Readability and adaptation of children’s literature: an interpersonal metaphor perspective

5.1.1 Readability and adaptation involving mood metaphor realized by a single clause

In the most frequent occurrences of mood metaphor in the dialogic parts, the congruent relations of the basic speech functions to the relevant mood choices are distorted, so that new mappings come into being. In the data, there is a set of such occurrences of mood metaphor, where clauses of distinct moods are selected by the adaptors to realize agnate speech functions.

During the trial, the White Rabbit, who serves as the Herald, is asked to present the accusation, which is thought over by the jurymen in the court. Then, the witnesses are supposed to present the evidence to the court, before an important person has been allotted some time to decide on the verdict. The King nevertheless seems to have lost memory of that, and just asks the jurymen to think over the verdict without listening to the evidence. For this reason, the Herald notifies him that more measures have to be taken before that. When the King becomes attentive, he orders the Herald to ask the first witness to be present in the courtroom. Carrying with him some tea and bread-and-butter, the Hatter appears earliest and says something. (1) occurs under that condition:

In the Hatter’s turn as part of a conversation with other more dominant people in the court, two stages are believed to be relevant in terms of the genre. In the first stage, the initial two non-enclosed clauses function as his apology for what he has done. The second stage is marked by but, a cohesive Conjunctive. Being declarative in mood, the latter two non-enclosed clauses give more reasons to justify his apology and even ask for permission to drink the tea before he presents his evidence. In some way, it is possible to interpret the first of the last two non-enclosed clauses as realizing the speech function of a command, which has the most congruent realization such as the clause Please allow me to finish my tea in the court! Obviously, the semantic junction is entailed when the congruent utterance becomes metaphorical in (1), because a command, typically manifested in an imperative clause, is disguised as if it were a statement congruently manifested in a declarative clause.

As (1) is adapted, six out of the seven ADPVs follow suit, paraphrasing (1) differently into instances from (1a) to (1e). It must be noted that the focus here is on the mood choices instead of other differences.

In all of the relevant ADPVs, the third clause in (1) is rewritten without changing the mood pattern: the clauses in bold in (1a), (1b), (1c), (1e), (1d), and (1e) keep the declarative subcategory of the indicative mood, where the Finite in each clause goes after the Subject. The transference from (1) to (1a), (1b), (1c), and (1d) is pertinent to the strategy of maintenance, so that the same readability is involved. However, there is some difference: although all the clauses are declarative, (1e) is further modulated, where the mood metaphor is unpacked in some way, making it more congruent than any other clauses, now that modulation relates more closely to the two speech functions of proposal and offer than to the other two speech functions of statement and question. The transference from (1) to (1e) involves the strategy of unpacking, where lower readability is produced. Therefore, the adaptation of (1) in various ways forms a cline from non-congruent to more congruent, without reaching the most congruent end. Because of this, (1e) in the ADPV4 is more readable than its parallels in the OV and the other ADPVs.

After the Hatter, the first witness, is summoned, and says that he is sorry for what he did, he continues drinking tea in the court. As the King requests information about the time when he started eating and drinking, the Hatter says that he began on the fourteenth of March. Thinking of this as a fault, the March Hare, a character in the story who came into the courtroom with the Hatter, rectifies it, arguing for the correctness of a day after that day. What the jurymen are expected to do is to take notes of all these relevant dates. Yet, the witness does not think of this to be true, contradicting what the other two characters have confessed, but the King does not take it seriously, and demands that the witness quit the court. To avoid ejection from the courtroom, the Hatter continues the utterances in an attempt to provoke the Dormouse into saying more, but the plan falls through, since the Dormouse is asleep. Then, comes a clause complex as the one below:

This involves a projection nexus, where the projecting clause is enclosed, and the projected clause is a direct quote. The clause in bold is a declarative clause, normally realizing a statement. However, it is inferable from the co-text and its context of situation that the declarative clause functions also is a command, which can be reworded along more congruent lines like the following: “After that,” continued the Hatter, “ please allow me to cut some more bread-and-butter !”

