se' en espaol. Signos 39.61.l3 1--159. Ars, J. (2010) On themein English and Spanish: study.In E, Swain (ed), a comparative Thresholdsand Potentialities of SystemicFunctional Linguistics: Multilingual, Multimodal and Other Specialised Discourses 23--48.Trieste:EUT Edizioni Universit di Trieste. Ars, J. and Lavid, J. (2001).The grammarof relationalprocesses in English and Spanish: implications for machine-aidedtranslation and multilingual generation.EstudiosIngleses de la UniversidadComplutense 9: 6l--79. Bentivoglio,P. (2003) Orden de palabras en espaol: un anlisissintctico-semntico-pragmtico del sujeto.Lexis.Revistade Lingsticay Literatura 27:235--260. Caffarel, A. (1992) Interacting between a generalized tense semantics and register-specific semantic tense systems: a bistratal exploration of the semantics of French tense. LanguageSciences, 14 (4), 385-41 8. Caffarel,A. (2004) Metafunctionalprofile of the grammarof French.In A. Caffarel, J.R.Martin, C.M.I.M. Matthiessen(eds.) Language typology.A functional perspective pp. 77--137 Amsterdam/Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins. Caffarel, A. (2006) A SystemicFunctional Approach to Grammar of French. From Grammar to Discourse.London/NewYork: Continuum. Caffarel, A., Martin, J.R., and Matthiessen,C.M.I.M, (eds.) (2004) Language typolog,,. A John Benjamins. funct i onal p ersp ective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Cameron,R. and Flores-Ferrn, N. (2004) Perseveration of subject expressionacrossregional dialectsof Spanish, Spanishin Contextl: 4l--65. Cid, M., Ortiz-Lira,H., Poblete,M., PonsH., and Samaniego, J. L. (2000) Hacia una descripcin prosdica del espaol culto de Santiago de Chile: resultados de una investigacin
O Author.Please permission do not cite or forwardwithoutauthor's . bqui8328@u ni.syd ney.edu.a u 22

Onomzein 5: 95-106. Comajoan, Ll. (2006) Continuity and episodicstructurein Spanishsubjectreference. In J. Clancy Clements and Jiyoung Yoon (eds) Functional Approaches to Spanish Syntax. Lexical Semantics, Discourseand Transitivity 53--79.Basingstoke: PalgraveMacmillan FernndezSoriano, O. (1999) El pronombre personal.Formas y distribuciones.Pronombres tonosy tnicos,In I. Bosqueand V. Demonte(eds)GramticaDescriptivade la Lengua Espaola.1209--1269. Madrid: Espasa. Fernndez Soriano,O. (1993) Los pronombres tonosen la teora gramatical.Repasoy balance. In O. Fernndez (ed.) Soriano Ios Pronombres rcrot 13--62.Madrid: TaurusEdiciones. Figueredo, G. (forthcoming) A systemic-functionaldescription of MOOD in Portuguese. Proceedings36th ISFC. Beijing. Ghio, E. and Femndez, M. D. (2008) Lingstica SistmicoFuncional. Aplicaciones a la Lenguaespaola. SantaFe: UniversidadNacionaldel Litoral. Ghio, E. and Fernndez,M,D. (eds) (forthcoming) Sobre Temas de Lingstica Sistmico Funcional. SantaFe: UniversidadNacional del Litoral. Gouveia,C. (2010) Towards a profile of the interpersonal clause, of the Portuguese organization Delta - Documentaqdo de Estudiosem LingusticaTeoricae Aplicada.26(l),l-24 Gouveia,C., and Barbara,L. (2001) Marked or unmarkedthat is not the question,the questionis: where's the theme?Direct Papers. LAEL, Catholic University of So Paulo/ AELSU, University of Liverpool. Halliday, M. A. K. (1984) A systemic-functional of interpretation of the natureand ontogenesis dialogue.In J. Webster (ed.) The Language of Early Childhood 227--381.New York: Continuum. Halliday, M. A. K. (1985) An Introduction to Functional Grammar (lst. ed). London: Edward Amold. Halliday, M. A. K. (1994) An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd ed). London: Edward Amold. Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, C.M.LM. (2004)An Introduction to Functional Grammar (3rd ed). London: Hodder Arnold. Hernndez Alonso, C. (1996) GramticaFuncional del Espaol(3rd ed.).Madrid: Gredos. Lavid, J. and Ars, J. (2004). Contrasting nuclear transitivity in English and Spanish: a contrastive-functional study . Languages in Contrast4(l): 7 5--103. Lavid, J., Ars, J. and Zamorano,J.R. (2010) SystemicFunctional Grammor of Spanish.A Contrastive Study with English. London: Continuum. Lujn, M. (1993) La subida de clticos y el modo en.los complementos verbalesdel espaol.In (ed.) Zos Pronombres O. Femndez-Soriano Atonos 235-183 Madrid: TaurusEdiciones. Martin, J. R, (1983) Participantidentificationin English, Tagalog and Kate. Australian Journal of Linguistics 3(1): 45--74. Martin, J. R. (1990) Interpersonalgrammatization: mood and modality in Tagalog.Philippine Journal of Linguistics,2l (1): 2--49. Martin, J. R. (1992). English text: System and Structure. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Martin, J. R. (1996a).Transitivity in Tagalog:a functionalinterpretation of case.In M. Berry, C. Butler, R. Fawcett & G. Huang (eds), Meanng and form: systemic functional interpretations. Meaning and choice in language: Studiesfor Michael Halliday 229-296. New Jersey: Ablex PublishingCorporation Martin, J. R. (1996b) Types of structure:deconstructing notions of constituencyin clauseand text. In E. H. Hovy and D. R, Scott (eds) Computationaland Conversational Discourse: Burning issues - An Interdisciplinary Account 39--66. Heidelberg: Springer (NATO AdvancedScienceInstituteSeriesF - Computerand Systems Vol. 151). Sciences, Martin, J. R. (2004) Metafunctionalprofile of the grammar of Tagalog. In A. Caffarel, J.R. Martin and C.M.LM. Matthiessen(eds.) Language typologt. A functional perspective
@Author. Please do notciteor forward permission. withoutauthor's bqui83 28@ uni.sydney.edu.au 23

