Algoritmos cuánticos comunes

An element of interest for my topic is the adjunct. An adjunct is typically realized by an adverbial group or a prepositional phrase (i.e. preposition + nominal group rather than by a nominal group). In “my aunt was given that teapot yesterday by the duke” there are two adjuncts: the adverbial group yesterday and the prepositional phrase by the duke. An adjunct or complement may occur thematically, as marked theme in a declarative clause (Halliday and Matthiessen 2014: 151-155). There are modal adjuncts, which are interpersonal and conjunctive adjuncts, which are textual. Despite their different locations in the clause, these two forms commonly constitute a deviation from the main principles of ordering and are not found within the residue at all. (cf. Halliday and Matthiessen 2014: 156) In this study, I only focus on the interpersonal modal adjuncts.

On the interpersonal level, two kinds of modal adjuncts can be recognized: (i) mood adjuncts and (ii) comment adjuncts. (i) Mood adjuncts function inside the mood element and are tightly interrelated with the meaning of the finite component. (ii) Comment adjuncts function outside of (not as part of) the mood + the residue framework (and the proposition realized by it) of the clause. They are rather comments about this framework (propositional) or concern the process of exchanging and sharing it (speech functional). Mood and comment adjuncts are different kinds of assessment of the proposal or proposition. The difference between them can be found on the interpersonal basis (Halliday and Matthiessen 2014: 157). They have various grammatical properties with alternative forms of realization. (cf. Halliday and Matthiessen 2014: 184) The terms mood and comment adjunct are not as frequently used in my study as other terms from the SFG since my study’s focus is not on the division between the two. However, it is clear that most of the analyzed hedges and boosters (e.g. adverbs) function as either mood or comment adjuncts. My study focuses on the functions or divisions of modality such as modalization and divisions of intensity. To understand these functions, it is necessary to explore mood and comment adjuncts.

3.9.6.3.1. Mood adjuncts

Mood adjuncts are called as such because of their close relation to the meanings enabled by mood (intensity and modality), since their natural position in the clause is either before or after the finite operator. Their other possible location is before the subject (thematic) with adjuncts of modality showing a particular orientation towards acting as ‘themes.’ Mood adjuncts can also occur at the end of the clause as ‘afterthoughts.’ As I explained in subsection 3.7.1, they can also occur in other positions. This will be shown in the discussion of the qualitative analysis (5.1) in more detail. In the following paragraphs, there will be a discussion about the functions of mood adjuncts, with a particular focus on their expression of intensity. Intensity is a central aspect of my analysis.

Figure 14 illustrates the main categories within the system of mood adjuncts. These main categories will be further explained in the following paragraphs.

Since the modality level of mood adjuncts was discussed in subsection 3.9.6.1, it is necessary to explore another relevant category, namely intensity. This is essential because intensity includes both approximating (proposition-related) categories of hedges and boosters. These are valuable means of categorizing and negotiating knowledge in academic writing. As shown in Figure 14, intensity adjuncts either indicate the degree or strength of a certain propositional information or the counter expectancy. Examples 3.16 and 3.17 below show degree adjuncts in context. They are the only type of intensity adjuncts that was investigated within hedging and boosting.

3.16 This time, however, it almost came unstuck, or rather stuck in the mud. [LOB_A] 3.17 Have they actually calculated all the consequences of what they are doing with their tanks and planes in Berlin? [LOB_B] (Halliday and Matthiessen 2014: 188).

While the first example (3.21) shows the use of almost in modifying the intensity of a verb, the second example (3.22) shows how intensity can perfectly function in interrogative clause complexes as well as in declarative ones. This and the compatibility with modalization in general, are the reasons why interrogatives are included in the analysis.

