(159）In some cases there is no need to set up the context specially for the purpose.The out-of-context saliency of what is subsequently revealed to be what may be referred to as the garden-path interpretation will suffice.To take a rather hackneyed example, if…is followed, after a brief pause, with…, the comedian will probably ① secure the desired effect, simply ② by virtue of the out-of-context saliency of the sense of ‘go for a tramp’ in which it falls, semantically and syntactically, with ‘go for a walk’, ‘go for a ride’, ‘go for a swim’, etc…Both contextually determined and out-of-context saliency are, of course ③, exploited for more serious purposes in literature, where readers may well ④ be expected to hold two or more interpretations in mind simultaneously and …
In Example (159), the MVs are italicized and the MSAs are marked in bold.The MSA probably is median-valued, and helps to retain the median value of the MV will.This MSA is used in terms of dialogical expansion.However, it should be noted that another MSA simply co-occurs with the MV will.The MSA simply belongs to the category of limitation.Thus, it helps the writer to constrain his judgment.
Both the MSAs of course and well are related to confidence.This pattern shows that the writer is careful in expressing his view.On the one hand, the writer wants to show his view cautiously by using the MV may; on the other hand, he is bold in expressing his supposition of the others’ recognition of his own view by means of the MSAs.
Example (159）highlights the generic features of AW, in which the writer has to consider how the reader would interpret his text so that he knows how he should represent it.This is a matter of the construction of multiple identities.Martin & White (2005: 203）regard this kind of identity construction as personal signature, where the writer has to show his/her position clearly with a view to the reader.Clearly, evaluation, cognition and pragmatics play an important part in the evaluative use of these MSAs, which produce modal synergy together with the MVs involved.
The highlighting of the generic features of AW by MSAs can be diagramed in Figure 4.2.
Figure 4.2 shows that the process of interactions between the writers and the readers is an ongoing negotiation between ground (presented by the speakers/writers）and claim (presented by the audience/readers）in an attempt to attain the designated goals, in which one side of the participation has to present warrant for its view and the other side tends to back it if consensus or agreement is reached.This model is particularly suitable for the explanations of the use of modality supplementing through MSAs in AW.Modality supplementing is the product of the necessary and incessant negotiations, and MSAs are the linguistic devices to materialize the product.
Figure 4.2 MSAs as means of dialogicality in AW (after Van Eemeren et al., 1997: 217)
The genre of LR forms a contrast with AW.Consider the following:
