Consider another two examples:
(195）The result easily could be a big minus, indicating that you’re spending or planning to spend more than your projected income.
(196）I really must be getting home in a moment.
In Example (195), the MV could conveys a tentative prediction, while the MSA easily enlarges the likelihood concerned.Hence, this MSA can be regarded as a booster.Seen in this way, the MV and MSA in Example (195）function differently.The stance revealed by the MV is tentativeness, while that indicated by the MSA is confidence.The resulting stance in Example (195）is the confirmation of likelihood.In Example (196), the MV must indicates a strong inclination, while the MSA really strengthens the inclination conveyed by the MV.Judged in this way, the MV and MSA in Example (196）express the same stance, i.e.strong inclination.
In some cases, there is a tendency for double-leveled modality to be used consecutively.For instance:
(197）Although clearly there must be full and proper consultation with our allies and partners on this matter, will the Prime Minister at least confirm that British diplomacy will no longer be tilted towards the Patriotic Front and that the final decision on the legality of Rhodesia’s future Government rests with the British Parliament and no one else?
In Example (197), the MSA clearly is a comment adjunct, emphasizing the high-valued obligation conveyed by the MV must; the MSA at least compromises the median-valued inclination conveyed by the MV will; in another case, the MSA no longer compromises the median-valued inclination conveyed by the MV will.In this way, a modality pattern of emphasis + compromise occurs.Such use of double-leveled modality is effective in expressing the stance of political leaders in interviews, i.e.sophistication.
Modality may also be multiple-leveled in that an MV could have more than one MSA.In this case, the MSAs expressing different modal meanings supplement the modality conveyed by the MVs concerned, and can be regarded as an information or discourse strategy.Consider the following:
(198）This is a figure which will probably almost certainly continue to rise steadily in the years ahead.
(199）She will probably almost definitely be here, so I leave it to you.
In Example (198), three MSAs co-occur with the MV will, indicating “probability”, “approximation” and “certainty” respectively.The MV will expresses prediction only, but it can be understood how much discursively different it is with the presence of the four modal meanings in the modality supplementing pattern involved.It can be safely concluded that the multiple levels of modality in this example are both experiential (conveyed by almost）and interpersonal (conveyed by probably and certainly).The same situation occurs in Example (199), with the only difference that the MSA certainly is replaced by another MSA definitely.Hence, the stance in these two examples is prediction based somewhat on evidence.The stance achieved is imbued with the impacts of cognition, pragmatics and evaluation.
Johnstone (2002: 124-125）points out that it is common for discourse participants to accommodate their relationships with their interlocutors; accordingly, multiple-leveled modality can serve this purpose.Consider the following:
(200）No one can see the future, but I’d just like to be doing comics, even better comics, for a long time to come.
Example (200）is taken from an interview with an artist.In this example, the MV would co-occurs with two MSAs, namely, just (for limitation）and even (for reasoning).Such a pattern of multiple-leveled modality can be regarded as a way of communicative strategy, in which the addresser adjusts his/her attitude or judgment by the use of two MSAs with different functions.The stance in this example is reasonable willingness.
Whether to use double-leveled modality or multiple-leveled modality is a matter of the needs of communication.This shows that cognition, pragmatics, evaluation and genre may have great impacts on the use of MSAs as a means of modality supplementing in discourse.
5.2.2.2 Overt and covert inter-participant modality supplementing
Inter-participant modality supplementing can result in stance.There are basically two kinds in this sense, namely, overt and covert ways of inter-participant modality supplementing.
JI is an area where overt inter-participant modality supplementing occurs.Consider the following:
(201）A: You said that manga by definition is Japanese. Are there any other characteristics other than country of origin that you would say make the Japanese manga different from something that’s manga-style in the U.S., and maybe something closer than Princess Ai, maybe something like Megatokyo, which has been very successful?
B: There are those fans that hear about it from Japan, they know that it comes from Japan, they’re the ones that may actually read the imports or get that bug before it actually breaks into the U.S, so you have that fan set, that’s very different from the ones that are reading Megatokyo or the Courtney Love stuff.It’s a different mindset.
In Example (201), the interviewer uses the MSA maybe twice to mitigate the median value of the MV would, making the question tentative and unimposing.The interviewee knows the situation, and accommodates the situation by using the MSA actually.When co-occurring with the MV may, the MSA actually has the function of compromising the low value of the former.In other words, the modality patterns that the interviewer and interviewee use are just opposite.The interviewer used a modality pattern that results in a low-valued modal effect, whereas the interviewee used a modality pattern that shows a median-valued modal effect.The stance achieved in Example (201）is a negotiable judgment about the future of the entertainment business.
