(160）Even ① in the absence of specific veto rights, two or more undertakings acquiring minority shareholdings in another undertaking may obtain joint control.This may be the case where the minority shareholdings together provide the means for controlling the target undertaking.This means that the minority shareholders, together, will have a majority of the voting rights.This can result from a legally binding agreement to this effect, or it may be established on a de facto basis ②.
(161）The notification must be completed in one of the official languages of the European Community.This language shall thereafter ① be the language of the proceedings for all notifying parties.Where notifications are made in accordance with Article 12 of Protocol 24 to the EEA Agreement in an official language of an EFTA State which is not an official language of the Community, the notification will simultaneously ② be supplemented with a translation into an official language of the Community.
In Examples (160）and (161), the MVs are italicized and the MSAs are marked in bold.
In Example (160), the first MSA even is related to reasoning.Co-occurring with the MV may, it makes the high-valued permission conveyed by the latter acceptable.The second MSA on a de facto basis belongs to the category of evidence, which makes the high-valued permission conveyed by the MV may understandable.In this example, it can be found that the writer tries to offer views by balancing subjectivity and objectivity.Yet, because the MVs concerned are high-valued, the attitudes indicated by their MSAs are high-valued as well.This makes the attitudes more binding than negotiable.
In Example (161), the first MSA thereafter is related to reasoning.This MSA co-occurs with the high-valued MV shall, and intertextually indicates that the attitude is based on previous stipulations.The second MSA simultaneously belongs to the category of reasoning as well.It makes the median-valued liabilities conveyed by the MV will acceptable, for they are obligatory intertextually.
Thus, the MSAs in Examples (160）and (161）highlight the generic features of LR in the following way:
A.rhetorical features: reasoning + evidence; intertextually oriented;
B.discourse community: reasoning on liabilities, etc. legislation;
C.tenor: legislators vs.common citizens; legislators vs.other law practitioners, etc.
This denotes that LR is a genre that puts much emphasis on precision and determinacy, as discovered by Du (2004).The use of MSAs in this genre reflects the impacts of cognition, pragmatics and evaluation.
4.3 Summary
This chapter divides MSAs into six types, namely:
a.limitation;
b.probability & usuality;
c.confidence;
d.clarification;
e.evidence;
f.reasoning.
The classification of MSAs is based on the parasitic relationships between MSAs and MVs at the clause and discourse levels as well as rhetorical discursive structure, where cognition, pragmatic inputs, genre and appraisal exert impacts simultaneously on many occasions.Based on such a classification, MSAs are supposed to function in three aspects, i.e.:
(A）disambiguation of modal vagueness;
(B）modal synergy;
(C）prominence of generic features.
There is a close relationship between types and functions as far as MSAs are concerned.For instance, it is noted that MSAs of evidence are used to highlight the legal liabilities concerned, which are an important feature in LR.Also, the use of different types of MSA may result in different mood structure interactions.
This chapter is a specific analysis of MSAs as a means of modality supplementing.Chapter 5 will deal with the lexicogrammatical realization of interpersonal meanings by MSAs.In Chapter 6 empirical studies on MSAs will be conducted in order to illustrate the roles of modality supplementing played by MSAs based on the understandings gained from Chapters 4 and 5.