255- -304. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: JohnB enjamins. Matthiessen, theory. In M. C.M.I.M. (1996) TENSE in English seenthrough systemic-functional Berry, Ch. Butler, R. Fawcett and G. Huang (eds) Meaning and Form: Systemic FunctionalInterpretations431-498. New Jersey: Ablex PublishingCorporation. Matthiessen, In Caffarel, J.R. Martin C.M.I.M. (2004) Descriptive motifs and generalisations. and C.M.LM. Matthiessen(eds) Languagetypolog,,.A functional perspective537-664. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins. Matthiessen, C.M.I.M., Teruya, K., and Canzhong,W. (2008) Multilingual Studiesas a MultidimensionalSpaceof Interconnected LanguageStudies.In J. Webster (ed.) Meaning in context: implementing intelligent applications of language studiesl46*220. London/New York:Continuum. Moyano, E. (forthcoming) El sistemade Tema en espaol:una mirada discursiva sobre una (eds)Sobre temasde Lingstica cuestincontroveftida. In E. Ghio and M.D. Fernndez Sistmico Funcional. SantaFe: Universidad Nacionaldel Litoral. Penny,R. (2002)A History of the SpanishLanguage(2"ded.) Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press. Rose, D. (2001) The WesternDesert code; an Australian cryptogrammar. Canberra:Pacific Linguistics. Silva-Corvaln, C. (2003) Otra mirada a la expresindel sujeto como variable sintctica.In H. L6pez Morales, H., Moreno Fernndez,F. and Barriga Villanueva, R. (eds) Lengua, Variacin y Contexto.Estudios Dedicados a Humberto Lpez Morales 849--860. Madrid: Arco Libros. Silva-Corvaln, C. (1984) Topicalizacin y pragmtica en espaol. Revista Espaola de Lingstica. 1.4:l--19. Suer,M. (1988) The role of agreement Natural Language and in clitic doubled constructions. Linguistic Theory,6 (3): 39I-434. C.M.I.M., Petersen, Teruya,K., Akerejola,E., Andersen,T., Caffarel,A., Lavid, J., Matthiessen, U.H., Patpong,P. and Smedegaard, F. (2007) Typology of MOOD: a text-basedand system-based functional view. In R. Hasan,C.M.I.M, Matthiessenand J. Webster(eds) Continuing Discourse on Language. A Functional Perspective 859--920. London: Equinox.

