A contrastive analysis of the use of modal verbs in the expression of epistemic stance in Business Management research articles in English and Spanish 1 Ignacio Vázquez Orta Universidad de Zaragoza (Spain) ivazquez@unizar.es Abstract In the present paper an intercultural quantitative and qualitative analysis of the use of modal verbs as epistemic stance markers in SERAC (Spanish-English Research Article Corpus), a corpus of research articles (RAs) in different disciplines, is carried out. The corpus selected for this research consists of 48 Business Management research articles. Special emphasis is laid on the introduction and discussion sections of RAs, where stance devices are most frequently located to pursue convergence with the readership. This kind of intercultural analysis has been achieved through both a bottom-up research approach and a top-down research approach. The results obtained in this study point in the direction that there are obvious differences between the use of modal verbs by native writers and the use of modal verbs by non-native Spanish writers. The most remarkable aspect is that Spanish writers show a deviant handling of hedges and boosters. Therefore, they have difficulties in establishing a proper tenor when they write in English. Keywords: research articles, modal verbs, hedges, boosters, epistemic stance. Resumen En este artículo se lleva a cabo un análisis intercultural, cualitativo y cuantitativo del uso de los verbos modales como marcadores de posición epistémica en Ibérica 19 (21): 77-96 ISSN 1139-7241 77
IGNACIO VÁZQUEZ ORTA SERAC (Spanish-English Research Article Corpus), un corpus de artículos de investigación de diversas disciplinas académicas. El corpus seleccionado para este trabajo consta de 48 artículos de Dirección de empresas. Los mecanismos de posición epistémica son más frecuentes en las introducciones y discusiones de los artículos de investigación, con el objetivo de intentar una convergencia con los lectores, por ello, estas secciones se analizan con más detenimiento. El tipo de análisis intercultural mencionado se ha llevado a cabo mediante un enfoque ascendente (bottom-up) y un enfoque descendente (top-down). Los resultados obtenidos en este estudio señalan que hay diferencias importantes entre el uso de los verbos modales por los/as hablantes nativos/as y el uso de los verbos modales por los/as escritores/as españoles/as. El aspecto más notable es que los/as escritores/as españoles/as muestran un uso diferente de los atenuadores e intensificadores. Por tanto, queda patente que tienen dificultades para establecer un tenor adecuado cuando escriben en inglés. Palabras clave: artículos de investigación, verbos modales, atenuadores, intensificadores, posición epistémica. 1. General introduction and outline of the study This paper carries out an intercultural quantitative and qualitative analysis of the use of modal verbs as epistemic stance markers in SERAC (Spanish- English Research Article Corpus), a corpus of research articles in different disciplines. Section 2 examines the theoretical background to modality and stance, the objectives of the study and its research questions. Section 3 studies the corpus selected for this research consisting of 48 Business Management research articles and how the kind of intercultural analysis mentioned above can be achieved through either a bottom-up research approach or a top-down research approach. In a bottom-up approach, the corpus analysis comes first, and the discourse unit types emerge from the corpus patterns. In a top-down approach, the analytical framework is developed at the outset: the discourse unit types are determined before beginning the corpus analysis, and the entire analysis is then carried out in those terms. Both methodologies are used in this article. Section 4 and 5 offer an account and discussion of the results obtained. Finally, some concluding remarks are made in Section 6. 78 Ibérica 19 (21): 77-96
A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF THE USE OF MODAL VERBS 2. Theoretical background for the study of modality and stance 2.1. Modal verbs as the grammatical expression of stance Stance-taking is one of the most relevant and fundamental human activities accomplished through language. Humans evaluate the world around them, express emotions, beliefs, and desires, and align or disalign with other human beings in social interaction. The concept of stance is known under different labels that overlap to various degrees. Stance can be defined as expressing personal feelings, attitudes, value judgements, or assessments (Biber et al., 1999: 966) added to the propositional content. Other terms for language used by speakers/writers to express opinion are modality (Halliday, 1994), evaluation (Hunston & Thompson (eds.), 2), and appraisal (White, 21). At a textual level, stance meanings can be linguistically realized through different grammatical and lexical devices. By lexical stance marking we mean affective or evaluative word choice that involves only a single proposition. In lexical stance marking value-laden words are used, which differ from grammatical stance devices in that they do not provide an attitudinal or evaluative frame for some other proposition. The existence of a stance is inferred from the use of an evaluative lexical item, usually an adjective, main verb or noun. Grammatical stance devices include two distinct linguistic components, one presenting the stance, and the other presenting the proposition that is framed by that stance. The use of modal verbs is the least clear grammatical marking of stance, because the modal verb (as stance marker) is incorporated into the main clause (expressing the framed proposition) as part of the verb phrase, although it is understood semantically as providing a stance frame for the entire clause (see example 1): (1) Your team might have been defeated. Modal verbs are used to express a writer s stance, expressing either the degree of certainty of the proposition (epistemic modality), or meanings such as permission, obligation or necessity (deontic modality). Without a modal verb, most verb phrases include only a marking of time orientation and not an overt expression of stance 2. Ibérica 19 (21): 77-96 79
