In our exploration so far, we identified two orientations of the mind — cognition and desire — and saw how they project propositions and proposals into the semiotic field. Now, we deepen this framework by examining how these projections are qualified: how language negotiates certainty, probability, obligation, and readiness.
In systemic functional linguistics (SFL), this is the domain of modalisation and modulation — two complementary mechanisms that allow meaning to handle indeterminacy, whether epistemic or practical.
Modalisation: Negotiating the Possibility of Reality
Modalisation is the grammatical and semantic mechanism that expresses epistemic uncertainty or usuality. It is closely tied to propositions, the statements and questions projected by cognitive processes.
-
Function: qualify propositions according to likelihood, probability, or typicality
-
Orientation: epistemic — toward what is or could be the case
-
Examples:
-
“The storm might arrive tonight.” (probability)
-
“She usually takes the 8 a.m. train.” (usuality)
-
Modalisation allows us to mark the degree of commitment or certainty in our propositions. It shows that cognition is not just about presenting possibilities; it is about evaluating, weighing, and negotiating them within a field of potential reality.
Key insight: Epistemic indeterminacy is the core of modalisation. It is how language projects the spectrum between impossibility and certainty for propositions, inviting listeners to align their beliefs or interpretations.
Modulation: Negotiating Readiness for Action
Modulation, in contrast, expresses practical uncertainty or commitment. It is closely tied to proposals, the offers, commands, and invitations projected by desiderative processes.
-
Function: qualify proposals according to obligation, inclination, or ability
-
Orientation: practical — toward what might or must be done
-
Examples:
-
“You should submit the report by Friday.” (obligation)
-
“I can help you with the project.” (ability/inclination)
-
Modulation allows speakers to mediate readiness and commitment in the actions they propose. It is how desire becomes semiotically negotiable: not every potential action is mandatory, and not every inclination is realised, but all are made thinkable and discussable.
Key insight: Practical indeterminacy is the core of modulation. It structures the space between impossibility and obligation, orienting participants toward coordinated action without collapsing freedom of choice.
Epistemic vs Practical Indeterminacy
Taken together, modalisation and modulation highlight two axes of uncertainty in meaning-making:
| Projection Type | Mechanism | Core Indeterminacy | Focus of Evaluation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proposition | Modalisation | Epistemic | Likelihood, usuality |
| Proposal | Modulation | Practical | Obligation, readiness |
This table illustrates a crucial principle: all meaning-making operates within a landscape of potential. Cognition negotiates what is knowable, desire negotiates what is actionable. Modalisation and modulation are the tools by which language maps and manages these potentials.
Why This Matters
By linking propositions to modalisation and proposals to modulation, we see how language is not merely descriptive or prescriptive. It is a negotiation across two planes of indeterminacy:
-
Epistemic: what could be true, probable, or usual
-
Practical: what could or should be done, according to ability, inclination, or obligation
Recognising these axes clarifies why meaning-making is inherently relational: every utterance situates speakers and listeners within a field of possibilities and potentials, oriented toward knowledge, action, and readiness.
In the next post, we will examine how desires and fears interface with biological and social value systems, and how meaning mediates these pressures without collapsing into them. We will see how the dual orientations, projections, and modalities of language are grounded in the lived stakes of life, action, and coordination.
No comments:
Post a Comment