The utterance in (2) is adapted in two ways. The first involves the strategy of maintenance, just to preserve the status quo without any modification of the metaphorical mood pattern in (2). The mood selections in the quoted parts of three of the ADPVs are basically the same as the one in the quoted part of the projection nexus in (2), although there are slight changes in the projecting parts, and/or the projected ones. In this way, the metaphorical effects are reserved, and the same level of reading ease is kept.

The second way involves another strategy, demetaphorization, which is characteristic of (2d) from the ADPV1. Different from the instances above, no change occurs in the projecting clause, and what undergoes slight modification is the projected one here. Our focus is just on the substitution of the lexical verb cut by make.

The modification alters the ideational meaning because making some more bread and butter varies considerably from cutting it. Moreover, the interpersonal meaning has also changed a lot. One is likely to claim that the mood choice is basically the same; so, the clause is still declarative. Admittedly, this is the case, yet it is still to be argued that when one lexical verb is replaced, the metaphorical effect or semantic junction in (2) has died out in (2d) since what the bold clause in (2d) does is not to demand goods-&-services from any particular person, but to render some information. To put it simply, the declarative clause here serves not as a command but as a statement, and this is just a congruent manner of expressing a statement’s meaning. The demetaphorization in (2d) is to lessen the difficulty that readers will probably encounter and to promote the level of ease. In terms of readability, the former four (i.e. 2, 2a, 2b, and 2c) are less readable than the last one (i.e. 2d).

Another group of adaptation of mood metaphor involves the addresser-Subject. Let’s look at one example from the OV. In the court, Alice’s size continues to grow, which makes the courtroom too packed. Owning to this, the Dormouse conveys disapproval of her. The relevant example is as follows:

Clearly, the bold clause in (3) is a declarative whose Subject is the listener, i.e. Alice next to him. In terms of speech function, it is not a mere statement that is normally manifested by a declarative, but a command whose usual lexicogrammatical realization is an imperative. A more congruent way of expressing this would be like this: “Don’t grow here,” said the Dormouse, where there is, if any, an implicit Subject you.

As (3) is abridged, five of the seven ADPVs contain its parallels, where it is observable that three manners are adopted to keep the above speech function. The first entails the fuse of declarative mood and modulation. Here, the metaphors are unpacked to some extent, since the strategy of unpacking is involved. This is quite similar to one of the ways of adapting (1) into (1e) discussed above. Examples (3a) to (3c) belong to this category.

The choice of mood in the instances is concerned with selection of modal verbs (i.e. can in 3a and 3b, and should in 3c), which are fused together with the mood Adjunct not. Despite their relevance to different kinds of modulation, the two negated modal verbs contribute to an identical speech function in the distinct ADPVs: a command, instead of a statement. Although the lexicogrammatical choices in (3a), (3b), and (3c) are metaphorical, the levels of readability for these instances are slightly higher than that in (3), now that the modulated declarative clauses in (3a), (3b), and (3c) have a closer relationship with the proposal (including command and offer) than a common declarative in (3).

The next way in which the mood metaphor in (3) is rewritten is associated with a declarative clause where the Subject is not the listener. This is shown in the following instance:

Unlike the bold full clauses in (3), (3a), (3b), and (3c) where the addressee is seen as the Subject, assuming “modal responsibility” (Halliday and Matthiessen 2014: 148), the one in (3d) has neither the speaker nor the listener as its Subject, and the modal responsibility is now transferred to the pronoun This. However, the speech function is still one of a command, through which someone is asked or ordered to do something for the Dormouse, the speaker here. The command is targeted at the addressee, which is marked by the pronoun you. The shift from (3) to (3d) involves the strategy of maintenance, so almost no unpacking is required, resulting in the same readability.

Although all the clauses in (3), (3a), (3b), (3c), and (3d) are metaphorical, (3a), (3b) and (3c) share similar readability, owing to their similar options of modulation (i.e. can’t in 3a and 3b; and shouldn’t in 3c). However, (3a), (3b), and (3c) are more readable than (3) and (3d), in the sense that the latter two are commands but in the guise of statements.

Finally, there is a further manner in which mood metaphor in (3) is made suitable for a new situation. This occurs most notably in one ADPV:

When the clause in bold is isolated from the text, it is a declarative, functioning as a description of Alice’s changing size as it is being uttered by the speaker. In a congruent situation, it assumes the speech function of a statement. This is nevertheless the case when it intervenes in the text. In the first clause of (3e), something is omitted. However, it can be inferred that the clause implies unexpectedness, surprise, or even shock. Accordingly, the second clause in (3e) can be interpreted as a command which is disguised as a statement. Thus, the semantic junction will probably interfere with the readability, making the text less readable.

However, this command, which is intended to ask Alice to stop growing, is manifested not by negation of some kind, but by choices of the marked tense ‘present in present’ together with the relevant pitch movement that the speaker is likely to produce on authentic occasions. Despite readers are unable to perceive the intonation pattern as they read (3e) in the text, they are unlikely to be oblivious to it. Although the negated declarative clause in (3e) does not deviate from those in (3), (3a), (3b), and (3c) in terms of the general mood choices, it is not demetaphorized because of the semantic blending. Yet, as far as the levels of readability are concerned, (3e) has the lowest level, in spite of the fact that it takes an identically explicitly subjective orientation as the clauses in (3), (3a), (3b), and (3c).

5.1.2 Readability and adaptation involving mood metaphor realized by projection nexus

From the above, it is obvious that the first category of mood metaphor is concerned, for the most part, with how different realizations of the speech function of demanding goods-&-services are reflected by the mood choice of single clauses. Semantic junction poses a difficulty for readers since a clause could be understood in two alternative ways. It takes more trouble to process mood metaphor than congruent realization. In addition to this group, there is a minor category whose occurrence has a less frequent basis, and whose domains of lexicogrammatical realization go beyond the confines of individual clauses and are extended to clause nexuses of projection.

In the OV of Alice’s story in the data, the most typical mood metaphor of the second type is associated with a mental process of desire which normally occurs in the projecting clause of a projection nexus. More specifically, the clause occurs in the OV, where the narrator concentrates readers’ attention on what happens before the trial attended by the King of Hearts, the Queen of Hearts, the Knave of Hearts, soldiers, Alice, and an array of animals. Suspected of the theft of some tarts made by the Queen, the Knave is brought to the court, waiting to be tried. Given his dominant position, the King is appointed judge and prosecutor, while Alice performs the role of the Herald, who makes clear the arrival or approach of people involved in the trial. Presented on a table in the courtroom is a dish of tarts, which makes Alice hungry immediately upon seeing it. Because the trial takes a long time to begin, she remarks something. Refer to (4) relevant to that.

The clause complex in (4) involves two projection nexuses. Of the four clauses, the third is an overarching one: as a reporting clause, she thought betokens a mental process of cognition, through which the other clauses are projected. The second projection is made possible by I wish, a mental process of desire that reports two more clauses. It is the second projection nexus that is readily relatable. Besides the reporting clause, the reported clause is also important. In this case, a shortened modal verb ’d, which stands for would, is also taken advantage of. With the speaker as its Subject, the projecting mental clause I wish is declarative, so congruently realizes a statement. In contrast, the projected material clause they’d get the trial done has the target addressees as Subject, but it realizes a command, now that it is modulated.

The foregoing analysis showcases the potential for modulated declarative clauses to be commands of some kind; so, the second clause in (4) has been entailed in one level of semantic junction. However, the first two clauses in (4) or similar grammatical combinations are deemed as “a reported proposal” (Halliday and Matthiessen 2014: 527). Thus, two levels of the semantic junction involving a command are locatable in the two clauses, because the local metaphorical effect is added to the global metaphorical effect. A more congruent way of conveying the command is something like the following: “They’d get the trial done,” she thought, “and hand round the refreshments!” A compromise is made in the rewritten version: although the speech function of demanding some goods-&-services is congruently realized by an imperative, it is extremely difficult to use an imperative clause instead without taking the pronoun they into account. This is argued to be almost the most congruent realization.

In the adaptation process, three out of the seven ADPVs paraphrase (4) into different parallels. Ideationally speaking, great changes take place as the clause complex as a whole, and the first two clauses, in particular, are modified. In terms of mood selections, only two general ways could be found. The first entails the strategy of maintenance, i.e. to maintain what it is in (4), use the same mood in the initial clauses, and take advantage of the shortened form of the same modal verb. This is visible in (4a) and (4b).