IGNACIO VÁZQUEZ ORTA In most cases the stance marker precedes the structure presenting the proposition. Modal verbs also occur before the main lexical verb and thus typically before the presentation of new information in the clause. This ordering of constituents reflects the primary function of stance markers as a frame 3 for the interpretation of the propositional information. In most cases, writers first identify their personal perspective, thereby encouraging readers to process the following information from the same perspective. 2.2. Modals and modality Modality is to be understood as a semantic category. Modal auxiliaries express a wide range of meanings, having to do with concepts such as ability, permission, necessity, and obligation. In the Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English (Biber et al., 1999: 485-486) modal verbs are grouped into three major categories according to their meaning: Intrinsic modality Extrinsic modality 1. Permission/ability/ possibility: can, could, may, might 2. Obligation/ necessity: must, should, 3. Volition/ prediction: will, would, shall By means of modal expressions the writer can evaluate a particular situation in terms of possibility, probability, permission, volition, obligation and necessity. To put it differently, all the above mentioned notions cover the subjective attitude or statement of the writer, who presents his/her personal opinion and relation with reality. Modal verbs can basically express two different kinds of modal meanings, which are referred to as epistemic and deontic modality. The first expresses the degree of probability, including the logical possibility, necessity, hypothetical meaning, beliefs and predictability. The latter, deontic modality, presents a degree of desirability through permission, obligation, and volition. This terminology agrees, in fact, with the more recent categorization in the Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English referred to above. The former type of modality concerns actions and events directly controlled by humans or other agents. On the other hand, there is another type of meaning labelled extrinsic, which expresses a certain degree of likelihood in terms of possibility, necessity, or prediction. It can be said that the logical status of events is observed by extrinsic modality. Downing and Locke (1999: 382-383) call these meanings basic modalities, and they all cover the subjective attitude or statement of the writer, who presents his/her personal opinion and relation with reality. Areas of meaning, such as permission, obligation and 8 Ibérica 19 (21): 77-96
A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF THE USE OF MODAL VERBS volition which involve some kind of intrinsic control over human events, are classified as intrinsic 4 (or deontic) modality, whereas there is the another type of modality labelled extrinsic 5 (or epistemic), which refers to the logical status of events or states, usually relating to assessments of likelihood: possibility, necessity or prediction (Biber et al., 1999: 485). This logical modality involves a human judgement of what is or is not likely to happen 6. The first attempt to study the writer s attitude to the text in academic discourse is found in Biber and Finnegan s (1989) stance framework. They define stance as the grammatical and lexical expression of attitude, feelings, judgments or commitment concerning the propositional content of the message. There are two components of stance in this definition: evidentiality and affect. Hyland (1999) proposed a model of stance, which is more comprehensive than the model put forward by Biber and Finegan (1989). He included three components instead of two: evidentiality, affect and relation. Evidentiality has to do with the writer s commitment to the truth of the propositions s/he presents. Epistemic comment (often achieved through the use of epistemic modal verbs) is a means by which writers can signal their allegiance and express a point of view on a proposition. Affect refers to the overt expression by the writer of a range of personal attitudes. The last term, relation, is defined as the extent to which writers choose to engage with their readers, their degree of intimacy or remoteness, and the ways they represent themselves in the discourse (Hyland, 1999: 11). With these words Hyland includes an element of engagement in his model. Some years later Hyland (25a) presented a more comprehensive model of stance and engagement to account for all the interpersonal resources that are used in academic discourse. Stance marking makes more sense when we take into consideration the addressees of academic writing. Academic writers intrude and make comments on the information they convey through their texts; they convey judgements, align themselves with readers and express solidarity by anticipating objections and responding to an imagined dialogue with others, thus constructing the text with their readers. 2.3. Objectives and research questions This paper describes an analysis of intercultural traits by applying both quantitative and qualitative methods of the use of modal verbs as epistemic Ibérica 19 (21): 77-96 81
