According to Hyland (2000: 188), boosters include such adverbs as actually, always, certainly, of course, convincingly, surely, and in fact, projection clauses as the fact that, it is known that, we know, and we think, lexical verbs as perceive, prove, surmise, confirm and convince, and MVs as will, won’t, and must.Hyland’s study is helpful for the understanding of the roles of MSAs in position negotiations.
White (2005）considers the use of such linguistic resources as boosters to be dialogistic contraction in that the speakers/writers are presented as anticipating that the information about to be conveyed will have already been known by the audience/readers, or that the views about to be expressed are what the audience/readers will inevitably agree on and share with the speakers/ writers.From the perspective of appraisal, White (ibid）holds that the linguistic resources for dialogistic contraction include expressions like of course, naturally, obviously, as you know, needless to say, and it goes without saying.
Consider the following:
(221）As a company we have always been interested in our success at distribution, and now more than ever, finding those what could have been formerly been regarded as non-traditional outlets…
(222）They certainly must come here for dinner today.
In Example (221), the high-valued MSA always co-occurs with the MV could, compromising the tentative tone of the latter.In Example (222), the MSA certainly co-occurs with the MV must, making the determined tone of the latter stronger.These two MSAs contribute to the realization of solidarity for the following reasons:
(A )In terms of types of modality, they are about modulation (goods & services).In another word, these two MSAs help the addressers to offer benefits to the addressees in Examples (221）and (222).
(B）From the pragmatic perspective, these two MSAs embody the maxim of “maximize benefits to the hearer (H)”.
(C）From the perspective of evaluation, these two MSAs convey inscribed affect, resolute judgment and positive appreciation.
(D）From the perspective of cognition, the conceptualization reflects how the addressers target at the addressees in terms of the social experience in a discourse community.
Consider some other examples:
(223）Co-textually and contextually, we can conclude about the existence of the situation in that way.
(224）Surely, it will be judged, and judged severely, in both moral and metaphysical terms.
(225）I would no longer oppose to such an action.
In Example (223), the MSAs co-textually and contextually co-occur with the MV can, so that the conclusion is based on evidence.These two MSAs could be regarded as evidentials in terms of cognition, or indicate the speech acts of announcing in terms of pragmatics.They also act as a comment on the proposition involved from the perspective of SFL, or judgment based on evidence from the perspective of evaluation.Because of these functions, the two MSAs help to realize solidarity in the discourse community involved.
In Example (224), the MSA surely inscribes the addresser’s affect, offers the seemingly undeniable ground, and involves empathy.Seen in this way, surely realizes solidarity in this example.In Example (225), the MSA no longer is the resolute usuality of judgment, an explicit and objective way of modal orientation, a conceptualization of time, and an aid for the expression of speech act.Hence, based on a variety of factors, this MSA contributes to the materialization of solidarity in Example (225).
It can be found from the preceding analysis that 5 types of MSAs can help the discourse participants to realize solidarity:
a.probability & usuality (e.g.probably, perhaps, always and never)
b.confidence (e.g.certainly, of course, surely, really and actually)
c.clarification (e.g.still, at least, particularly, in fact and indeed)
d.evidence (e.g.politically, culturally, in practice, and on a de facto basis)
e.reasoning (e.g.therefore, also, so to speak, even and ever)
Nevertheless, it should be noted that solidarity conveyed by MSAs depends on the contexts concerned.Watts (2003）holds that positive politeness (solidarity）and negative politeness (deference）are relative and in some cases negative politeness can be changed into positive politeness.Consider the following:
(226）Could you probably lend me your lawnmower this afternoon, Fred?
Example (226）adopts the modality supplementing pattern of MV (i.e.could）+ MSA (i.e.probably).If the strategy of “be conventionally polite” is considered, then, this is an example of negative politeness strategy.Yet, suppose Example (226）is expanded into:
(227）Could you probably lend me your lawnmower this afternoon, Fred? Mine’s not back till the end of next week.
Then, Example (227）shows positive politeness, based on the strategy of “give reasons or ask for reasons”.
Thus, the explorations of solidarity from the angle of MSAs must be done with caution.Such factors as pragmatics, cognition and genre must be weighed based on situational settings.
5.3.2 Deference
Deference is also termed as negative politeness, which is redressive action addressed to the addressee’s negative face: his want to have his freedom of action unhindered and his attention unimpeded.According to Brown & Levinson (1987), there are 10 strategies to realize negative politeness:
a.Be conventionally indirect
b.Question and hedge
c.Be pessimistic
d.Minimize the imposition
e.Give deference
f.Apologize
g.Impersonalize S (speaker）and H (hearer)
h.State the FTA (face threatening act）as a general rule
i.Nominalize
j.Go on record as incurring a debt, or as not indebting H (hearer)
