From the perspective of discourse community, such strategies of weakening criticism and strengthening praise contribute to achieving common ground with readers and avoiding the potential risk of personal responsibility.In pragmatics, common ground is also named mutual knowledge, referred to as the sender’s communicative intention, i.e.S (speaker)knows that H (hearer)knows that S knows that H knows (and so ad infinitum)that S has this particular intention (Levinson, 1983: 16).The common ground achieved through the use of modality should be identical to empathy - the speaker’s sympathy with one point of view rather than another, which may lead to a particular choice of lexis (cf.Brown & Yule, 1983: 147).
3.2.3 Clarification of attitudes
MSAs can indicate the degree of certainty.In this sense, when MSAs co-occur with MVs, they can help to clarify the attitudes involved in the latter, if there is any.This is a result of pragmatic inputs.
Levinson (1987)lists three neo-Gricean conversational principles, namely, the Q-, I-, and M- Principles:
A.provide a statement that is not informationally weaker than your knowledge of the world allows;
B.produce the minimal linguistic information sufficient to achieve your communicative end, with the former in view;
C.deploy a marked expression where this would not mean the same as its unmarked equivalent.
Capone (2001: 17)indicates that the three neo-Gricean principles are an effective way of capturing the pragmatic role of the modal expressions in communication.For many scholars, modality is non-factual but concerned solely with the moment of utterance, the “action of speaking” (cf.Palmer, 1990: 11).Speakers express their needs and convey their opinions and attitudes via the expression of epistemically-colored judgment or deontically-shaped permission and obligation.In this sense, modal expressions are performative.Consider the following:
(98)The man must obviously have been armed to have kidnapped two adults single-handed but she didn’t say so.
In Example (98), must obviously is different from must in that the former shows that the speaker gives some indication as to the reasoning behind the latter.Hoye (2005: 1484)points out that the rhetorical function of MAs such as obviously, certainly, really, of course (or their adjectival equivalents, it is obvious that…etc.)is pragmatically motivated.Their role in discourse is context-sensitive and thoroughly pragmatic; they occur in those areas where speakers have something to gain or lose by their addressee’s acceptance or rejection of what they are saying.It should be noted that the combination of must and obviously or of any other modal devices indicates the speaker’s intention of making the speech more precise, reasonable and acceptable as well as the pragmatic needs of making the speech less arbitrary by a marked expression.Hence, MSAs may be employed as a way of clarifying attitudes.
It is difficult to differentiate epistemic from deontic modality in some cases, and this gives rise to modality supplementing.In Biber et al.(1999), the meanings and use of the modals are approached in terms of three dimensions, i.e.strength (strong vs.weak), kind (epistemic, deontic and dynamic), and degree (the extent to which there is clear and identifiable modal meaning).Yet, such a distinct classification is questionable.Nuyts (2001: 22)argues that there is a tendency for people to scalarize their assessments rather than to polarize them in terms of discrete categories of certainty or doubt.Also, Coates (1983: 17)denotes the considerable indeterminacy or merger between the epistemic and deontic interpretations of MVs.As a result of pragmatic needs, modality supplementing seems capable of removing such uncertainty.For instance:
(99)If your idea is contrary to my idea your idea must be eliminated, especially if it starts getting a territorial foothold, and might just possibly catch on.
(100)There was a better than fifty chance that the opera would be one by Verdi.
(101)Transport, of course is tending to increase all the time, but there could be, and almost certainly will be, a trend of smaller motor cars to make better use of fuel by having less consumption.
In Example (99), especially forms a sharp contrast with just and possibly in that the former strengthens the strong deontic modal value of must, whereas the latter two weaken the modal value of might and prevent people from interpreting might as deontic rather than epistemic.In Example (100), the nominal group “a better than fifty chance” enables people to decode would as epistemic rather than deontic.In Example (101), of course, almost and certainly contribute to the reading of will and could as epistemic rather than dynamic.These examples, particularly, Examples (99)and (101), show that MSAs have the function of offering more information to clarify the attitudes or judgments involved.
To sum up, pragmatic inputs contribute to the use of MSAs as described in Figure 3.4.
Figure 3.4 The impacts of pragmatic inputs on MSAs
3.3 SFL
SFL places modality under the interpersonal metafunction.Martin (1992)stresses the relationship between modality and genre.Martin (2000/2006)and White (2005)approach modality from the perspective of the appraisal theory.Both perspectives are centered on tenor, i.e.the relationships between discourse participants.Genre and appraisal are considered to be two important factors that exert impacts on MSAs as a means of modality supplementing.
3.3.1 Genre
Genre is an important factor that contributes to the use of modal devices, including MSAs, in communication.This is much related to the nature of genre and the types of genre that are chosen for study.
3.3.1.1 Nature of genre
