(146）…whereas the provision of such information would undoubtedly impose an obligation which private individuals would consider inconvenient at the very least and which would be impossible to check on without employing excessive measures…
(147）…whereas it is precisely information on the trading of goods between Member States which will contribute to measuring the progress of the internal market, thereby speeding up its completion and consolidating it on a sound basis…
(148）Inspector: I think you’d better look at it.Mrs.Birling: Undoubtedly I shouldn’t.
Example (145）indicates the word (or word group）+ word (or word group）pattern.Must and henceforth may be considered to be components of an MVG, in which henceforth is the modifier of the head must.Similar situation takes place in Example (146), where the MV would governs the supplementing modal devices of undoubtedly and at the very least.Example (147）shows the word (or word group）+ clause (compound or complex clause）pattern.In this example, precisely and thereby serving as MSAs do not appear at the same rank as will; the MSAs are the modifiers of the head will.Example (148）displays the word (or word group）+ clause (simple clause）pattern.Undoubtedly and shouldn’t are at different ranks; the former is a comment on the proposition conveyed by shouldn’t.
In terms of clause ranks it is assumed that modality supplementing in the patterns of word (or word group）+ word (or word group）and word (or word group）+ clause occurs at the same rank, whereas modality supplementing in the pattern of clause + clause appears at different ranks.In each case, MVs serve as heads whereas MSAs modifiers.
In terms of modifying distance, the modality supplementing patterns through MSAs can be divided into the short-distance and long-distance ones.The short-distance pattern includes two types: word (or word group）+ word (or word group), and word (or word group）+ clause.The long-distance pattern refers to the pattern: clause + clause.The understanding of modality supplementing through MSAs in terms of modifying distance is just another angle of viewing the clause ranks concerned.
Judged in this way, modality supplementing through MSAs brings about variations of ranks at both the word group and clause levels.
4.2.2.2 Variations in mood structure
In SFL, mood structure is composed of mood and residue.The mood element has a clearly defined semantic function: it carries the burden of the clause as an interactive element (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004: 120).MVs are normally finite, whereas modal adjuncts adjunct.Nevertheless, since both MSAs and MVs are placed in the part of mood, the co-occurrences bring about variations in mood structure.
Consider the following:
In Example (149), the MV can occurs, and there is no modal adjunct.In Example (150), the modal adjunct only occurs, without the co-occurrence of an MV.It can be found that either modal adjuncts or MVs are put into the mood element or the interactive element.Suppose both MVs and modal adjuncts occur at the clause level.Then, the mood element or interactive element would be enriched.Consider Example (151):
SurelyIt is required thatmoneyshouldn’tgo onbeing invested
Modality (MSA): probability/ subjective: explicit/ highModality: obligation/ objective: explicit/ highSubjectFinite MV: obligation/ subjective: implicit/medianPredicator
MoodResidue
In Example (151), the MSA surely co-occurs with the other modal devices, namely, a projection clause (it is required that）and an MV (shouldn’t).Together with the subject (money）and finite (shouldn’t), the MSA enriches the mood or interactive element.It can be found that the MV and MSA in this example have: (a）different modal meanings (surely: modalization: probability; shouldn’t: modulation: obligation); (b）different modal orientations (surely: subjective/explicit; shouldn’t: subjective/implicit); (c）different modal values (surely: high; shouldn’t: median).Hence, modal adjuncts functioning as MSAs enrich the mood or interactive element at the clause level.
Thibault (1995: 51-89）expresses his view over Halliday’s model of mood structure.Typically, in SFL descriptions, the element “mood” is thought of as comprising the structural functions of subject and finite.In Thibault’s view, another element - speaker - the participant of “I”-who utters the clause should be considered as well.It is the speaker who invests in the subject both as the modally responsible element in the clause and in relation to whom the finiteness of the proposition is organized.Thibault (ibid）seems to argue that the mood structure stands for the active and dynamic construal of the participants involved.It is believed here that mood is a complex system, including subject, finite and maybe, an MSA or more than an MSA.In the extended mood structure, MSAs embody the role of the speaker who may happen to be the subject or may be someone else.
Modality supplementing through MSAs constitutes important interpersonal resources for negotiations, and in this process MSAs can symbolize the discursive positions and even social positions of the speaker and addressee.Consider the following:
(152）We take barrels for granted, and assume there will always be enough of them about for our purposes.
In Example (152), the MSA always enriches the mood or interactive element.Given that the subject is we, the MSA always strongly expresses the view of the addresser, who urges the addressee (s）to accept it.
4.2.2.3 Evaluation
MSAs can play evaluative functions, and thus produce modal synergy together with MVs.
Affect in terms of MSAs is related to two main categories: conviction and exaggeration, listed as follows in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4 MSAs of affect
CategoryExamples
convictionadmittedly, certainly, exactly, frankly, inevitably, presumably, really, reasonably, surely
