(110）Perhaps this linguistic cut is made in order to surprise the reader/client, which highlights the difference between the publicity genre and the academic genres, in which this cohesive device would have most likely been used.
(111）Security developments and planning techniques, and providing material and support are the two problems that, supposedly, officials and suppliers cannot solve for themselves and for which this company has the solutions.
In Example (110), the MSAs perhaps and most likely are used to hedge the prediction or judgment conveyed by the MV would.In Example (111), the MSA supposedly helps to weaken the judgment expressed by the MV cannot.The two examples are from an academic essay, in which the writer uses epistemic modality to present opinions for others to challenge, discuss or accept.
Intertextuality is concerned with the use of language by which the writers/speakers adopt evaluative positions towards what they represent as the views and statements of other speakers and writers, i.e., towards the propositions they represent as deriving from outside sources.In other words, intertextual positioning is brought into play when a writer/speaker chooses to quote or reference the words or thoughts of another.Bhatia (2004: 126-127）endorses the view that intertextuality refers to a number of relationships that the text in question may have with those which in some way have been used, referred to or exploited either directly or indirectly in the construction of the text in question.
Such MSAs as supposedly, reportedly, and on a de facto basis can be the devices of intertextuality.These MSAs are also means of evidentiality.In fact, the three operating principles overlap in many cases.
3.3.2.4 Underlying mechanisms
There are two underlying mechanisms governing the evaluative use of MSAs, namely, perspectivization and intersubjectivity.
Perspective refers to the fact that the content of a discourse is necessarily displayed from some point of view.Discourse participants cannot contribute to the discourse without at the same time showing their views on the subject matter of the discourse.Perspectivization, thus, refers to the practices that are necessary for discourse participants to orient towards.Like Sandig (1996), Ensink & Sauer (2003: 10-11）endorse the view that perspectivization is important for discourse, arguing that:
(A）Perspective is pervasive in discourse.Perspective is relevant in all those discourse phenomena in which the attitude or point of view of the speaker is made explicit, or in which the existence of different attitudes or points of view is acknowledged.
(B）The concept of perspective presupposes a perspectivizing person (normally the speaker）and a perspectivized object (what is talked or written about); perspective itself may be described as the relation between the perspectivizing person and the perspectivized object, as established in the discourse.
(C）The normal case of perspective is one’s own perspective: the speaker speaks from him/herself.But it is possible to adopt a ‘foreign’ perspective.
(D）In discourse, the speaker normally speaks from a certain perspective.It is also possible to speak about a perspective, metacommunicatively, so to speak.
(E）Perspective is not constant or predetermined.It is the result of a choice.In subsequent parts of a discourse a speaker or writer may choose a different perspective.The discourse perspective thus may shift.
Consider the following:
(112）In the present case, a closed, minimal response is, of course, a relevant second part, but it can hardly be considered a complete and adequate response.
In Example (112), the MSA hardly conveys the research article writer’s denial of a proposition or an idea.As the writer’s view expressed by this statement is implicit, the denial could be considered implicit as well.The speaker as a perspectivizing participant in the writing takes the potential readers as the perspectivized participants in the imagined dialogue.Hence, two types of attitude are involved: first, the readers’ supporting of the view (indicated by the MV can); second, the writer’s virtual denial of the view (indicated by the MSA hardly).
Nuyts (2001: 35-36）holds that intersubjectivity is associated with epistemic modality, especially the epistemic modality indicating evidentiality.Nuyts uses this term to label a distinction between evidential markers that indicate that the relevant evidence is accessible to the speaker only, or shared by a larger group.The former includes examples like I think and in my view, while the latter includes examples such as it is probable that, as we know and generally speaking.
Langacker (1987）views intersubjectivity as construal relationship, which is the relationship between the speakers/writers or the audience/readers and a situation that they conceptualize and portray, including focal adjustments and imagery.In the wake of Langacker’s theory, there are two conceptualizers.The first performs the role of being responsible for the utterance, while the second that of interpreting it in a particular way.This relationship can be diagramed as follows in Figure 3.13.
Figure 3.13 Construal configuration of intersubjectivity
(NB: 1= Conceptualizer 1, 2 = Conceptualizer 2)
Verhagen (2005: 24-27）advocates that intersubjectivity is based on usage.This view holds that knowledge of words, constructions, and their meanings, as well as the connections between them, is based on the generalizations over usage events in the linguistic experience of the speakers or writers.Verhagen’s view is similar to construction grammar (Goldberg, 1995）in that intersubjectivity is regarded as conventionally established cognition in linguistic manipulations.