Such a manipulation of the forces of attitudes or judgments can also happen between an interviewer and a number of interviewees.Consider the following:
(202）A: What factors would you consider if you became pregnant?
B: I probably first of all would tell one person, and keep it a secret.And that [one person] would not be my mother.And I think even [for] a lot of my friends - they’re really close to their moms - if they tell them, I think their mothers really would say, “Get an abortion.” Because I agree with you, having a baby at our age - we’re supposed to do so much with our lives - it would just be a big disappointment, not only to ourselves but to everyone that’s supported us throughout our lives.
C: Our lives don’t end at pregnancy! I just know that if I were to become pregnant or if Lois were to become pregnant, I would counsel Lois to have the child.I myself would have the child because it is my child.And even if I would have to give up something in order to bear that child, I’m still, an intelligent woman, it’s not the end of your career or life.
In Example (202), the interviewer (A）does not use any MSA for the MV would.Nevertheless, the interviewees (B and C）use a few MSAs.Interviewee B uses the following MSAs for the MV would: probably, even, really, and just.The MSAs probably, even and really have the function of maintaining or lifting up the value of the MV would, whereas the MSA just has the function of limiting or lowering the value of the MV would.Thus, Interviewee B seems to try to strike a balance in her view by using the inter-participant modality supplementing.In contrast, Interviewee C uses the MSAs just and still for the MV would.Since these two MSAs limit or lower the value of the MV would, Interviewee C seems to keep a low profile by using the inter-participant modality supplementing.The stance in Example (202）is a negotiable attitude for different interviewees.
Martin (1992: 582）holds that ideology is necessary in discourse, especially when the uneven distribution of discursive power is brought into focus and participants in a community try to act consciously on this distribution with a view to re-allocation.However, it could be argued that ideology is not just for the controlling of others’ views, but sometimes for supporting alternative ideas or opinions as well.Overt inter-participant modality supplementing is employed as strategies of demonstrating ideological trends openly, depending on such factors as communicative needs, generic demands, settings, and the social relationships between participants.
Covert inter-participant modality supplementing is employed by the addresser with a view of having a talk with the imagined addressee(s), or the imagined-cum-real addressees (as in PS).Consider the following:
(203）But, before entering upon the argument, I must say something of a general character, particularly in response to what has fallen from Senators who have raised themselves to eminence on this floor in championship of human wrongs.
(204）He cannot surely have forgotten its shameful imbecility from Slavery, confessed throughout the Revolution, followed by its more shameful assumptions for Slavery since.
In Example (203), the MSA particularly co-occurs with the high-valued MV must.Since the adverb particularly has the function of clarification, it highlights where the high value of the MV must lies.In Example (204), the MSA surely co-occurs with the high-valued MV cannot.Since the adverb surely has the function of showing confidence, it emphasizes the high-valued prediction conveyed by the MV cannot.The two examples are from the same speech.The stance achieved in this sense is a dialogue between the addresser and addressees.The dialogue in Examples (203）and (204）differs from that in Example (202), in that the former is covert whereas the latter is overt.
According to Volosinov (2000: 95), the term “dialogue” in a broad sense means not only direct, face-to-face, vocalized verbal communication between persons, but also verbal communication of any type whatsoever.In this sense, AW has multiple aspects of dialogue - between the writer and the reader, between the writers, and among the writer, other writers and the reader.Similar situation happens in LR, where dialogues occur between legislators, between legislators and common citizens, and between organizations and individuals.
5.2.3 Use of various types of MSAs
Chapter 4 classifies MSAs into six types, namely, limitation, probability & usuality, confidence, clarification, evidence, and reasoning.The use of different types of MSAs is motivated in stance.Besides, in modality supplementing, whether MSAs and MVs are in the same type of modality has impacts on the stance involved.
5.2.3.1 MSAs and stance
MSAs are common in certain modal environments.Either modalization or modulation may be involved in these cases.Hence, stance varies from situation to situation even for the same MSA.
Some MSAs function as emphasizers, such as always, easily, and well.Consider the following:
(205）If I don’t like it, I can always send it back.
(206）I might well be having some more tickets given to me.
(207）Now it may easily happen that the activation energy is large compared with the transition temperature.
In Example (205), the MSA always denotes probability, and the stance is all-time likelihood of doing something.In this way, the MSA is related to modalization (i.e.information).Nevertheless, if a time expression such as tonight is added after send it back, the MSA always will have to do with modulation (i.e.inclination), and the stance will be all-time willingness to do something.
In Example (206), the MSA well denotes confidence.Combined with the MV might, the MSA expresses prediction based on some evidence.Thus, the MSA is related to modalization (i.e.information).The stance achieved is confidence in getting something.