IGNACIO VÁZQUEZ ORTA stance markers in SERAC. The subcorpus selected for this research consists of 48 Business Management research articles. One major difference between the two approaches is the role of the functional versus linguistic analysis. In the top-down approach, the functional framework is primary. Thus, the first step in the analysis is to determine the possible discourse unit types (e.g. move types) and provide an operational definition for each one. This functional framework is then used to segment texts into discourse units. Linguistic analysis is secondary in a top-down approach, serving as an interpretive role to investigate the extent to which discourse units also have systematic linguistic characteristics. In contrast, the linguistic description is primary in the bottom-up approach. That is the reason why, in this piece of research, I adopted the bottom-up perspective first of all, starting with the linguistic description of the English modal verbs as semantic markers of modality to move on to the top-down perspective and interpret the results from this standpoint. The research questions I planned to answer were: 1. What differences are there between the use of modal verbs by native writers and the use of modal verbs by non-native writers? 2. To what extent do the different groups of writers express epistemic stance differently? 3. Is the use of the modals by Spanish academics, writing their articles in English, conditioned by the writing conventions of their national culture that is, Spanish research writing conventions? 3. Corpus and methodology Out of the 48 articles, 24 articles were written by native English-speaking researchers (coded ENGBM) and the other 24, by native Spanish-speaking academics (coded SPENGBM). The first subcorpus includes 24 RAs from high impact American journals written by English native speakers, and the second one includes 24 RAs from high impact journals written by Spanish native speakers. The analysis has been carried out combining concordance software and manual analysis. The total corpus amounts to 39,468 words; ENGBM including 197,922 and SPENGBM 192,546 words. For comparability criteria, both groups of writers had a university affiliation, 82 Ibérica 19 (21): 77-96
A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF THE USE OF MODAL VERBS which guaranteed that they were acquainted with academic writing practices, and more specifically, research article writing. For the quantitative analysis, the concordance software Wordsmith Tools 4. was used (Scott, 1999). This was combined with a manual qualitative analysis of the examples. Special emphasis has been laid on the introduction and discussion sections, where stance devices are most frequently located to pursue convergence with the readership. Even though epistemic and affective meanings intermesh, in this study they will be treated separately for practical purposes, given that every epistemic judgement carries attitudinal values, but not viceversa 7. I will concentrate on modal verbs as markers of epistemic stance, as attitudinal stance is very rarely expressed by modal verbs 8. In this piece of research, first the bottom-up perspective is applied to examine modal use frequency in terms of semantic modality markers. The specific research questions were: Do modals in RAs convey epistemic (extrinsic) or deontic (intrinsic) modality? If so, is this consistent across the two subcorpora? 4. Results 4.1. Results for the bottom-up perspective: Modals as expression of epistemic stance The frequency of occurrence of modal verbs in ENGBM is of 7. per thousand words, while it is of 5.3 verbs per thousand words in SPENGBM. The overall distribution of modals in the two subcorpora is given in percentages in Figures 1 and 2. According to the pie chart in figure 1, the modals may, can and will are very common in ENGBM. At the other extreme, the modals shall, should are very rare. If we focus on the pairs of central modals, the tentative/past time member is less frequent than its partner in all cases except shall / should. Modal verbs are the most typical realisation of hedges and boosters in English. The modal verbs expressing epistemic meaning are: may, can, could, would, might. May is the most frequent modal verb expressing epistemic meaning in this subcorpus. It is very common, and it is followed by could, can, would and might. Can is followed by will, may, would, could and might, according to the frequency rates shown in figure 2 related to SPENGBM. Ibérica 19 (21): 77-96 83
IGNACIO VÁZQUEZ ORTA The frequency 4.1. Results of occurrence for the bottom-up of modal perspective: verbs in ENGBM Modals is as of expression 7. per thousand of words, epistemic while it stance is of 5.3 verbs per thousand words in SPENGBM. The overall distribution The frequency of modals of occurrence in the two of subcorpora modal verbs is in given ENGBM in is percentages of 7. thousand in Figures 1 and 2: words, while it is of 5.3 verbs per thousand words in SPENGBM. The overall distribution of modals in the two subcorpora is given in percentages in Figures 1 and 2: might4.31% must4.13% can 19.23% may 21.4% may 21.4% might4.31% must4.13% can 19.23% A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF THE USE OF MODAL VERBS According to the pie chart in figure 1, the modals may, can could and 11.45% will are very common in ENGBM. At the other A CONTRASTIVE extreme, ANALYSIS the modals OF THE USE shall, OF MODAL should VERBS are very rare. If we focus on the pairs of central modals, the tentative/past time should 6.32% should 6.32% member According is less shall to 3.85% frequent the pie chart than in its figure partner 1, the in modals all cases may, except can and shall / should. will are shall 3.85% Modal very verbs common are the in ENGBM. most typical At the realisation other extreme, of the hedges modals and shall, boosters should in are English. w ill w18.91% ill 18.91% The modal very rare. verbs If we expressing focus on the wepistemic ould wpairs ould 1.4% of central meaning modals, are: the may, tentative/past can, time could, member is less frequent than its partner in all cases except shall / should. would, might. May is the most frequent modal verb expressing epistemic Modal verbs are the most typical realisation of hedges and boosters in English. meaning The in modal this verbs subcorpus. expressing Figure It 1. is Percentage epistemic very of common, modal meaning verbs in and are: ENGBM. may, it is followed can, could, by could, Figure 1. Percentage of modal verbs in ENGBM. can, would, might. and might. May is the most frequent modal verb expressing epistemic meaning in this subcorpus. It is very common, and it is followed by could, can, 6 would and might. 6 Ibérica 19 (21): - Ibérica 19 (21): - must4.95% might6.% can 23.86% could 11.45% may 16.6% might6.