As is known from Table 4.3, the classification of the values of mood adjuncts of intensity is different from that of MAs.There is no scale of high, median and low; instead, the values of mood adjuncts of intensity are measured by degrees and counterexpectancy.
Thus, the scale of values seems to apply to mood adjuncts of modality (MAs）well.However, as far as mood adjuncts of temporality (e.g.eventually, soon, still, already）and intensity (e.g.totally, almost, even, simply）and adjuncts of comment (including adjuncts of proposition, e.g.naturally, hopefully, and adjuncts of speech function, e.g.truly, frankly）are concerned, such a scale runs into a dilemma.
It is assumed that there are two causes for the dilemma.
First, the values of some modal adjuncts are indeterminate.For instance, even and actually are placed on the value scale of “exceeding” in the category of “counterexpectancy” in SFL.However, these two modal adjuncts can have either a low or high value.For example, in even must, even is high-valued, whereas in may even, even is low-valued.The reason is clear.When co-occurring with a high-valued MV, even is high-valued; when co-occurring with a low-valued MV, even is low-valued.Similar situations happen to normally as a modal adjunct.
Second, some modal adjuncts can hardly be measured by value.In another word, they are immeasurable in terms of modal value.Modal adjuncts of comment belong to this category.SFL shows a detailed classification of these adverbs as in Figure 4.1.
Figure 4.1 reveals part of the detailed and complex system of modal adjuncts of comment.It can be found that adjuncts of comment are mainly about topics and speech acts.Put in another way, these adverbs or adjuncts play the roles of indicating personal views and regulating interpersonal relationships.In this sense, their values, if there are any, should be sought through negotiations; they are different from MAs and MVs, whose values are conventionalized.Thus, frankly as a modal adjunct of comment relates to the propositions of utterances, and it is used to express personal views.
Figure 4.1 System of comment adjuncts (after Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004: 129)
Consider the following:
(123）Frankly, she can be wrong.
(124）Frankly, can she be wrong?
Semantically, frankly in Example (123）is equivalent to “I tell you frankly” or “I say frankly”.In comparison, frankly in Example (124）means I ask you frankly or tell me frankly.It is obvious that such adverbs as frankly can hardly be measured by value.In Quirk et al.(1985: 615）these adverbs are termed as disjuncts of style and content: disjuncts of style convey speaker’s comment as to modality and manner (e.g.truthfully, bluntly), or respect (e.g.personally, in broad terms); disjuncts of content make an observation as to degree of or conditions for truth of content (e.g.really, certainly), or value judgment of content (e.g.understandably, wisely).Quirk et al.’s study suggests that it is improper to assign values to modal adjuncts of comment.
It is postulated that MSAs can adapt the values of MVs in three types of situation.
Type 1: The MSAs (i.e.the categories of probability & usuality）with conventional values could change or maintain the values of the MVs involved and reflect the cognitive, pragmatic, and evaluative states involved in terms of tenor.Consider the following:
(125）Perhaps now you can understand why I and many other teaching mycologists ask our classes to put their culturally determined attitudes on hold…
(126）Perhaps I ought to be miserable because you are not with me.
In Example (125), both the MSA perhaps and the MV can have a low modal value and function as hedges, withholding the writer’s full commitment to the statement.The resulting modal force is not just a lack of commitment, but shows the writer’s escape from commitment.Hence, the synergic value concerned outweighs the sum of the modal meanings of the two hedges.In Example (126), the situation varies.Perhaps mitigates the modulation of responsibility indicated by ought to.Thus, there are two different types of modality-perhaps for “probability” and ought to for “responsibility”, combined to make the statement diplomatic or softened.
Type 2: Some MSAs, i.e.the MSAs in the categories other than that of probability & usuality, are indeterminate in values.Their values can vary with those of the MVs they co-occur with.Consider the following:
(127）…whereas this Regulation should still apply where the undertakings concerned accept…
In Example (127), the MSA still (in the category of clarification）co-occurs with the MV should, and expresses attitude rather than the circumstance of time; as a result, the MSA still helps to retain the modulation of liability expressed by the MV should and shows that the regulation concerned is appliable elsewhere.Here, still is median-valued.
The MSAs of evidence are indeterminate in value.Consider the following:
(128）Naturally Palaeolithic man’s interest in bison cannot have been purely aesthetic.
In Example (128), the MSA naturally co-occurs with the MV cannot.Naturally indicates a prediction about a state of affairs or development of events, and expresses likelihood.Here, naturally is a comment on the proposition of the clause containing the attitude expressed by cannot.Thus, there are two levels of likelihood in this clause, with the MSA demonstrating that the prediction is based on evidence.This MSA is high-valued like the MV cannot.
Some MSAs come from conjunctive adverbs, which have indeterminate values.Consider the following:
(129）…whereas this Regulation should therefore be based not only on Article 87 but…