In the deference system, the social status of the participants is the same (e.g.professional colleagues unfamiliar with each other）(i.e.-P); yet, there may be social or psychological distance (i.e.+D）between the discourse participants.Hence, there is the use of independent strategies of communication.Hyland (2000: 122; 2005）states that interpersonal metadiscourse concerns more explicitly interactional and evaluative aspects of authorial presence, expressing the writer’s individually defined, but disciplinary circumscribed, persona.Hyland’s statement is conducive for people to understand what MSAs can be employed to realize deference.
Generally speaking, low-valued MSAs (e.g.perhaps, possibly, and maybe）or those MSAs expressing limitation (e.g.only, just, to some extent and merely）are the most frequent means for deference.White (2005）considers such linguistic devices as dialogistic expansion, which means the addresser actively makes allowances for dialogically alternative positions and voices (dialogistic expansion).Consider the following:
(228）Perhaps now you can understand why I and many other teaching mycologists ask our classes to put their culturally determined attitudes on hold.
(229）It could plausibly be retorted that what seems attractive about it are just deceptions.
In Example (228), perhaps is a low-valued MSA, used to hedge the judgment conveyed by can.Considering that the statement is made by a teacher to his colleagues, it can be stated that the MSA perhaps is used for deference.In Example (229), the low-valued MSA plausibly weakens the tentative tone of the MV could further, making the academic argument less imposing.
Sometimes, MSAs of evidence and clarification (serving as comment adjuncts）can be used for deference.These MSAs normally convey a sense of caution or help the addresser to seek approval from others.Consider the following:
(230）Literally, the only dream character I still wish I could have played was Alen Schezard from Escaflowne.
(231）In fact, it’s only been about six months, so I can tell you in a few years whether people are remembering it or not.
In Example (230), the MSA literally is a tentative comment on the proposition involved, making the low-valued MV could even more uncertain.In Example (231), the MSA in fact comments on the proposition concerned from the standpoint of clarification, maintaining the low-valued prediction conveyed by the MV can.
Again, the deployment of MSAs for deference depends on the situational factors involved.Examples (228）and (229）are extracts from JI, whereas Examples (230）and (231）are taken from AW.A preference for different types of MSAs can be found in different genres accordingly as far as deference is concerned.
5.3.3 Hierarchy
Hierarchy means less psychological difference than social status difference.It is different from power.Power means clear difference in social status.In the hierarchical system, the participants recognize and respect the social status difference that places one in a super-ordinate position and the other in a subordinate position (i.e.-P).Yet, there may be or may be no social or psychological distance between them (i.e.+/-D).
In JI, political leaders (interviewees）are in a dominating position but the common citizens (interviewers）in a dominated position.Watts (2003: 240-241）finds that intensifiers (e.g.quite）and emphasizers (e.g.particularly）are frequently used by interviewed politicians in order to shorten social distance though power difference exists between them and interviewers.Consider the following:
(232）A: Do you think so?
B: I would quite agree with you, particularly I mean I would have thought that…
In Example (232), B is a high-ranking politician and interviewee, and A is an ordinary newspaper reporter.There is social status difference between them.However, the politician used an intensifier (i.e.quite）and an emphasizer (i.e.particularly）to bring the interviewer close to him.This is a good example of how hierarchy can be realized by means of MSAs.
Some MSAs (e.g.in any case, in particular, on a de facto basis, and therefore）tend to indicate hierarchy rather than power difference in LR.These MSAs offer evidence or reasoning for the laws and regulations made, and hence suggest that the decrees are not made in a dictatorial way.
However, in some situations (especially LR), for the sake of dialogical expansion, such MSAs are employed, as possibly, probably and maybe.This is not to deny the authoritativeness of law, but may be regarded as a way of making discourse more acceptable or promotional.Bhatia (2004）considers the usage of solidarity-affected linguistic devices in laws or other formal genres to be generic variation or violation - a result of interdiscursivity.Fairclough (1992: 200-218）takes generic variation as a tendency in institutional discourse, including such changes as democratization, commodification and technologization.
Obviously, compared with the theory about power, the hierarchical system is more appropriate for people to understand the ideological significance resulting from the use of the epistemic MSAs for dialogical expansion (e.g.perhaps, to some extent, and possibly）in such situations.
In general, three kinds of MSAs can be used for this purpose: low-valued mood adjuncts of modality (probability & usuality), mood adjuncts of intensity (clarification）and comment adjuncts (evidence or reasoning).Consider the following:
(233）Reporter: Will the Prime Minister find time today to decide on the date for a debate on capital punishment for terrorism in the United Kingdom?