% must4.95% can 23.86% may 16.6% could 11.57% could 11.57% should 2.8% should 2.8% shall 1.8% shall 1.8% w ould w ould 15.43% w ill 18.3% w ill 18.3% Figure 2. Percentage of modal verbs in SPENGBM. Figure 2. Percentage of modal verbs in SPENGBM. Can is followed by will, may, would, could and might, according to Can the is frequency followed rates by will, shown in may, figure 2 would, related to could SPENGBM. and Can might, is the according modal to the Can frequency verb, is the most modal rates frequently shown verb, used most in by figure non-native frequently 2 related Spanish used to SPENGBM. writers by non-native writing Can their Spanish articles the in writers modal verb, most English. frequently Next comes used will, by non-native followed by Spanish may, and writers then would writing and their shall. articles in writing The their tentative articles member in ( should ) English. Next is the least comes frequently will, used followed of all modals by may, in this and English. Next comes will, followed by may, and then would and shall. The then subcorpus. tentative would member and shall. ( should ) The is the tentative least frequently member used ( should ) of all modals is the in least this subcorpus. frequently If we want used to ofinterpret all modals the overall in this distribution subcorpus. of the modals properly in both subcorpora, we have to distinguish between their use with intrinsic and extrinsic If we meanings. want to to interpret Modals marking the the overall permission/possibility/ability distribution of the of the modals in modals ENGBM properly properly are in both in subcorpora, discussed both subcorpora, we below have (see we to have distinguish also Figure 3). to distinguish between between their use their with use intrinsic with intrinsic and extrinsic and meanings. Modals marking permission/possibility/ability in ENGBM are discussed extrinsic below meanings. (see also Modals Figure 3). marking permission/possibility/ability in ENGBM are discussed below (see also Figure 3). 84 Ibérica 19 (21): 77-96
IGNACIO VÁZQUEZ ORTA A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF THE USE OF MODAL VERBS IGNACIO VÁZQUEZ ORTA 5 48 45 4 5 45 48 36 35 3 25 4 35 3 36 28 28 2 15 1 5 25 2 15 1 5 4 4 11 11 7 7 6 6 11 11 may can could might may can could might Figure 3. can, could, may, might in ENGBM. Figure 3. can, could, may, might in ENGBM. The permission/ability/possibility modals ( can, could, may, might ) work The permission/ability/possibility as epistemic stance markers and modals are modals used ( can, to ( can, present could, writer could, may, comments may, might ) on might ) the work work as epistemic status of information as epistemic stance stance markers in a proposition. markers and are The and used meaning are to used present and use to present writer of these writer comments four modals comments on the status are of multifunctional information in to a differing proposition. extents. The Might meaning is located and use at one of extreme, these four it is modals on the used status only of to information mark logical possibility; in a proposition. at the other The extreme, meaning can and commonly use of these are multifunctional to differing extents. Might is located at one extreme, it is four modals marks permission, are multifunctional ability and logical to possibility. differing May extents. and could Might can is express used located at intermediate only to mark degrees logical of possibility. possibility; Three at of the the other permission/possibility extreme, can modals commonly one marks extreme, it used only to mark logical possibility; at the other extreme, ( could, permission, may ability and might ) and logical are possibility. used almost May exclusively and to could mark logical can express can intermediate possibility commonly degrees in the marks RAs. of possibility. permission, May very Three ability common of and the in logical this permission/possibility function. possibility. Permission May is modals and ( could, rarely can may expressed express and in might ) academic intermediate writing. are used degrees Could almost of and exclusively possibility. might are much to Three mark more of logical the permission/possibility possibility common in when the RAs. expressing May logical modals is ( could, very possibility common than permission may in this and function. or ability. might ) Permission Let us are usedis see some examples from the corpus with these modals: almost rarely expressed exclusively in to academic mark logical writing. possibility Could and in the might RAs. are May much is more very common when (2) expressing Legumes may logical have smaller possibility conversion than efficiencies permission than cereals. or ability. (ENGBM Let us common in this function. 6) Permission is rarely expressed in academic writing. see some examples from the corpus with these modals: Could and (3) might We also explore are much the mediating more role common that SPB productivity, when expressing flexibility and logical possibility (2) than Legumes cost-effectiveness permission may have or smaller success ability. conversion might play between Let us see efficiencies design some examples than characteristics, cereals. from (ENGBM the 6) supervisor/employee support and facility characteristics. (ENGBM 12) corpus with (4) these These modals: costs could counterbalance SBP benefits. (ENGBM 12) (3) We also explore the mediating role that SPB productivity, flexibility and Can is cost-effectiveness especially ambiguous success in the ENGBM might play subcorpus, between since design it can often characteristics, be interpreted (2) Legumes supervisor/employee as marking may have either smaller logical support conversion possibility and facility efficiencies or ability: characteristics. than cereals. (ENGBM (ENGBM 12) 6) (3) (4) We (5) These also Ironically, explore costs could when the mediating counterbalance many employees role SBP are that topped benefits. SPB out, productivity, (ENGBM the SBP plan 12) flexibility can be and cost-effectiveness viewed as successful success in many mightways play because between it yields design a highly characteristics, skilled, Can is especially highly ambiguous paid workforce. in the (ENGBM ENGBM 12) subcorpus, since it can often be supervisor/employee