Mrs.Thatcher: I do not think that I can possibly do that today, but the hon.Gentleman will, perhaps, catch Mr.Speaker’s eye and put the same question to my right hon.Friend the Leader of the House a little later.
In Example (233), Mrs.Thatcher, a political leader, uses low-valued MSAs possibly and perhaps to express her view.These two MSAs make the tentative tone of the MVs can and will more uncertain.In this way, Mrs.Thatcher sounds like a democratic leader.
Even in LR, MSAs are used to mitigate the power difference between the legislators and common citizens.Consider the following:
(234）Derogations from this prohibition must explicitly be provided for in respect of specific needs, in particular where the processing…
(235）Whereas files shall under no circumstances fall within the scope of this Directive…
In Examples (234）and (235), must and shall are high-valued MVs, which co-occur with the MSAs explicitly and under no circumstances respectively.These two MSAs express evidence in terms of judgment from the perspective of evaluation.In another word, readers should know that the orders or decrees are made according to objective needs rather than the legislators’ will.Hence, the power difference between the addressers and addressees could be reduced somehow.
It could be seen that MSAs can be used flexibly and dynamically for the sake of weakening the power difference between the addresser and addressee.Fairclough (1989/1992）states that the reduction or concealing of power difference is a trend in contemporary institutional discourse.LR and JI are typical examples of institutional discourse.Hence, the MSAs used in these two genres, particularly in LR, may highlight hierarchy more than power.
5.3.4 Dynamic social distance
The above parts have explored the lexicogrammatical realization of social distance (including three aspects, i.e.solidarity, deference and hierarchy）by MSAs.This interpersonal meaning is dynamic, and hence delicate to deal with.It can hardly be said that only these MSAs express solidarity while other MSAs do not.Social distance is much related to communicative settings, cognition, pragmatics and evaluation.In measuring social distance, contextual factors cannot be left untouched.The division among solidarity, deference and hierarchy is relative rather than absolute.Also, the types of MSA used for solidarity, deference and hierarchy vary from situation to situation.For instance, low-valued MSAs may also express solidarity.Consider the following:
(236）We can only lend you 50.We haven’t got this month’s pay yet.
In Example (236), the MSA only co-occurs with the MV can.Both modal devices are low-valued.They are used for solidarity, since the reason is offered as “we haven’t got this month’s pay yet”.This example proves the importance of considering the impacts of contextual factors on the social distance indicated by MSAs.Thus, the rules that govern the use of MSAs for social distance are flexible and dynamic.The explorations in this sense are tentative rather than prescriptive.Table 5.2 tentatively tabulates the lexicogrammatical realization of social distance by MSA.
Table 5.2 A comparison of MSAs for solidarity, deference and hierarchy
In Table 5.2, there are 6 types of MSA, namely, (a）type 1: limitation (e.g.only and simply); (b）type 2: probability & usuality (e.g.perhaps and never); (c）type 3: confidence (e.g.certainly and actually); (d）type 4: clarification (e.g.at least and in fact); (e）type 5: evidence (e.g.politically and on a de facto basis); (f）type 6: reasoning (e.g.therefore and so to speak).The values of MSAs can be measured on the scale of low, median and high.There are 3 aspects of social distance, i.e.solidarity, deference and hierarchy.The sign “√” indicates the presence of the lexicogrammatical features, whereas the sign “?” means the questionable presence of the designated lexicogrammatical features.The sign “?” suggests that these lexicogrmmatical features may occur, given suitable communicative settings.
5.4 Summary
This chapter explores the lexicogrammatical realization of interpersonal meanings of by means of MSAs, i.e.value, stance and social distance.
MSAs realize the interpersonal meaning of value by either strengthening or compromising.For strengthening, there are five grammatical patterns.For compromising, there are two grammatical patterns.
Stance includes personal feelings, attitudes, value judgments and assessments.The stance conveyed by MSAs can be tackled from clausal positions, ways of modality supplementing, and types of MSAs.It should be mentioned that foregrounding and backgrounding in terms of clausal positions highlight stance in a motivated way.
The social distance conveyed by MSAs includes three aspects, namely, solidarity, deference and hierarchy, based on the needs of social or interactions.These three aspects of social distance have their distinctive lexicogrammatical patterns of MSAs.However, it is pointed out that such a division of solidarity, deference and hierarchy is relative, and that the MSA patterns for the realization of each aspect of social distance are relative and flexible.Thus, the concept of “dynamic” is crucial for the analysis in this respect.
Based on the interpersonal meanings explored in this chapter, Chapter 6 will explore the distributions of MSAs in four genres, namely, PS, JI, AW, and LR.The distributions of MSAs will be compared in order to show that genre has impacts on modality supplementing in discourse.It will also be proved that the contextual factors, functions, and interpersonal meanings explored in relation to MSAs are justified.Besides, the next chapter will carry out an experiment to find out the use of MSAs in an argumentative writing of the Chinese learners of English.The experiment aims at indicating the importance of teaching the modality system concerning MSAs to EFL students in China.