Halliday and Matthiessen (cf. 2014: 188) argue that adjuncts of intensity cannot be placed as themes. They are placed finally or medially within the clause, but rarely in an initial position. In contrast to the authors’ statement that intensity adjuncts cannot be thematic, my data shows several thematic and fronted uses of intensity adjuncts, such as almost and completely. An example from CIAO is: Completamente diverso dai precedenti è il Kööpeli a cui viene attribuito il significato di “spettro del bosco” oppure […]. (CIAO15FML_57) Completely different from the previous ones is the Kööpeli to whom is attributed the meaning of “specter of the forest” or […]. (my translation) It is interesting how the student writer has chosen to place completely right at the beginning of the clause complex and shifts the subject and verb further. What is also striking here is the changed verb-subject order instead of the common subject-verb order for such declarative clause complexes.

As previously mentioned, adjuncts of intensity are subdivided into categories expressing either degree or counter expectancy (see Table 12). Adjuncts of counter expectancy limit or exceed what is to be expected, but for the purposes of this study, I only investigate adjuncts of degree. Adjuncts of degree may represent high, low or total degree. Similar to probability adjuncts, ‘total’ adjuncts indicate a change in value in clauses containing transferred negative polarity (contrast I totally disagree, with I don’t totally agree). These adjuncts (particularly ‘total’ adjuncts) are normally related to ‘interpersonally loaded processes’ or ‘attributes.’ They also regularly act as submodifiers inside nominal groups.

Table 12: Different values of adjuncts of degree (Halliday and Matthiessen 2014: 189). This discussion was essential in order to understand mood adjuncts and the important category of intensity. Its importance lays on my inclusion of lexemes with different de- gree levels such as almost, completely and totally. In the next subsection, the other main category, comment adjuncts, will be described.

3.9.6.3.2. Comment adjuncts

There is no clear line between comment adjuncts and mood adjuncts due to certain overlapping aspects. The variation is that comment adjuncts are less connected to the frame of mood; they are limited to ‘indicative’ clauses and convey the speaker’s stance either towards the whole proposition (as ideational) or to a certain speech function. My focus is on adjuncts that are related to the proposition. The propositional (ideational) comment adjuncts act only within declarative clauses and are located in the same clause complex slots as mood adjuncts. They are tightly related to the line between information constituents and enact a line between tone groups. Therefore, commas normally appear next to them in writing. For this reason, they often appear medially, i.e. after the item that is particularly noticeable (examples 3.18 and 3.19). In other cases, they may be placed as a theme (thematic position), commonly as an unconnected information unit or in a final location of the clause as afterthought (example 3.20) (cf. Halliday and Matthiessen 2014: 190).

3.18 The doctor, unfortunately, hasn’t left an address. 3.19 The doctor hasn’t, unfortunately, left an address.

3.20 The doctor hasn’t left an address, unfortunately. (Halliday and Matthiessen 2014: 190).

Through propositional comment adjuncts, the author is commenting either on the subject or on the whole proposition. In the former, the comment can either be of an asseverate nature (‘it is like this) or of a qualificative nature (‘this is my opinion about it’). (cf. Halliday and Matthiessen 2014: 190)

As it is indicated in Table 13, comment adjuncts overlap with mood adjuncts in the listed categories. Halliday and Matthiessen (cf. 2014: 190-191) present a wide view on several aspects of propositional and speech functional comment adjuncts. In Table 13, only the categories which fit to the dimensions of the study are included. Speech functional types are not included. Even though they are interpersonal and include categories containing modalization elements such as general (generally) and factual (in fact, actually), they appear to portray realizations of ‘spoken’ language. Every hedge and booster that belongs to the analysis is marked in bold. Within this table, it is worth mentioning the difference in nature of significantly with the asseverative forms as well as the presence of of course as an asseverative element of obviousness and naturality.

type examples of realizations

propositional on whole

asseverative natural inevitably, naturally,

of course

obvious clearly, obviously, of

course

sure no doubt, doubtless,

indubitably

qualificative presumption hearsay supposedly, allegedly,

evidently

argument arguably

guess presumably

significance importantly, significantly

Table 13: The propositional type of comment adjuncts and parts of its subcategories and realizations. Adapted from Halliday and Matthiessen (2014: 191).

While it is relevant to explain the function of various lexemes that are used in my study, it is also necessary to divide between their different forms of orientation and manifestation. These two axes of modal assessments will be explained in detail in the following subsection.