For those MSAs in the categories of limitation and reasoning, it is suggested that they be considered indeterminate in modal orientation.Indeterminacy is a prominent feature of language (cf.Halliday, 1994: 139).In another word, the orientation of these MSAs changes with that of the modal devices they co-occur with.Since these MSAs co-occur with MVs, which are implicit in modal orientation, they are implicit in modal orientation.
4.2.1.3 Balance between modal subjectivity and objectivity
Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 614-615）analyze subjectivity vs.objectivity and implicitness vs.explicitness together.There are four situations involved:
[1a] Subjective, explicit as projecting mental clause + idea clause:
I guess we were a pretty pragmatic lot-including me.
[1b] Subjective, implicit clause, mood-as finite: modal auxiliary:
Family background, fellow artists and friends may be glimpsed in amiable disguise.
[2a] Objective, implicit clause, mood-as mood adjunct: modal adverb:
He felt they surely would understand when he talked like that!
[2b] Objective, explicit relational clause with factual carrier: clause and modal attribute: nominal group:
In other words, even in those circumstances [where it isn’t possible] simply to bar the door to an inspection, we have a range of tactics for struggle which will subvert the Ofsted process and the very reasons for its existence.
It can be found that according to Halliday & Matthiessen (2004）projecting mental clause and MVs are subjective whereas modal adjectives and MAs are objective.However, some linguists hold different views from SFL.Lyons (1977), Kiefer (1984）and Hengeveld (1988）consider modal adjectives to be objective but MAs to be subjective.Thus, there are disputes over subjectivity vs.objectivity as far as modal adjuncts are concerned.
In Halliday & Matthiessen (2004）only mood adjuncts of modality have been dealt with in terms of subjectivity vs.objectivity.The shortcomings, thus, are clear.People may wonder:
A.whether MSAs should be considered subjective or objective;
B.and whether MSAs in the categories other than that of probability & usuality should be classified in terms of subjectivity vs.objectivity.
MSAs of probability & usuality can be regarded as objective.Martin et al.(1997: 70）argue that MAs are the congruent realizations of modality whereas their projections the metaphorical realizations.Eggins (2004: 174-176）indicates that projection clauses are the metaphorical realizations of MAs.As projection clauses (e.g.I think, and I believe）are subjective in nature, it is reasonable to consider these MSAs objective rather than subjective.Nevertheless, it is important to know that MSAs express attitudes or judgments under any circumstances.By “objective” it just means that these MSAs are objective ways of conveying attitudes or judgments instead of denying the inherent nature of subjectivity in terms of modality.
It is proper to regard the MSAs of limitation and evidence as objective, but the MSAs of confidence, clarification and reasoning as subjective.The reasons go as follows:
A.The MSAs of limitation center on such concepts as future/non-future and positive/negative (cf.Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004: 128).Generally speaking, there is a standard about time.In another word, discourse participants have a shared system of time.For instance, in communication they know what eventually and still mean respectively.
B.The MSAs of limitation also center on such concepts as degree and counterexpectancy (cf.Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004: 129).Given the shared communicative settings and the designated relationships between addressers and addressees, it is safe to say that there is a common standard about expectation and degree of acceptance.Werth (1999: 17）differentiates discourse world from text world.The former is the immediate situation, based on perception and backed up by knowledge of the elements perceived.The latter is a total construct, negotiated by the participants through the medium of the discourse and backed up by relevant knowledge.In fact, discourse and text worlds are blended together on many occasions, referring to both immediate and global discursive situations.The use of the MSAs of limitation reflects such a generic feature cognitively and pragmatically.
C.The MSAs of confidence (e.g.surely), clarification (e.g.indeed）and reasoning (e.g.so to speak）reflect personal views.They are used to express views on propositions or act a speech-functional role.To use them, a discourse participant may not have to take much into account about the so-called shared standards.Hence, these MSAs are subjective.
D.The MSAs of evidence (e.g.politically）show that the attitudes or judgments delivered can be testified by facts.In another word, they act as objective evidential markers.Hence, these MSAs are objective.
This improvement over the classification of subjectivity vs.objectivity is significant for the study of MSAs, which are used to make a balance between subjectivity and objectivity in many cases.Consider the following examples:
(133）I suppose it really must have been more serious than any of us had anticipated.
(134）HITS may yet go under unless the state comes to the rescue.
(135）Actually, I should not have done that.