Because of the consistency in mood, the clauses in the instances above will still be a command in terms of the speech function, as long as the fundamental frameworks in the ADPVs such as the gist and plot are maintained. Here, the strategy of maintenance makes sure that the semantic blending remains, leading to the identical readability of (4), (4a), and (4b).

Another way of adapting (4) is to make changes to the previous mood pattern, but even here the variation is less conspicuous. (4c) below is a case in point.

Being declarative, the reporting clause I wish is replaced by another declarative I hope, which still acts as an indication of a mental process of desire; so, there is almost no change in the projecting clause. As regards mood, the projected clause in (4c) is almost the same as the parallel ones in (4), (4a), and (4b), because they are all declarative. Yet, each of the relevant clauses in (4), (4a), and (4b) contains a shortened modal verb, but the one in (4c) does not.

It is believed that the speech functions also differ on the two occasions: with such modal verbs, the reported clauses in (4), (4a), and (4b) that stand alone are more congruent realizations of the speech function of a command than the reported clause in (4c) because the former clauses are modulated declaratives, which are more akin to proposals than the latter one, which is more like a statement for its intrinsic declarative mood.

Furthermore, it is also argued that the projecting parts in the projection nexus add different degrees of the sense of a command to the four instances above. In either (4), (4a), or (4b), the projecting clause I wish multiplies this sense since the immediately projected clause or clauses have already had such sense for reasons of semantic junction. Contrastively, the projecting clause I hope in (4c) has triggered this sense, since, as mentioned earlier, the projected declarative operates more like a command.

Thus, the strategy of unpacking is used, but still different readability is involved since the metaphor is more fully unpacked from (4) to (4a) or (4b) than from (4) to (4c). (4a) and (4b) are more readable than (4c), although all of them realize the general speech function of a command.

5.2.1 Readability and adaptation involving modality metaphor realized by a projecting clause

The first category that occurs denotes one in which the modal meanings related are expressed not through those grammatical items functioning as Finite or mood Adjunct in clauses, but through summation of a projecting clause before the projected. When the King asks the Herald to summon the first witness into the courtroom, the Hatter comes in, carrying with him some food and drinks. Because he has not yet consumed them, he is very sorry for that. In a previous chapter entitled “At the Tea Party’’ in the OV, it is stated that any time will be teatime for the Hatter because his actions always diverge from Time. The King enquires of him when he starts eating the food and drinking the meal, and he responds in a certain fashion. Look at the pertaining sentence below:

(5) is a clause complex encompassing two levels of projection: at a global level, the second enclosed clause he said is the projecting clause, and the remaining ones the projected; and at the local level, the first enclosed clause I think acts as the projecting one, while the discontinuous clause “Fourteenth of March […] it was” is the projected.

The focus now will be on the local projection, where the projecting clause I think enables the connection with the relevant projected clause. Ideationally, the projecting clause indicates a mental process of cognition, and the projected an identifying relational process. Interpersonally, however, the meaning of the projecting clause approximates one of ‘probably’. Instead of being realized by those grammatical units that function as Finite or mood Adjunct, this modal meaning is manifested in the projecting clause, which can be seen as metaphorical. Thereby, (5) could be reworded in the following two ways (i.e. “Probably it was Fourteenth of March,” he said; and “It might be fourteenth of March,” he said) so that the metaphorical effect is removed.

While analysis is done in terms of the mood structure of the projection nexus in (5) as a whole, it is appropriate to assign to the projecting clause the role of mood Adjunct placed immediately before the projected clause. Here, the semantic junction consists of the fact that the projecting clause, which is supposed to perform ideational tasks, is now drawn upon to serve interpersonal purposes. Through the modality in (5), the overtly subjective attitude of the speaker is conveyed.

As this is adapted, the same mood Adjunct is reserved in four out of the seven ADPVs, so the same level of readability is produced. While the adaptor in the ADPV2 keeps the same clause pattern as (5a), three others make modifications. See the ensuing instances.

