All the three arguments are reasonable to some extent; yet, it would be better to integrate them in demonstrating the intersubjectivity revealed by MSAs and modality supplementing in discourse.Modality, whether epistemic or deontic, or otherwise, can be used as a means of indicating shared or unshared knowledge.Modality involves evaluation by the two participants of communication (i.e.speakers/writers and audience/readers), and hence there is the construal of intersubjectivity.Also, to some extent modal expressions have been idiomaticized or conventionalized - products of conventionalization.Consider the following:
(113）As a general rule therefore, the Commission will refer to audited or other definitive accounts.
(114）Where there is a major divergence between the two sets of accounts, and in particular, when the final draft figures for the most recent years are available, the Commission may decide to take those draft figures into account.
In Example (113), the MSA as a general rule construes the proposition modalized by the MV will as shared knowledge legally; the modality supplementing reveals deontic sense, i.e.obligations.In laws and regulations, such modality supplementing expressions are common, or conventionalized.Therefore, the intersubjectivity of the modality supplementing conveyed by as a general rule + will can be stated as follows: (a）the knowledge of laws and regulations should be within the reach of the citizens concerned; (b）by means of such a linguistic device, the citizens should know what the legislators want them to know, and the legislators know that the citizens can have access to that knowledge; (c）legal documents are, to a large extent, conventionalized writings, so this expression is based on usage and idiomaticized.Similar analyses can be made respectively about the modality supplementing patterns of in particular + may and must + always in Example (114).
To sum up, evaluation exerts impacts on the use of MSAs as described in Figure 3.14.
Figure 3.14 The impacts of evaluation on MSAs
3.4 Interpersonal meanings of MSAs
MSAs are used to highlight interpersonal meanings based on the perspectives of cognitive linguistics, pragmatics, and SFL.Basically, three interpersonal meanings are involved, namely, value, stance, and social distance.
3.4.1 Value
In SFL, modality is a semantic concept situated between yes and no.Aristotle and classical Greek philosophers have explored the notion of modality (cf.Hoye, 1997: 40).In their view, modality is related to how human beings categorize their attitudes and experience in terms of the way things might or must be, or might have been or must have been, other than they actually are or were.Hence, a striking feature of modality is the talk about possible worlds.
In talking about possible worlds, it is common for people to strike a balance between factuality and non-factuality as well as subjectivity and objectivity.This gives rise to value.
In SFL, modal value is graded in three scales, i.e.high, median and low.Value is related to the degree of certainty in expressing attitudes or judgments.For instance, sometimes, probably and always are low-valued, median-valued and high-valued respectively.Halliday (1994）holds that these values interact with modal orientations (i.e.implicitness vs.explicitness, and subjectivity vs.objectivity）and types of modality (i.e.modalization and modulation).Hence, there are 144 categories of modality in English.Halliday (1994）thinks that there are 144 modal values in English.
Nevertheless, in talking about modal values, contexts should not be neglected.For instance, may and shall convey high modal values in the genre of LR, rather than low and median values respectively.Also, Leech (1983: 133）mentions the concept of bilaterality in the use of MVs.According to Leech (ibid), the ‘other-centered’ maxim should not be distinguished from the ‘self-centered’ maxim in practice; in another word, these two maxims should be considered dialectically.Consider the following:
(115）*You can lend me your car.
(116）I can lend you my car.
Example (115）conveys an impolite request though a low-valued MV can is used.In contrast, Example (116）indicates a polite and certain response to the request made, though a seemingly low-valued MV can is used.In this sense, the low-valued MV can appears more suitable in Example (116).Thus, the use of MVs is related to the interpersonal meaning of value.
Nevertheless, modal value is dynamic rather than static.Examples (115）and (116）illustrate this point.To achieve dynamic value, the addresser may resort to MSAs in adaptation.Suppose Example (115）is changed into:
(117）You can possibly lend me your car.
Then, the request would not be so impolite and unacceptable.In this way, modality supplementing through MSAs may be necessary.The interpersonal meaning of value mirrors the impacts of contextual factors such as cognition and pragmatics.
3.4.2 Stance
The use of MSAs can be examined through the perspective of discourse strategy.At the discourse level, not only is modal value involved, but other interpersonal elements are related as well.They are termed as stance.