support and facility characteristics. (ENGBM 12) interpreted Similarly, as marking although can either and logical may possibility are occasionally or ability: used to mark permission in (4) the (5) These corpus, Ironically, costs most could of these when counterbalance instances can also many employees SBP be are benefits. interpreted topped (ENGBM as marking out, the SBP 12) logical plan can be possibility (see example 6) or ability (see example 7): viewed as successful in many ways because it yields a highly skilled, Can is especially (6) highly Close paid ambiguous supervision workforce. of in SPB (ENGBM the employees ENGBM 12) can lead subcorpus, to alienation. since (ENGBM it can 14) often be Similarly, interpreted although as marking can and either may logical are possibility occasionally or used ability: to mark permission in the corpus, most of these instances can also be interpreted as marking logical 8 possibility (5) Ibérica Ironically, 19 (21): (see example when - 6) many or ability employees (see example are topped 7): out, the SBP plan can be viewed as successful in many ways because it yields a highly skilled, highly (6) paid Close workforce. supervision (ENGBM of SPB 12) employees can lead to alienation. (ENGBM 14) 8 Ibérica 19 (21): - Ibérica 19 (21): 77-96 85
IGNACIO VÁZQUEZ ORTA Similarly, although can and may are occasionally used to mark permission in the corpus, most of these instances can also be interpreted as marking logical possibility (see example 6) or ability (see example 7): (6) Close supervision of SPB employees can lead to alienation. (ENGBM 14) [The implicit message being that employees cannot be trusted despite their skills]. A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF THE USE OF MODAL VERBS (7) Multiskilled employees in SPB can generally use their talents fully without supervision [The implicit ( ). message (ENGBM being 14) that employees cannot be trusted despite their skills]. A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF THE USE OF MODAL VERBS Could (7) and might Multiskilled are employees also used in to SPB make can implicit generally attribution use their talents of stance fully to the writer, without which can supervision be easily ( ). inferred (ENGBM from 14) [The implicit message being that employees the cannot text: be trusted despite their Could and might skills]. are also used to make an implicit attribution of stance to the writer, (8) These which (7) costs can Multiskilled be could easily counterbalance employees inferred in from SPB the can benefits. text: generally (ENGBM use their 12) talents fully without supervision ( ). (ENGBM 14) (9)(8) Thus, These it is costs more could likely counterbalance that such exchanges SPB benefits. might have (ENGBM produced 12) a resentful Could and might are also used to make an implicit attribution of stance to the (9) demoralization writer, Thus, which it can is effect. more be easily likely (ENGBM inferred that from 13) such the exchanges text: might have produced a resentful demoralization effect. (ENGBM 13) (8) These costs could counterbalance SPB benefits. (ENGBM 12) In Figure we can observe the results for the use of can, could, may In Figure 4 we (9) can Thus, observe it is the more results likely for that the such use exchanges of can, might could, have produced may a and and might might in SPENGBM. in SPENGBM. resentful demoralization effect. (ENGBM 13) In Figure 4 we can observe the results for the use of can, could, may and might in SPENGBM. 5 48 45 4 5 45 48 36 35 4 36 3 35 25 25 3 25 2 25 15 1 5 2 15 14 5 4 11 11 7 7 6 6 3 3 may may can can could might might 86 The modal similar repertoire use of may of non-native in both subcorpora, writers which (Spanish runs writers) counter to clearly its expected shows a similar higher use of frequency may in of in use both in RAs subcorpora, written by which native English runs counter speakers (Biber to its its et expected al., higher frequency 1999) this of seems ofuse to use in suggest in RAs RAs written that Spanish written by writers by native native English use of modal English speakers verbs adapted speakers (Biber to (Biber et al., the use of their English counterparts properly. et 1999) this seems to suggest that Spanish writers use of modal verbs adapted to al., 1999) this seems to suggest that Spanish writers use of modal verbs the use of The their higher English frequency counterparts of use of properly. can expressing epistemic modality is also adapted worth to the considering use of their in English SPENGBM counterparts corpus. Few occurrences properly. of might have The higher been frequency detected, which of use not of only can seems expressing to suggest epistemic that the Spanish modality writers is also worth considering modalisation in of the possibility SPENGBM nuances corpus. is rather Few poor, occurrences but also entails of might pragmatic have been detected, implications. which Might not denotes only a seems multiplicity to suggest of possibilities that (versus the Spanish the unilateral writers modalisation and less of remote possibility possibility nuances expressed is by rather could ) poor, that but facilitate also the entails construction pragmatic of a reader-in-the-text strategy. Finally, there appears to be a mismatch in the implications. Might denotes a multiplicity of possibilities (versus the unilateral Ibérica 19 (21): 77-96 Figure 4. can, could, may and might in SPENGBM. Figure 4. can, could, may and might in SPENGBM. The modal repertoire of non-native writers (Spanish writers) clearly shows a