In (5a) and (5b), the parentheses are added to show possible wordings for the full clauses. In each example, attention needs to be simultaneously paid not to the whole projection nexus or to the projecting clause, but to the projected clause that is elliptical. It must be noted that no single ADPV in our data has put mood Adjunct in a position that comes before the projected clause, and all the instances (i.e. 5a, 5b, 5c, and 5d) favor an ending location. Therefore, the adaptation of (5) into (5a), (5b), (5c), and (5d) serves as a proof of the flexible positions of mood Adjunct, since it is transferrable from the middle to the end or in an opposite direction. Furthermore, the strategy of maintenance is used, and the same readability is maintained since the modality metaphor in (5) is manifested in the same way in (5a), (5b), and (5c).

5.2.2 Readability and adaptation involving modality metaphor with flexible realization

Besides, there is another category of modality metaphor that has less regular occurrence and assumes less prominence. Also, the modal meanings are realized by a grammatical unit or units in a clause, but this domain of realization can be expanded from a single clause to a clause nexus. Metaphors like that occur in the OV with few or even no parallel parts in the ADPVs. In advance of the trial, Alice catches sight of the tarts on the table, which makes her mouth water. As she expresses her desire to be given some food after the trial, someone goes on to comment. Refer to the germane instance (6): “Objective, explicit ↘ existential clause with a noun of modalization as Existent” (Thompson 2014: 249).

In the ideational guises, the first clause in (6) is an existential one, in which Process (i.e. seems to be) and Existent (i.e. no chance of it) are involved. (6) is a clause complex composed of three clauses, of which concentration is to be in the first one, standing for an existential process. In this existential clause, the Process is held by the verbal group complex (i.e. seemed to be), where two verbal groups (i.e. seemed and to be) are in a hypotactic grammatical relationship, and the first verbal group is semantically expanded by the second, which is imperfective. The Existent (i.e. no chance of this) involves a noun (i.e. chance) indicative of the modal meaning ‘probably’. The demonstrative (i.e. this) refers back to what is said in a previous clause complex involving her hope to accelerate the trial and to be given some start. Because the noun is a potential one of modalization, (6) can be reworded as follows: But there seemed to be no chance that people in the court would accelerate the trial and hand over some refreshments, so she began looking at everything about her, to pass away the time, where a fact clause is embedded.

Admittedly, ideational grammatical metaphor interferes in the unpacking of the grammatical metaphor in (6) above and will be disregarded here. Attention is to be paid only to the interpersonal metaphor in general, and the modality metaphor in particular. To arrive at the relatively more congruent modes of expression, three more steps are needed to unpack the modality metaphor in (6), where three different realizations of the metaphor are introduced: (a) it was impossible in But it was impossible to accelerate the trial and be handed over some refreshment; (b) possibly […] not in But people in the court possibly would not accelerate the trial or hand over some refreshments; (c) would not in But the trial would not move faster, and people in the court would not hand over the refreshments.

Ideationally speaking, the modal meanings in (6) are realized differently in the ADPVs: in a single relational clause (i.e. it was impossible) with Carrier (i.e. it) and Attribute (i.e. impossible) in (a); in part of the Process (i.e. possibly […] not) in (b); and in would not as part of the Process (i.e. would not move) in (c). In the interpersonal guises, however, the three realizations can be interpreted as being similar in one aspect, but different in another. They are alike, for they can be seen as possessing a similar modal structure where the part acting as Modality functions as part of Mood; and they are also unlike, because of their distinct orientations. In line with Thompson (2014), it is argued that the structure there seemed to be no chance of in (6) as a whole is explicitly objective. Besides, it was impossible in (a) is explicitly objective, possibly […] not in (b) is implicitly objective, and would not in (c) is implicitly subjective.

Due to the blending of both ideational and interpersonal aspects of meaning, readers are likely to face trouble sorting out the interpersonal nature of (6), which could be in alternative manners such as the three mentioned realizations, although they have similar modal meanings. Therefore, (6) is associated with certain level of readability.

As (6) is adapted, no parallel is identifiable except one, where a structure similar to (6) is entailed. The following is just the case in point:

The transition from (6) to (6a) is of lesser prominence than that from (6) to either of the three realizations discussed just now. In the second clause in (6a), which also stands for an existential process, the Existent is without any modification, and the Process is held not by seemed to be, a hypotactic verbal group complex involving the imperfective phase, but by a one-verb verbal group was. In this connection, therefore, the strategy of maintenance is employed, so the readability of (6a) is almost identical to that of (6), now that maintenance of the metaphor is related.