Based on his own corpus, Yang (2006a)finds through his research that there is a close correspondence between the types of MVs and text types.The frequencies of occurrence of central MVs in Yang’s research can be shown in a descending order:
(A)academic writings: will (454; 20.14%)> can (381; 16.9%)> would (347; 15.39%)> may (273; 12.11%)> must (219; 9.72%)> should (217; 9.63%)> could (179; 7.94%)> might (125; 5.55%)> shall (59; 2.62%)
(B)legal documents: may (1034; 39.46%)> shall (915; 34.92%)> must (266; 10.15%)> would (182; 6.95%)> will (110; 4.2%)> can (59; 2.25%)> should (38; 1.45%)> might (8; 0.31%)and could (8; 0.31%)
Yang (ibid)argues that the MV will is used frequently in academic writings in order to express the writer’s or speaker’s intentions about the research, and predictions about the future, and that in legal documents shall tends to denote liabilities, regulations and forbiddance, and may generally indicates rights or conveys forbiddance when negated.Hence, the same MVs (e.g.shall and may)can have different distributions in the two genres.
According to the corpus of The Economist, Walsh (2004: 335-348)considers that the MV will has the following functions in financial news article: future tense marker, epistemic, and prediction as comment.Klinge (2005: 172)points out that it is hard to differentiate the tense will from the modal will, for it can be used both in sentences uttered to convey volition/intention and in sentences uttered to convey simple-future-time reference without any hint of volition/intention.Therefore, some linguists propose that will be excluded in the modality system whereas others advocate that will be included in it.Klinge (ibid)supports the latter view, arguing that it is not contradictory for will to be used in both future time reference and volition/intention.His postulation is that people have, or form, assumptions about their own relations with the world in future time that enable them to plan future activities and actions, and that by extension they also make assumptions about other people and their plans for the future.In other words, the MV will embodies the features of future time and volition/intention simultaneously.This is especially so from the perspectives of genres.
In Biber et al.(1999), MAs are labeled as stance adverbs, and corpora studies show that the occurrences of MAs vary from genre to genre, for instance:
(A)probably occurs in a descending order: conversation (700 occurrences per million words)> fiction (300 occurrences per million words)> news and academic writing (200 occurrences per million words).
(B)generally shows a reverse order in occurrences: academic writing (200 occurrences per million words)> conversation, fiction, and news (fewer than 50 occurrences per million words).
The occurrences of MAs in number somehow or relatively dovetail with the nature of each genre.Conversation is the richest in interpersonal roles, and thus informal adverbs such as probably, maybe, really and actually occur most frequently.Fiction is second to conversation in interpersonal roles, and hence the four adverbs occur less frequently in this genre.
Gotti (2004: 328-329)studies will and shall as a means of prediction in early modern English, and finds that will and shall denoting assurance are often accompanied by adverbs as content-oriented boosters or emphasizers of the certainty of the interlocutor’s acceptance of the validity of the proposition, e.g.will verily, shall indeed, will surely, and shall sooner than perhaps.
2.1.6.5 Critical discourse analysis
Some linguists have studied modality through the perspective of CDA.In Bartlett (2004), MVs are explored in relation to CDA.For instance, MVs that express obligations can be viewed critically as follows in Figure 2.10.
Figure 2.10 Critical discourse analysis classification of MVs expressing obligations (after Bartlett, 2004: 75)
In Figure 2.10, the functions of MVs are approached through the ideology that goes through the discourse as a thread, and thus this model expands the bipartite division of deontic and epistemic modality that many linguists vote for.MVs can express objective or subjective obligations, for either of which there are a number of sub-ideologies involved.In this way, modality is regarded as acts with social significance.In fact, quite a number of other CDA linguists adopt Bartlett’s view (e.g.Iedema, 1997; White, 2005/2006).
White (2005)argues that modality and dialogistic openness are related in journalism in that MVs, especially epistemic MVs, construe the value positions currently being referenced in the texts as but one of a number of actual or possible dialogic alternatives and thereby, to a greater or lesser degree, make space for these alternatives in any ongoing dialogic exchange.Take the following for example:
(78)In fact it must be the most immature, irresponsible, disgraceful and misleading address ever given by a British Prime Minister.
The MV must in Example (78)makes it clear that it is opinion and not “truth” or “factuality” at issue, and hence there is no lack of commitment to truth value.In another word, the authorial voice presents itself as committed to the proposition while at the same time acknowledging the value position being advanced as contingent and hence but one of a number of potential dialogistic alternatives.Like White, Iedema (1997: 73-100)holds that some low-valued or median-valued MVs can appear frequently in the language of administration.For instance, an administrative command is written as follows:
(79)It would be grateful for your help in facilitating Bob’s efforts to support this project.