A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF THE USE OF MODAL VERBS The higher frequency of use of can expressing epistemic modality is also worth considering in the SPENGBM corpus. Few occurrences of might have been detected, which not only seems to suggest that the Spanish writers modalisation of possibility nuances is rather poor, but also entails pragmatic implications. Might denotes a multiplicity of possibilities (versus the unilateral and less remote possibility expressed by could ) that facilitate the construction of a reader-in-the-text strategy. Finally, there appears to be a mismatch in the expression of epistemic meanings between some modal verbs: can absorbs some of the the possibility uses of may and could. 4.2. Results for the second perspective: Metadiscourse as a pragmaticrhetorical perspective In the second stage of this study I adopted a top-down perspective. I moved from a purely textual level to a pragmatic/rhetorical one, in which the choice of modal verbs is closely related to the context in which they operate and the writer s communicative intention. For that purpose I adopted Hyland s taxonomy of interactional metadiscourse (Hyland & Tsé, 24; Hyland, 25b). There are five categories of interactional metadiscourse: hedges, boosters, attitude markers, engagement markers and self-mentions. Of these I decided to study hedges and boosters, as academic writers mainly use modal verbs to carry out these two complementary rhetorical strategies. Hedges and boosters generally emerge as the most frequently employed interactional metadiscourse markers. These are a principal means by which writers can use English in a flexible way to adopt a stance to both their propositions and their audience. Hedges and boosters are like two sides of a same coin. They are communicative strategies for increasing or reducing the force of statements. Their importance in academic discourse lies in their contribution to a relevant rhetorical and interactive tenor, conveying both epistemic and affective meaning (Hyland, 24 & 25a; Hyland & Tsé, 24). Table 1 shows the frequency and distribution of hedges in the two subcorpora. The overall findings show that international Business Management scholars publishing their articles in English in the American context hedge their discourse more heavily than their Spanish counterparts publishing internationally in English. These results are rather similar to those obtained Ibérica 19 (21): 77-96 87
IGNACIO VÁZQUEZ ORTA strategies for increasing or reducing the force of statements. Their importance in academic discourse lies in their contribution to a relevant rhetorical and interactive tenor, conveying both epistemic and affective meaning (Hyland, 24 & 25a; Hyland & Tsé, 24). Table 1 shows the frequency and distribution of hedges in the two subcorpora. ENGBM SPENGBM Total Percentage Total Percentage Hedges 3,174 (16.4 per 1% 1,868 (9.7 per 1% 1, words) 1, words) Introduction 1,38 41,21% 596 31.91% Methods 22 6.36% 25 13.38% Results 386 12.16% 356 19.6% Discussion 1,278 4.26% 666 35.65% Table 1. Frequency and distribution of hedges. The overall findings show that international Business Management scholars in previous publishing studies their articles (Vassileva in English (1997 in the & American 21) for context Bulgarian; hedge their Ventola discourse (1997) more heavily than their Spanish counterparts publishing internationally in for Finnish; Martin Martin (22 & 25) as well as Mur (27) for Spanish). English. These results are rather similar to those obtained in previous studies They (Vassileva indicate that (1997 different & 21) cultures for Bulgarian; show Ventola different (1997) degrees for Finnish; of hedging. Martin The percentages Martin (22 indicate & 25) that as the well Discussion as Mur (27) presents for Spanish). the highest They indicate incidence that of different cultures show different degrees of hedging. The percentages indicate hedges that in the the Discussion ENGBM presents corpus. the This highest is not incidence so high of in hedges the SPENGBM, in the ENGBM where the figures corpus. for This the is not Discussion so high in and the Introduction SPENGBM, where sections the figures are very for the similar. This Discussion highest frequency and Introduction of sections use ofare hedges very similar. in the This Discussion highest frequency section of of use of hedges in the Discussion section of ENGBM is due to the fact that ENGBM American is due Business to the Management fact that American scholars seem Business to be more Management cautious when scholars seem to be more cautious when expressing the implications and deductions from the results obtained, as well as when stating the limitations of their study. 1 Ibérica 19 (21): - Now it is time to discuss how hedging modal verbs are preferred in certain sections in the two subcorpora. Modal verbs are the most prototypical realization of hedges in English, which are rhetorical strategies used by writers to tone down the force of the proposition, however no linguistic items are inherently hedgy but can acquire this quality depending on the communicative context or the co-text (Markkanen & Schröder, 1997: 4). The modal verbs expressing hedges are: may, would, can, might, and could. May is the most frequent modal verb in both subcorpora. It is extremely common in academic prose. It is followed by would, can, might and could in ENGBM. In SPENGBM, may is followed by can, could and might. Table 2 shows the frequency and distribution of hedging modal verbs in ENGBM and SPENGBM.. The frequency of occurrence of modal verbs in ENGBM is of 5.58 per thousand words, while it is of 4.22 modal verbs per thousand words in SPENGBM. More modal verbs are included in the Business Management RAs in the ENGBM subcorpus to soften the force of the arguments than in the Business Management RAs in the SPENGBM subcorpus. North 88 Ibérica 19 (21): 77-96
