Fourth, judged from the approaches of cognitive and pragmatic linguistics, functional representation, and SFL, it remains largely unknown how modality is specifically associated with power and solidarity.It is only known that the deployment of MVs and MAs can signal power or solidarity to some extent, but it is not clear how these modal devices are used in different fields for politeness strategy.Fairclough (1989: 58-68)endorses the idea that formality as a common property in many societies of practices and discourses of high social prestige and restricted access is one pervasive and familiar aspect of constraints on access to discourse.It is a contributory factor in keeping access restricted, and can also serve to generate awe among those who are excluded and daunted by it.This means that modal devices linked to power or solidarity must be approached through the fields and discourse concerned.Hyland (2000)probes the use of various negative politeness devices in academic writing or research articles, but unfortunately does not present a comparative study between academic writings and non-academic writings.
Modality as a negative or positive politeness strategy may vary from field to field or from genre to genre.The deployment of MAs in legal documents and that in public speeches, according to people’s intuitions, should be quite different.
It is known that modality can be construed in many ways simultaneously.Therefore, it is insufficient to state that there are a variety of means or devices for modality only, but it is also necessary to study how they might be combined in some cases to yield a synergy of modality.
In another word, MSAs as a means of modality supplementing should be studied.Also, it is necessary to base the studies on genre while taking into account a variety of factors for the use of MSAs in discourse, such as cognition, pragmatic inputs and tenor.
2.3 MSAs and modality supplementing in discourse
Modality studies deal with a variety of modal devices in communication and discourse.It is true that modality is not expressed by MVs or MAs alone.Facchinettti et al.(2003: vi)point out that modality can be realized by linguistic items from a wide range of grammatical classes, covering not only modal auxiliaries (or MVs)and lexical verbs, but also nouns, adjectives, adverbs, idioms, particles, mood and prosody in speech.Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 616)also remark that speakers have indefinitely many ways of expressing their opinions - or rather, perhaps, of dissimulating the fact that they are expressing their opinions.Thus, it is possible for modal devices to occur less individually than collectively in many situations.Seen in this way, it is not wise to approach modality through MVs or MAs only.One of the things that should be considered is the co-occurrences of modal devices, such as MV + MA, MV + adverb, and adverb + adjective.
In the previous research on modality, scholars have focused their attention mostly on MVs or MAs separately.There are a small number of accounts of the co-occurrences of modal devices; yet, they are not theoretically profound, nor are they profound enough to give people a clear picture of how modal devices may interact with each other in specific use.As has been mentioned earlier, Nuyts (2001: 175)records how English and Dutch allow the scalar marking of “probability” by highly idiomaticized modal-adverb combinations such as may well and kan goed (the Dutch version of may well), but he does not go further in this aspect of research.Papafragou (2000)studies modality in connection with the relevance theory.In her view, MAs that co-occur with MVs can be the meta-representation devices of speech acts.Consider the following:
(80)Allegedly, the Prime Minister will resign.
(81)Flying will become more expensive, indeed!
According to Papafragou, allegedly in Example (80)is a meta-representation device of speech act.The speaker indicates that the prediction of the Prime Minister’s resignation is grounded; he may have heard of it.The same is true of Example (81).The speaker predicts the cost of flying, and is sure that he may have experienced such a flight by himself or he may have solid evidence to support his argument.
The MAs in Examples (80)and (81)are disjuncts or comment adjuncts, which are supposed to be able to function as a means of evidentiality according to Ifantidou (2001: 5-14).Evidentials have two main functions, i.e.they indicate the source of knowledge, and the speaker’s degree of certainty about the proposition expressed.The sources of knowledge include observation (e.g.I see, I feel), hearsay (e.g.I hear, he is said to, allegedly), inference (e.g.presumably, must be), and memory (e.g.I remember, I recall).The ways of indicating the speaker’s degree of certainty include certain propositional attitude and parenthetical expressions (e.g.I think, I suspect), adverbials (e.g.probably, certainly, obviously), and epistemic modals (e.g.may, could, must).
The co-occurrence of MSA and MV (as in Examples (80)and (81))demonstrates the use of multiple modal devices for communicative needs.In this case, MSAs play an important part in modality supplementing.
Paradis (2003)mentions that the adverb really collocating with MVs (e.g.can’t really, will really)can attest truth, emphasize attitude and reinforce degree of certainty.Mitchell (2003)thinks that some collocations of MVs + MAs (e.g.might as well)function like single MVs, i.e.they are idiomaticized, and can have both deontic and epistemic uses.Hunston & Francis (2000)find that many linguistic expressions are patterned, including some modal co-occurrences.These studies prove that MSAs exist in idiomatic modal patterns, and supplement the modality conveyed the MVs involved.
