In Example (106), both the interviewer (moderator), and interviewees (A and B）use modal devices (italicized）to indicate their views, and A particularly uses the multilayered MSAs still probably as a means of mitigating the modal force of the MV could.This shows that the genre of journalistic interviews is oriented towards face-work (cf.Goffman, 1967).
Fraser & Nolen (1981: 93-94）(cited from Watts, 2003: 78）propose the notion of Conversational Contract for interviews, holding that each party brings an understanding of some initial set of rights and obligations that will determine, at least for the preliminary stages, the limits of the interaction.These rights and obligations (R + O）may, of course, be misjudged by participants in the interaction, which either leads to a renegotiation of the rights and obligations that the participants have or to the possible imputation of impolite behavior.Developing this theory, Watts (2003: 89-90）argues that the notion of Conversational Contract is normally realized by direct statements without hedges for positive politeness, and by indirect statements with hedges for negative politeness.Watts’ argument is significant and inspiring.Since JI displays both types of politeness, and hedges include modal devices and modality supplementing devices (e.g.MSAs), sometimes they tend to have a big number of MSAs whereas at other times they do not.
Scollon & Scollon (1995: 44-46）propose three models of face-to-face communication or interviews in relation to face-work: deference politeness system (-P, +D), solidarity politeness system (-P, -D), and hierarchical politeness system (+P, +/-D).These three models can be sketched in Figure 3.7.
Figure 3.7 Three politeness systems in interviews (After Scollon & Scollon, 1995: 44-46)
In A, the participants see themselves as being at the same social level, but use independence strategies speaking to each other.In B, the participants feel free or express closeness to each other.In C, the participants see themselves as being in unequal social position and the “higher” uses involvement face strategies while the “lower” uses independence face strategies.
In actual use the number of linguistic devices to be used for mitigating FTAs or reflecting the types of politeness as sketched in Figure 3.7 can be roughly measured by the following equation:
Wx = D (S, H）+ P (H, S）+ Rx(where x is the FTA)
Wx is the weightiness of the intended FTA, D the social distance between S (speaker）and H (hearer), P the power that H has over S, and Rx the degree to which x constitutes an imposition.This equation helps people to understand why modality supplementing through MSAs is necessary in some situations of journalistic interviews.In other words, the use of MSAs mirrors the tenor or generic features of journalistic interviews.This understanding can be practically fruitful.
AW has been a heated area for studies in recent years.This genre shows contacts between writers and imagined readers.Ivani? (1997: 60）refers to academic writings as a context where interlocutors cannot refer to shared physical settings and cannot monitor each other’s reactions.Thus, there arises the issue of the writer’s identity.Ivani? (1997: 95）regards it as double-faceted.On the one hand, the writer must consider how the reader interprets the subject matter; on the other hand, the writer must represent the subject matter on his or her own.This relationship can be diagramed as follows in Figure 3.8.
Figure 3.8 Identity of the academic writer
Figure 3.8 denotes that AW is dialogic in nature.This raises a number of issues about the writers’ identities:
A.The real self is questionable.Theoretically, the writers’ real self is submerged by the demand that they take on a particular type of academic persona, with its set of associated conventions.
B.The writers may have to distance themselves from the membership of a particular group in order to establish their own values and beliefs and to signal this distance is a powerful device of self-presentation.
C.The writers may feel ambivalent about identifying themselves with what they see as the dominant ideologies of the academic community.They may want to associate themselves with some aspects of academic community membership, for example, to present themselves as knowledgeable and thoughtful, but many of them feel that the conventions force them to dismiss other aspects of their identity (cf.Ivani?, 1997: 234).Thus, academic writings are areas with multiple identities, where contradictions and ambivalence occur.
D.The power relationship between readers and writers mediates the influence of the wider social context on individual writers.Myers (1989: 3）distinguishes exoteric from esoteric readers.Exoteric readers are just common readers who take an interest in some of the researchers’ findings, whereas esoteric readers are those involved in the ongoing research problems.Myers (ibid）claims that different readers have different impacts on the discursive constructions of writers’ identities.Fairclough (1989: 24）mentions that the dominant ideologies and associated discourses in the academic community position writers.Thompson (1996）points out that there exist multiple voices in academic texts, which affect the writers’ attitude as reporters of others’ views as well as their own.
Therefore, the intricate nature of the writers’ identities may give birth to modality and even modality supplementing devices such as MSAs in academic essays.Consider the following example:
(107）The nature of the newly naked modern man may turn out to be just as elusive and mysterious as that of the old, clothed one, maybe even more elusive.