May is the most frequent modal verb in both subcorpora. It is extremely common in academic prose. It is followed by would, can, might and could in ENGBM. In SPENGBM, may is followed by can, could and might. Table 2 shows the frequency and distribution of hedging modal verbs in ENGBM and SPENGBM. A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF THE USE OF MODAL VERBS American-based Business Management scholars appear to be more tentative modal verbs are included in the Business Management RAs in the ENGBM in their subcorpus statements to soften the and force to of protect the arguments themselves than in the Business more against Management possible criticisms RAs in by the means SPENGBM of modal subcorpus. verbs. North They American-based are perhaps Business more Management aware of the scholars appear to be more tentative in their statements and to protect themselves need more for their against claims possible to be criticisms ratified by and means confirmed of modal verbs. by their They readers. are perhaps more aware of the need for their claims to be ratified and confirmed by their The percentages readers. indicate that the Discussion presents the highest incidence of hedging modal verbs in the ENGBM corpus. In the SPENGBM the The percentages indicate that the Discussion presents the highest incidence of highest hedging incidence modal is verbs in the in the Introduction ENGBM corpus. section. In the The SPENGBM frequency the highest of use of modal incidence verbs in is in the the Discussion Introduction section. The offrequency ENGBM of use is of due modal to the verbs fact in that the Discussion section of ENGBM is due to the fact that American Business American Management Business scholars Management seem to scholars be more seem cautious to when be more expressing cautious the when expressing implications the implications and deductions and from deductions the results obtained, from the as results well as obtained, when stating as well the limitations of their study. Table 3 summarizes the final results for hedging as when stating the limitations of their study. Table 3 summarizes the final modal verbs in ENGBM and SPENGBM. results for hedging modal verbs in ENGBM and SPENGBM. ENGBM ENGBM SPENGBM Total Percentage Total Percentage Hedging modal verbs 1,14 (5.58 per 1% 836 (4.22 per 1% 1, words) 1, words) Introduction 474 42.93% 392 46.89% Methods 58 5.25% 48 5.74% Results 44 3.98% 4 4.79% Discussion 528 47.83% 356 42.58% Table 2. Frequency and distribution of hedging modal verbs in ENGBM and SPENGBM. The frequency of occurrence of modal verbs in ENGBM is of 5.58 per thousand words, while it is of 4.22 modal verbs per thousand words in SPENGBM. More IGNACIO VÁZQUEZ ORTA SPENGBM ENGBM SPENGBM Total Percentage Total Ibérica Percentage 19 (21): - 11 May 536 48.72% 412 49.28% Would 178 16.12% 144 17.22% Can 198 18.7% 21 25.11% Might 118 1.6% 22 2.64% Could 74 6.49% 48 5.75% Total 1,14 1% 836 1% Table 3. Types of hedging modal verbs. As for boosters, results indicate that Spanish Business Management scholars As for make boosters, use of a results wider range indicate of boosters that Spanish and include Business some more Management boosters per 1, scholars make words use of than a wider their international range of North boosters American and peers. include This some is shown more in Table boosters 4. per 1, words than their ENGBM international North SPENGBM American peers. This is shown in Table 4. Total Percentage Total Percentage Boosters 1,2 (6.6 p. 1% 1,368 (7.1 p. 1% Modal verbs are also 1, the words) most common realizations 1, words) of boosting (together Introduction 459 38.25% 496 36.26% with hedging, Methods as indicated 141 before) 11.75% in the ENGBM 25 corpus. 18.28% Modal verbs are Results 152 12.67% 254 18.57% the second Discussion means 448 of boosting 37.33% in SPENGBM 368 after lexical 26.9% verbs. Boosting modal verbs are those modal verbs which help express meaning with Table 4. Frequency and distribution of boosters in the two subcorpora. Modal verbs are also the most common realizations of boosting (together with hedging, as indicated before) in the ENGBM corpus. Modal verbs are the second means of boosting in SPENGBM after lexical verbs. Boosting modal verbs are those modal verbs which help express meaning with conviction or reasonable Ibérica 19 (21): 77-96 89
IGNACIO VÁZQUEZ ORTA Would 178 16.12% 144 17.22% Can 198 18.7% 21 25.11% Might 118 1.6% 22 2.64% Could 74 6.49% 48 5.75% Total 1,14 1% 836 1% Table 3. Types of hedging modal verbs. conviction or reasonable degree of confidence. In line with this, will and As for boosters, results indicate that Spanish Business Management scholars should were studied. make use of a wider range of boosters and include some more boosters per 1, words than their international North American peers. This is shown in Table 4. ENGBM SPENGBM Total Percentage Total Percentage Boosters 1,2 (6.6 1% 1,368 (7.1 per 1% per1, words) 1, words) Introduction 459 38.25% 496 36.26% Methods 141 11.75% 25 18.28% Results 152 12.67% 254 18.57% Discussion 448 37.33% 368 26.9% Table 4. Frequency and distribution of boosters in the two subcorpora. Modal verbs are also the most common realizations of boosting (together with Will hedging, is the as most indicated common before) boosting the ENGBM modal corpus. verb Modal in the verbs two arecorpora. the secondthose tokens means of will of boosting expressing SPENGBM future after time lexical were verbs. not Boosting included modal in the verbs counts, are as those modal verbs which help express meaning with conviction or reasonable they are degree devoid of confidence. of modal, In line epistemic with this, will meaning. and should The use were ofstudied. modal will in the statement of hypotheses is very common in RAs in English. The modal verb Will is the most common boosting modal verb in the two corpora. Those is also tokens frequently of will included expressingin future the time subsequent were not included confirmation in the counts, or refutation as they of those are hypotheses. devoid of modal, epistemic meaning. The use of modal will in the statement of hypotheses is very common in RAs in English. The modal verb is Should also frequently expressing included extreme in the subsequent likelihood, confirmation or a reasonable or refutation assumption of those or hypotheses. conclusion (Palmer, 1986: 49) is the other boosting modal verb in Business Management Should expressing RAs English. extremeexamples likelihood, or of a should reasonableexpressing assumption or deontic conclusion (Palmer, 1986: 49) is the other boosting modal verb in Business meaning Management of obligation RAs in English. (Quirk Examples et al., 1985) of should are found expressing in both deontic corpora meaning but they do not of contribute obligation (Quirk to indicating et al., 1985) the arewriters found incertainty both corpora conviction. but they do not Results contribute to indicating