In Example (218), the MSA thus co-occurs with the MV should, denoting a binding effect of law resulting from the contract involved, and strengthening or justifying the attitude conveyed by should.In this example, the MV is related to obligation, while the MSA reasoning or inference.Then MV and MSA are involved in different modal areas and the resulting stance is a statement of obligations based on legal force.
Multi-type modality supplementing enriches the modal area the MV is concerned with.Its function is different from that of single-type modality supplementing.Hence, stance varies in the two types of situation.
In practice, there is often a mixture of single-type and multi-type modality supplementing as far as stance is concerned.Put in another way, the MSAs used in discourse are heterogeneous rather than homogeneous.Consider the following:
(219）It hardly ever happens because it would damage sales.A nation may be the victim of such a mistake, but the journalist usually always gets away with it.One may- one may safely assume that he will start writing the opposite with renewed self- assurance.
In Example (219), three types of MSA occur: (a）probability (i.e.hardly, ever and always); (b）usuality (i.e.usually); (c）intensity (confidence）(i.e.safely).There are two types of MV involved: probability (i.e.may and would); inclination (i.e.will).Three situations of modality supplementing occur:
a.probability (MSAs: hardly, and ever）for probability (MV: would)
b.intensity (confidence）(MSA: safely）for probability (MV: may）and inclination (MV: will)
c.usuality (MSA: usually）and probability (MSA: always）for probability (MV: may)
The stance in Example (219）is a judgment of the likelihood of an occurrence and people’s inclination of doing something.Example (219）is from a public speech, in which the addresser takes much care of the addressees’ needs in using a variety of MSAs.Hence, it is reasonable to adopt a mixture of single-type and multi-type modality supplementing in this case.
The mixture of single-type and multi-type modality supplementing is obvious in longer stretches of writing or speech.Consider the following:
(220）Senators such as these are the natural enemies of Kansas, and I introduce them with reluctance, simply that the country may understand the character of the hostility which must be overcome.Arrayed with them, of course, are all who unite, under any pretext or apology, in the propagandism of human Slavery.To such, indeed, the time-honored safeguards of popular rights can be a name only, and nothing more.What are trial by jury, habeas corpus, the ballot-box, the right of petition, the liberty of Kansas, your liberty, sir, or mine, to one who lends himself, not merely to the support at home, but to the propagandism abroad, of that preposterous wrong, which denies even the right of a man to himself! Such a cause can be maintained only by a practical subversion of all rights.It is, therefore, merely according to reason that its partisans should uphold the Usurpation in Kansas.
Example (220）is an extract from a public speech.In this example, there are 4 MSAs (i.e.simply, indeed, only and merely）and MVs (i.e.may, must, can and should）respectively.The MVs can be classified into two types:
A.modalization (i.e.prediction): may and can;
B.modulation (i.e.obligations and ability): must, can and should).
The MSAs can be classified into two types:
A.downtoners: simply, only and merely;
B.conviction: of course and indeed.
The matching between them is interesting:
A.conviction + downtoner + modalization (i.e.indeed + can + only);
B.downtoner + modulation (i.e.merely + should; can + only);
C.downtoner + modalization + modulation (i.e.simply + may + must);
Werth (1999: 210）mentions that modal use is related to discourse and actual worlds.From Example (220), it can be safely concluded that the mixture of single-type and multi-type modality supplementing reflects the stance of negotiation in PS because of the effects of a number of contextual factors such as tenor and cognition.
5.3 Social distance
Chapter 3 mentions that MSAs convey interpersonal meanings for the needs of social interactions.In this sense, an important interpersonal meaning, i.e.social distance, is involved.Generally speaking, there are three types of social distance, namely, solidarity, deference and hierarchy.Scollon & Scollon (1995: 44-49）agree that power and solidarity exist as ideological aspects in discourse.However, Scollon & Scollon (ibid）differ from other linguists in identifying three politeness systems: deference, solidarity and hierarchy, instead of two systems: power and solidarity.
5.3.1 Solidarity
Solidarity is also termed as positive politeness, which is directed to the addressee’s positive face, his perennial desire that his wants (or the actions/acquisitions/values resulting from them）should be thought of as desirable (cf.Brown & Levinson, 1987: 101).Solidarity is realized by some strategies and sub-strategies, diagramed as below in Figure 5.4.
Figure 5.4 shows a variety of strategies in realizing solidarity.These strategies include the use of words and clauses as well as information organization.In terms of solidarity, MSAs mainly match the strategy of claiming common ground.Hyland (2000: 97）argues that boosters as a type of metadiscourse can help writers/speakers to get the attention of their audience quickly and convince them of the importance of their work.In this sense, boosters both push claims and effect interpersonal solidarity and membership of a disciplinary in-group.