In Biber et al.(1999: 489）will occurs most in such genres as conversation, news and academic writings, but shall occurs least in them.The study of corpora in this dissertation almost confirms the findings of Biber et al., with would (21.43%）occurring slightly more than will in JI (21.43%）than in PS (17.39%）and AW (15.91%).
According to Coates (1983: 26), central MVs can be used both deontically and epistemically.Both will and shall are mostly used for prediction, and secondarily for volition.Thus, these two MVs are normally about modalization.Yet, a different picture is found about shall.Coates’ assumption works in PS, JI and AW instead of LR.
As has been mentioned before, present-day legal discourse is an area rich in obligations and liabilities.It is reasonable for shall to be used mainly for modulation in LR, but for modalization in PS, JI and AW, given the differences in generic nature.
According to Coates (ibid), must and should are primarily used for obligations (modulation), and secondarily for inference and hypothesis (modalization).Nevertheless, this study finds that must and should are overwhelmingly used for modulation rather than modalization in LR.
The frequencies of central MVs in the four genres are closely related to the differences in generic nature.Shall is used frequently in LR for obligations, while will is preferable in PS, JI and AW for negotiations.Based on the relationship between genre and MVs, it is possible to account for the different attractions between MVs and MSAs with regards to stance and social distance.
Table 6.6 shows the attraction patterns between central MVs and MSAs in relation to stance and social distance.
First, it can be found that shall and must have the lowest percentages of MSAs in PS, JI (20%; 20%）and AW (8%; 10%), and that shall has the highest percentage of MSAs in LR (32%).The difference is significant.It was mentioned earlier in this section that must, may and shall are primarily used for strong obligations in LR rather than in PS, JI and AW.Therefore, the MSAs co-occurring with shall, may and must are mainly used for obligations in LR.The stance of obligations is closely related to another interpersonal meaning in LR, i.e.hierarchy.In contrast, the MSAs co-occurring with shall, may and must are mainly used for attitudes or judgments (modalization）in PS, JI and AW.Thus, in these three genres, the stance is related to negotiations, and the social distance is revealed by a balance between solidarity and deference.
Similar situation happens to will.This MV has the highest percentages of MSAs in PS, JI and AW.Coates (1983: 26）points out that will is primarily used for prediction and secondarily for volition.This, as Bybee, Perkins & Pagliuca (1994: 256）argue, is the product of grammaticalization or historical evolution: Prediction > Intention > Willingness > Desire (the left side is the present state, while the right side is the previous state).Yet, if such an argument is compared with diachronic studies, it may be found that will is used for modulation in LR, compared with its modalization in other genres.Given this situation, it may be safely concluded that normally MSAs supplement will in terms of the stance of predictions or judgments, and a balance between solidarity and deference in PS, JI and AW, but in terms of deontic senses or the modulation of responsibilities and a preference for hierarchy in LR.
Second, it can be found from Table 5.6 that on the average PS, JI and AW have similar percentages of MSAs, but higher ones than LR.This indicates that modality supplementing through MSAs is more necessary in the former genres than in the latter one.This also shows the importance of MSAs as a means of negotiations varies from genre to genre.
An examination of the four corpora can help people better understand the attractions between central MVs and MSAs.Consider the following:
(256）Staff may not send or receive personal e-mails at work using the Company’s computers.Staff using their own laptops or palmtops or personal organizers to send private e-mails shall do so only in official lunch and rest breaks, and not use the Company name or affiliation in any way.
(257）Read e-mails carefully several times before sending them.It is just as important as with a letter that they are accurate and do not contain typing and spelling errors.They are often the written public face of the Company.In many cases, for longer e-mails it may be better to prepare the message offline and check it carefully before dispatch.
(258）Whereas a new legal instrument should therefore be created in the form of a Regulation to permit effective control of all concentrations from the point of view of their effect on the structure of competition in the Community and to be the only instrument applicable to such concentrations.
Examples (256)-(258）are extracts from LR.In Example (256), it is clear from the context that the MVs may and shall are used for modulation, and the MSAs only and in any way supplement modulation from the category of limitation.In Example (257), the MV may is used for modulation, and the MSAs just, often and in many cases supplement modulation from the categories of limitation, usuality and reasoning respectively.In Example (258), the MV should is used for modulation, and the MSA therefore supplements modulation from the category of reasoning.Judged in a comprehensive way, the modality supplementing patterns in the three examples are all related to modulation, i.e.obligations and liabilities.Thus, the generic effects of LR on modality supplementing through MSAs are striking.The stance of obligations, and the social distance of hierarchy are evident in LR.
Consider another three examples:
