Table 6.8 shows the classification of MSAs according to discourse functions.This classification is different from the classifications of MSAs according to semantic and modal categories.Nevertheless, the former is just another angle of viewing MSAs, and complements the latter two.
Some linguists hold that modality patterns are the products of grammaticalization (cf.Sapir, 1921; Hopper, 1988: 117-134; Talmy, 1988: 165-205; Hopper & Traugott, 1993; Heine & Kuteva, 2002: 317-326).Nuyts (2002: 440）explores the epistemic expressions in Dutch and English, and finds that the modality system is in fact a semantic hierarchy, organized in sequence as follows:
evidentiality > epistemic modality (> deontic modality）> time > quantificational aspect (frequency）> phasal aspect (internal temporal constituency）> (elements of the）state of affairs.
This sequence of modality means that modality tends to be multi-layered in discourse.If so, the modality supplementing patterns evolved could be regarded as formulaic to a large extent.While the roles of grammaticalization in the formation of pattern-like MSAs are not denied, it is assumed that genre should be taken into account in a greater proportion.
Eggins & Martin (1997: 230-237）explore the relationship between genre or register and discourse, and point out that generic or register difference could yield differences in textual formality, expression of attitude and assumed knowledge and that these differences are revealed by word choices in texts to a large extent.Eggins & Martin’s theory provides a basis for people to study the differences in the deployment of MSAs in the four genres.Genres as social processes have impacts on the use of language, specifically MSAs here; in turn, the use of MSAs contributes to the construction of genres.
Next, there will be corpora findings of some comparatively distinctive genre-affected pattern-like MSAs.Their functions and interpersonal meanings (especially social distance）will also be discussed through the analysis of some examples.
6.9.1 PS
In PS, such MSAs as even, ever, probably and always are used a lot.The corpora findings show the occurrences of these MSAs in PS:
A.even: 46
B.ever: 42
C.probably: 34
D.always: 32
In terms of discourse functions, even and ever are comparative, while probably and always are modal.Take probably for example.This MSA has some semantic restrictions when co-occurring with MVs.Cruse (1986: 92-93）studies semantic compatibility and divides it into two types, namely, strict compatibility and contingent compatibility.It is assumed that Cruse’s argument applies to the combinations between MV + MA (functioning as MSA).
Such MSA patterns exist in PS: can probably, could probably, shall probably, should probably, will probably and would probably.
Such occurrences as may probably (?）and might probably (?）are not found in the corpus of PS.(? indicates a questionable existence)
Such occurrences are found to be impossible in this genre: *must probably, and *cannot probably.(* indicates unacceptability)
Cruse’s notion of strict compatibility applies to such patterns as *must probably, and *cannot probably, and his notion of contingent compatibility applies to such patterns as can probably and may probably.Strict compatibility means the impossibility of co-occurrences due to semantic constraints.Contingent compatibility means the possibility of co-occurrences due to contextual factors.Cruse (ibid）does not pursue this study further.
It is believed that generic features should be taken into account as far as contingent compatibility is concerned.Consider the following:
(274）…it would appear to us that on the direct question of federal control of slavery in federal territories, the sixteen, if they had acted at all, would probably have acted just as the twenty-three did.
(275）But President Clinton asked me to speak tonight.And you can probably guess the reason why.
In Example (274), the MSA probably plays a modal function at the discourse level.In terms of the appraisal system, this MSA conveys a judgment.Together with the MV would, probably helps the addresser to package his judgment in two levels: judgment seen in everyone’s eyes + judgment in his eyes.Seen at the discourse level, this pattern-like MSA intends to reveal the addresser’s negotiable position to the audience.
In Example (275), the MSA probably plays a modal function at the discourse level as well.It also conveys a judgment in terms of the appraisal system.Nevertheless, the MV that co-occurs with this MSA is can, a low-valued MV.The discourse function of this MSA is to reveal the addresser’s increasing confidence in his judgment.The discourse function of this pattern, thus, differs somehow from that of Example (274).
In short, these pattern-like MSAs contribute to the discourse functions of attitudes or judgments based on generic needs in PS.They could mirror solidarity to a large extent.
6.9.2 JI
In JI, such MSAs as just, really and actually are common.The corpora findings show the occurrences of these MSAs in JI:
A.just: 107
B.really: 98
C.actually: 67
In terms of discourse functions, just and actually are comparative, and really is evaluative.Take just for example.According to Aijmer (2002: 153), just is strongly favored in speech where it is oriented to the involvement of the discourse partners in the speech event and functions as a subjective or interpersonal modal expression.Brown & Levinson (1987: 57）argue that just is a hedge on the Gricean pragmatic maxims, and that such hedges are frequent in argumentative contexts and are used in strategies of positive or negative politeness accounting for the “quality of social relations” in society.
It is held here that the discourse functions of the MSA just can be examined through their pattern-like usages.Consider the following: