RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
THE USE OF MODIFICATION
3. Dynamic modality: concerned with the ability or volition of the subject, relating more to the quality than to the opinion or attitude of the
subject. Examples are can and be able to.
Despite the fact that the notion of modality can be realized in different grammatical categories3, this study will limit the following discussion to modal auxiliaries and adverbs.
Table 5 outlines the distribution of modal devices as Internal modification across all semantic formulas. As this table demonstrates, more than two-thirds of the modal expressions are distributed constantly in the Excuse (F1), Nonperformative (F4) and Alternative formulas (F5), respectively accounting for 45.7% (192 out of
3 For English accounts of modal auxiliaries, please refer to Lyons (1977), Palmer (1979; 1990),
419), 31.3% (131 out of 419), and 10.7% (45 out of 419) of all the semantic formulas that contain Internal modification.
Table 5 : Occurring Frequency of internal modification across semantic formulas
No. Semantic Formula
Frequency of Modal Use
Percentage
F1 Excuse 192 45.7%
F2 Regret 2 0.5%
F3 Adjunt 25 6.0%
F4 Conventional nonperformative 131 31.3%
F5 Proposals of alternative 45 10.7%
F6 Direct “No” 0 0%
F7 Avoidance 10 2.4%
F8 Performative 5 1.2%
F9 Attempt to dissuade interlocutor 4 1.0%
F10 Future acceptance 5 1.2%
Totals 419 100%
Detailed analysis of the modal employment as well as its pragmatic function will be introduced in the following section.
Modal Use in Internal Modification
Given that the Excuse (F1), Nonperformative (F4) and Alternative formulas (F5) provide a locus for modal devices to exercise Internal modification in interlanguage refusal, a close look into how these modal markers achieve
Coates (1983), Perkins (1983), and Quirk (1985).
interpersonal and pragmatic functions in the three semantic formulas is presented as follows.
Excuse (F1): As the semantic formula where the majority of the modal modification is exerted, it typically carries epistemic modal auxiliaries for the sake of politeness. By lowering the degree of possibility of the identified impediment, the use of Epistemic modality can mitigate the directness of the declination so the force of politeness can be strengthened. The phrases I think in (72) and (73) represent such use.
In this way, the refuser ‘implies’ his refusal rather than ‘states’ it, thus alleviating the potential threat to politeness.
(72) Sorry. [F1 I think I’m not that good to take this job, it’s a challenge for me.]
(73) I would like to, [F1 but I think I am not suitable for the job.]
Due to the fact that the Excuse formulas are most of the time closely tied with the factors interior or exterior to the speaker, the Epistemic modals tend to accompany Dynamic ones to lessen the validity of the truth of the impediment. A greater degree of tentativeness in the dynamic modals cannot and can is designated by the support of the epistemic tokens (i.e., I think and I don’t think), as in (74) and (75).
(74) Sorry, [F1 I think I cannot make it with the requirement.]
(75) My computer and typing ability are not good. [F1 I don’t think I can do that in that short time,] so I don’t want to take this job. Sorry.
Conventional nonperformative (F4): Similar to the Excuse formula, conventional nonperforamtives are principally modified by epistemic and dynamic
modal auxiliaries as well. However, a point deserving notice in this formula is that the use of dynamic modals denoting negated ability outnumbers the use of those signaling negated willingness. As seen in (76) and (77), learners adopt the dynamic-ability indicators such as can not (or can’t). A few instances of negated willingness such as wouldn’t in (78) and won’t in (79) also occur in learners’ data.
(76) I’m sorry that [F4 I can not do the job] because I am not good at using computers.
(77) You know, this is a good job, but I’m so sorry that [F4 I can’t take this job.] It’s so tired for me.
(78) The job is too heavy so [F4 I wouldn’t take it.]
(79) I think that it’s difficult for me. [F4 I won’t have the desire to do it.]
Like modality in excuses shown in (74) and (75) above, both modality of dynamic capacity and volition can be made less strong when falling within the qualification of Epistemic modality, as in (80) and (81). Again modification of this kind expresses a weak confidence of the refuser in the truth of the negated capacity or volition, resulting in greater distance from the intention to refuse. This is how the epistemic and dynamic modals take effect here.
(80) [F4 I’m afraid that I can’t take this jog] since it’s on the weekend. I have another job in my hometown. Thank you so much.
(81) Well, I’m afraid I can not finish those jobs on time. [F4 I don’t think I would take this job.]
Alternatives (F5): Though the Alternative formulas are also internally modulated by the Epistemic and Dynamic modalities most of the time, a point that merits mention is that it can be ambiguous in interpreting the modals in this formula.
In other words, the auxiliary use of can may denote either the meaning of epistemic possibility or dynamic ability. In (82) and (83) where learners make an attempt to offer suggestions to the interlocutor for politeness compensation, one potential interpretation may relate to epistemic possibility, that is, the probability of resorting to other applicants. Let’s not discuss whether the interlocutor would accept this suggestion or not. The double use of epistemic-oriented modals (i.e., maybe and can) designates a tactful resolution learners provide to redeem the face loss caused by the denial. Yet it can also be associated with dynamic ability which indicates that the given suggestion is feasible for the interlocutor. By doing this, the requestor may feel like being genially considered an employer, thus positively leading to politeness and face-saving effects.
(82) Well, I’m feel sorry that I cannot do this job. Because the time is not suitable.
[F5 Maybe you can find someone else.]
(83) Well, I am afraid that I can’t do this job perfect. [F5 Maybe you can find some other suitable person.]
In addition to the three types of modal auxiliaries displayed above, it is found that the conventional modal meaning can be expressed through the form of adverbs as well. Two subtypes of modal adverbs found in this study are characterized as Downtoners and Intensifiers based on their relationship with the dictated proposition.
As can be seen from (84), the modal adverb actually is applied to clarify the potential non-conformability resulting from the contrast between the proposition of the speaker and the expectation of the requester. In doing this, the directness of the proposition brought by noncompliance of the request can be leveled down. Along the same line, unfortunately in (85) is used to signify sense of regret in the context where the proposition and the speakers’ own expectation are found deviant from each other.
This further implies that the speaker refuses the request under irresistible circumstances rather than his own will. As the two modal adverbs both assist in alleviating the imposition of the proposition, they are grouped as Downtoners.
(84) Sorry! [F4 Actually I don’t want to take this job whether you introduce it to me.]
(85) First of all, thank you for informing me about it, [F1 unfortunately I’ve decided to accept another job opportunity.]
(86) I’m afraid that I could not take this job. Because I have part time jobs every Saturday and Sunday morning. [F2 I’m really sorry.]
By contrast, the use of Intensifiers is to specify the degree of necessity for the speaker’s being regretful about noncompliance. As the modal adverb indeed is inserted in the apology in (62), the validity of the regret proposition held by the speaker is thereby modalized and strengthened. Seen in this light, (86) demonstrates an identical pragmatic function by the adverbial use of really. Such qualification of commitment to the factuality of the regret proposition produces the effect that the speaker is making efforts to maintain facework. Due to the firm attitude transmitted by these modal Intensifiers, they can be further classified as alethic use within the
scope of the Epistemic modality4.
To sum up, Chinese learners of English are able to manipulate the External and Internal modification concomitantly, displaying their ability in operating pragmatic tokens to accomplish the interpersonal encounter. As for Internal modification, the use of modal auxiliary is coherent to the extent that across all the formulas epistemic and dynamic modalities are always the main use. Even in the adverbial category, the majority of the modal adverbs learners adopt overwhelmingly falls into the use of actually (Downtoner) and really (Intensifier). On the contrary, the application of External modification is more subject to variation. Learners would opt for a wide range of semantic formulas to compensate for the face loss in Head acts. All the interlanguage evidence in the pragmatic and social levels will be comprehensively discussed in terms of second language learning and teaching aspects in Chapter 5.
4 Another category identified by Lyons (1977, p. 791) with regard to modal logic is ‘alethic’
modality. It is explained by Kartunnen (1972, p.12) that if the speaker believes the truth of the proposition with no doubt, he does not need to illustrate his attitude toward the certainty.