Some linguists make more efforts to explain the usages of modal devices in indirect speech acts by means of other pragmatic factors, for instance, iconicity.Dirven & Verspoor (1998: 11-12）postulate that the iconic principle of quantity applies to “being polite in saying a bit more”.Indirect speech acts of commands, for instance, take the forms of questions or conditionals rather than blunt imperatives, and the expressions concerned are generally longer than the latter.For example:
(39）No smoking.
(40）Don’t smoke, will you?
(41）Would you mind not smoking here, please?
(42）We would appreciate if you could refrain from smoking cigars and pipes as it can be disturbing to other diners.
As can be seen, the expressions with MVs in Examples (39)-(42）indicate the indirect speech act of commanding, and Example (42）seems to be the most polite form, for it is the longest and a conditional with three MVs.In contrast, Example (39）is the least polite form, for it is straightforward and non-periphrastic.These examples indicate that pragmatics and cognitive linguistics tend to be integrated in accounting for the usages of modal devices in communication, and the iconic principle shows that the diversification of modal devices could be a way for successful communication.In Examples (40-42), there are the following patterns of modal diversification respectively: imperative + MV, MV + adverb, and MV + MV.
Dirven & Verspoor’s view is supported by other linguists as well.Consider the following example:
(43）Could you please reach the salt?
Marmaridou (2000: 216-218）argues that an utterance like Example (43）addresses the potential obstacle of the addressee’s inability to comply with the addresser’s desire.Addressees are expected to metonymically infer what is desired from the potential obstacle of their compliance that addressers focus upon by their utterances.Hence, metonymic reasoning and image-schematic structure do not only account for indirect speech acts, but also explain how social roles are interactively constructed in discourse.Marmaridou (ibid）concludes that this is an example of how the use of language could structure reality in motivated ways.
Obviously, Marmaridou’s research indicates that cognitive linguistics and pragmatics should be combined on many occasions when modality is studied.However, it should be noted that Marmaridou leaves the micro-level modality issue untouched.Example (43）could be successful in addressing the potential obstacle of the addressee’s inability to comply with the addresser’s desire because of the employment of the modality pattern: MV + adverb.It is the use of the adverb please that suggests a social distance between the addresser and addressee (seen from the perspective of power or negative politeness）and makes the successful communication likely.
There are some other linguists who attempt to study modality using the speech act method.Nuyts (2001: 205-213）studies modal devices by means of the speech act method based on language typology.According to him, the use of modal devices is considered as speech acts through evidentiality and performativity.Evidentiality arises as inter-subjective meanings due to contextual conditions, for instance, a scientific context which implies that the evaluation is based on objective research accessible to everyone vs.a strictly personal context which suggests that the evaluation is entirely a matter of the speaker alone.Performativity lies in such speech acts or speech acts modifiers as questioning, conditionals and causality.
It can be noted that Nuyts (ibid）regards speech acts modifiers (e.g.questioning, conditionals, and causality）as important in conveying speech acts through modal devices.This implies that modality patterns are rich in each language for the sake of successful communication.Again, the deployment of multiple modal devices may have to do with the issue of power (or distance）vs.solidarity (the emotional closeness between the discourse participants).It might be social or power distance that results in the use of different modality patterns.
In short, the method of speech acts states that modal devices can contribute to the realization of indirect speech acts, and implies that the occurrences of multiple modal devices are necessary in many cases in order to make the speech acts conveyed successful.
2.1.4.2 Evidentiality
According to the evidentiality method, modal devices are the means of meta-pragmatic awareness, expressing attitude, stance, or epistemic properties (Mey, 2001: 176-177).This method does not deny the interactions between cognition and social settings.
Verschueren (1999: 191-192）thinks that MAs can be the means of evidentiality in this sense.Take the following for example:
(44）Admittedly, John is a lousy driver.
(45）Clearly, humanity is planning its own extinction.
Verschueren (ibid）mentions that it is adaptability as the property of language that enables human beings to make negotiable linguistic choices from a variable range of possibilities in such a way as to approach points of satisfaction for communicative needs.Examples (44）and (45）show the addressers’ flexibility in handling their own attitudes or judgments.The understandings of MAs as a means of evidentiality also appear in other linguists’ works.Hu (1994）studies Boas (1911), Anderson (1986）and Chafe (1986), and concludes that evidentiality is related to sources of knowledge and cognition, which can be diagramed as follows in Figure 2.5.