' But not, as it is discussed by clitics that arepart of by Caffarel,at grouprank,in which Complements canbe realised (Caffarel, thenegotiation 2004). z in groups verbalmorphology Key:verbal groups in uppercase, underlined, nominal with verbal morphology agreeing plural', person bold,cliticsin italics.'Person' singular'; 3pp 'thirdperson meanings indicated asfollows:2ps,'second retrieved on I April 2010from etc., belowcliticsandverbal morphology. with Spanish subtitles English original http:l/rvww.youtube.com/watch?v:4KzlLYsIPvE. Transcription of English originalin Martin,1992:465-6. 3 I am indebted in the Facultyof to SoniaCastro, who allowedme to useextracts from dataof herMaster'sresearch Letters, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile. 4 See note5 below. 5Meanings 'past'and (i) 'temporality' of 'present', conflated in theverbalaffixation in terms at workrankinclude 'future'(PRS, 'imperative' 'subjunctive' 'verbal 'indicative', PST, (ii) and FUT, respectively); mood',including 'frrst', 'second' (INo,suu, nm, respectively), morphology and'third' (lp,2p,3p) with and(iii) 'person', including plural',etc.).See noteI I theircorresponding variations in number (eg.lps: 'first person singular'; 3pp;'thirdperson 'verbal andl2 belowfor furtherexplanation on the mood'labelat wordrank. oThenominal 'subject-verb' grouptraditionally is not agreement identified as 'subject' through theso-called below. interpreted hereasaninterpersonal on 'subjecthood' function, seediscussion asopposed to English or French; 'For thedifferent'probes' Hallidayand usedin therecognition cf. Halliday,198511994; ofthis function in English, Matthiessen, 2004). '*' conventionally used to showungrammaticality of followingstructure. I 'However, 1. some modalverbs mightbe pickedup in dialogue, in turn,{10, Example asseen

permission O Author. Please do not citeor forward withoutauthor's bqui83 28@ uni.sydney.edu.a u

aA

r0Justasdiscussed by Gouveia (2010)for Portuguese, in Spanish therecognition of a single Finiteelement in verb groupcomplexes is not evidenton grammatical grounds (cf. therealisation of'future' in Portuguese, which canbe 'asis'to Spanish). applied 'mood' (in lowercase), " In this paper, MooD(in uppercase) refersto interpersonal selections at clause rank,whereas 'subjunctive' 'imperative' stands for selections at wordrank(in termsof indicative', or verbal morphology, as conventionally labelledin traditionalaccounts grammar). of Spanish For furtherexplanation of '(verbal)mood' in Spanish, seenote12below. '' In traditional 'verbalmoods' descriptions, involvecontrasts at wordrank(i.e.verbal morphology), including 'indicative', 'subjunctive' and'imperative' mooddistinctions (Alarcos Llorach,1994). In thedefinition of their 'meaning', considerations combining the 'subjective attitude ofthe speaker' andtheenactment ofrolesin dialogue are commonly foregrounded. Nonetheless, from an SFLperspective, these so-called'verbal moods'contribute to the realisation of variousinterconnected interpersonal meanings at clause rank,includingfeatures in the systems of trooo, MODALITY andPOLARITY (only someof themexplored in this paper). As for the 'imperative verbalmood' in particular, LatinAmerican Spanish hasa unique morphology for 'imperative person mood',theonecoding'second singular', 'second whereas Peninsular Spanish hastwo: person person plural'. singular' and'second " Includingfunctionalgrammars by Hernndez Alonso, 1996andAlarcosLlorach,1994,well-knownin the field of Hispanic linguistics. '" This is so, in spiteof the fact that,at work rank,it is still realised by an inflected(or, in traditionalterms,'finite') verb. tt While in indicative clauses clitics obligatorilyprecede the first inflectedverb in sequence, it may be the case thatthey arepostponed andattached to the lastnon-inflected verb(specifically, infinitive andgerund)in verbalgroups and clause complexes. For example, when'canonical' modals leadthe sequencewhichin Spanish inflectfor person, tense 'verbal and mood'-, cliticsmay either precede themor elsebe attached to thelastnon-inflected verbin sequence (provided thatthis is infinitiveor gerund.) (Femndez-Soriano, 1993, 1999; Suer, 1988). Furthermore, followinga ratherformal approach, previousresearch hassuggested interesting relations the positioning between of clitics andthe 'verbal mood'ofdependent clauses in clause (Lujn,1993) complexes

@Author.Please do not cite or forwardwithoutauthor,s oermission bqu8328@uni.sydney.edu.au

25