As mentioned in Chapter 2, the previous studies approach modality from such aspects as cognition, pragmatic inputs, tenor and text types, but neglect a consideration of the co-functions of these aspects.Therefore, it is necessary to consider a combination of these views on the use of MSAs in discourse.Given such a consideration, this chapter will explore how three linguistic schools (i.e.cognitive linguistics, pragmatics and SFL)can contribute to the understandings for employing MSAs in communication.It is assumed that using MSAs on these grounds can result in interpersonal meanings.This dissertation holds that the use of MSAs serves three interpersonal meanings, namely, value, stance and social distance.
MSAs are necessary in discourse under some circumstances.Consider the dynamic addresser-addressee relationship in communication.In one situation the use of a single modal device in a clause may be acceptable, but in another situation it may not work.Modality is a channel of attitude or judgment; therefore, it behooves the speaker or writer to “fine-tune” his or her attitude or judgment according to the context involved.MSAs happen to be able to adjust the modality denoted by MVs.Thus, the use of MSAs in discourse is a matter of both strategy and tactics in dealing with the interpersonal roles.It is worth noting how different theoretical perspectives as a whole can contribute to the occurrences of MSAs as a means of modality supplementing.In this sense, the approach adopted in this dissertation can be termed as a multi-dimension functional approach, which is to combine the perspectives from cognitive linguistics, pragmatics and SFL.
3.1 Cognitive linguistics
Cognition is an important factor for the use of MSAs in discourse.Normally, in the modality supplementing pattern of MV + MSA, MV conveys attitude or judgment, while MSA helps to specify the attitude or judgment concerned.Generally speaking, the factor of cognition indicates that experience, be it personal or social, should be construed by means of conceptualization.
3.1.1 Construal of experience
In the process of interactions with other people, language becomes a form of skilful coping activity crucial for human survival, where the “self” is formed.As Johnson (1992)argues, “self” is inherently related to human experiential process and selfhood is the correlate of people’s construction of meaning.Since human beings are embodiments of meaningful experience, and since experience is both individual and collective, the “self” that people develop has both an individual and a collective character.Modal use reflects such a feature.The use of MSAs is iconic to life needs in this sense.For instance, the Internet is a system that consists of core and extended parts.The extended parts are the satellites on a certain topic or subject.Similarly, the use of MSAs reflects the needs of modality, i.e.modality supplementing.
Consider the following:
(84)Technically, a dolphin can be a mammal.
(85)Strictly speaking, a dolphin should be a mammal.
Examples (84)and (85)have the same truth conditions, but for different reasons.Since “mammal” is a term from scientific biology, the relevant body of expertise for technically is biology, which is about how the world is.Strictly speaking assumes that words, via inherent meanings, fit the world as it is.Lakoff (1987: 121-123)argues that human beings normally have two models of categorization: folk and expert, and sometimes the two models may be inconsistent with each other.The MSAs in Examples (84)and (85)reveal a cognitive understanding of the situations based on personal and social experiences.These two MSAs technically and strictly speaking form the backgrounds for construing the judgments conveyed by the MVs can and should respectively.
Take in fact for another example.Halliday & Hasan (1994: 253)take in fact as marking an internal adversative relation corresponding to the sense “as against the current expectation”.This adverb is used to signal the speaker’s commitment to the truth of the proposition it introduces.Quirk et al.(1972)define it as an attitudinal disjunct which may either confirm the truth of a previous assertion or contradict it.In the light of relevance theory, the in fact Q in a sequence of P achieves relevance (or contextual effects)in one of the following ways: strengthening an existing assumption, or contradicting and eliminating the weaker assumption.Consider the following:
(86)A: You must have spoken to him today.
B: Must? In fact, I shouldn’t.
In fact in Example (86)contradicts the prediction indicated by means of the MV must, the latter being a weaker statement of truth.Miskovic (2003: 102-104)holds that the conversational strategy based on the in fact frame mitigates disagreement by supposedly aiming at factuality so that any subjectivity appears to be precluded.The mitigating function of in fact draws heavily on its procedural meaning.No matter how objectively objective or credible a statement in fact introduces is, its main relevance lies in the instruction the speaker gives to the addressee, namely that the statement is the strongest possible claim that the speaker is able to make.Miskovic’s idea and the above analysis demonstrate that modality supplementing through MSAs helps discourse participants construe their social experience in a better way.In Example (86), must and should are central while in fact supplementary.It is the MSA in fact that helps the construal of the social experience of Speaker B by means of the MVs must and should.