the writers certainty or conviction. Results are rather are rather similar to those obtained in previous studies (Vassileva (1997 & similar to those obtained in previous studies (Vassileva (1997 & 21) for 21) Bulgarian). for Bulgarian). They indicate They that indicate there are different that there degreesare of boosting different in different degrees of boosting cultures. in different Modal verbs cultures. expressing Modal the writers verbs certainty expressing are more the common writers incertainty the Business Management RAs in the SPENGBM than in the RAs in the ENGBM, are more although common the differences in the are Business not really Management RAs in the SPENGBM than A CONTRASTIVE remarkable ANALYSIS (see Table OF THE 5). USE OF MODAL VERBS in the RAs in the ENGBM, although the differences are not really remarkable (see Table 5). Business Management RAs in the SPENGBM than in the RAs in the ENGBM, 12 Ibérica 19 (21): - although the differences are not really remarkable (see Table 5). ENGBM SPENGBM Total Percentage Total Percentage Boosting modals verbs 316 (1.6 per 1% 338 (1.75 per 1% 1, words) 1, words) Introduction 24 64.56% 218 64.5% Methods 36 11.39% 38 11.24% Results 14 4.43% 2 5.92% Discussion 62 19.62% 62 18.34% Table 5. Frequency of distribution of boosting modal verbs in ENGBM and SPENGBM. 9 Ibérica 19 (21): 77-96 Boosting modal verbs are most frequently included in the Introduction sections in both subcorpora. This higher incidence of use of modal verbs expressing conviction in the Introduction section may have to do with the more frequent inclusion of hypotheses in this section, the expression of which very frequently entails the use of will. In both subcorpora, the Discussion section comes second in terms of proportional high incidence of use of boosting modal verbs, followed by the sections of Results and Methods. Table 6 summarizes the final
A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF THE USE OF MODAL VERBS Boosting modals verbs 316 (1.6 per 1% 338 (1.75 per 1% 1, words) 1, words) Introduction 24 64.56% 218 64.5% Boosting Methods modal verbs 36 are most frequently 11.39% included 38 in 11.24% the Introduction Results 14 4.43% 2 5.92% sections Discussion in both subcorpora. 62 This 19.62% higher incidence 62 of use 18.34% of modal verbs expressing conviction Table 5. Frequency in of the distribution Introduction of boosting modal verbs section in ENGBM may and SPENGBM. have to do with the more frequent inclusion of hypotheses in this section, the expression of Boosting modal verbs are most frequently included in the Introduction sections which very frequently entails the use of will. In both subcorpora, the in both subcorpora. This higher incidence of use of modal verbs expressing Discussion conviction section in the comes Introduction second section in terms may have of to proportional do with the more high frequent incidence of use of inclusion boosting of hypotheses modal in verbs, this section, followed the expression by the of sections which very offrequently Results and entails the use of will. In both subcorpora, the Discussion section comes Methods. second Table in terms 6 of summarizes proportional the high final incidence results of use for of boosting modal modal verbs, verbs in both followed ENGBM by the and sections SPENGBM. of Results and Methods. Table 6 summarizes the final ENGBM ENGBM SPENGBM Total Percentage Total Percentage results for boosting modal verbs in both ENGBM and SPENGBM. SPENGBM ENGBM SPENGBM Total Percentage Total Percentage Will 24 76.52% 25 76.57% Should 76 23.48% 78 23.43% Total 316 1% 328 1% Table 6. Types of boosting modal verbs. 5. Discussion of the results 5. Discussion of the results Spanish writers show a deviant handling of hedging and boosting resources, and Spanish hence, writers the establishment show a deviant of a proper handling tenor. of This hedging is related and to the boosting mismatch resources, we and hence, observed the in the establishment expression of epistemic of a proper meaning tenor. between This some is modal related verbs: to the can is used instead of may to express possibility. mismatch we observed in the expression of epistemic meaning between Part of this epistemic mismatch may be caused by the twofold tendency of the some modal verbs: can is used instead of may to express possibility. Spanish writers towards an overuse of can, on the one hand, and lack of modalisation, on the other. Part of this epistemic mismatch may be caused by the twofold tendency of the Spanish To begin writers with, can towards embodies an three overuse basic meanings of can, in the on two the subcorpora one hand, under and lack consideration: certainty, possibility, and politeness/solidarity, all three of modalisation, accounting for on the the overwhelming other. percentage of this verb within their modal To begin with, can embodies three basic meanings in the two subcorpora under consideration: certainty, possibility, and politeness/solidarity, all three accounting for the overwhelming percentage of this Ibérica verb 19 within (21): - their 13modal repertory (virtually half of the tokens) and for the little variety of this latter in comparison with that of native English writers. While the certainty use constitutes an empty modal meaning equivalent to an absence of modalisation (see examples 1 and 11 below), the possibility use, as has been previously commented, fills the slots that should be occupied by may (example 12), and the politeness/solidarity meaning seems to derive from a transfer of pragmatic norms from a first to a second language. Ibérica 19 (21): 77-96 91
IGNACIO VÁZQUEZ ORTA Such transference of sociolinguistic conventions from Spanish into English conforms to the politeness scheme (-distance, -power) (Neff et al., 24) and results in I/we embeddings (I/we + CAN+ verb of perception or mental verbal activity) seldom used by native English writers. Their purpose is to build a common ground between reader and writer as a positive politeness strategy. In line with this finding, Hernández-Flores (1999) demonstrated that modal verbs performed a similar convergent role in unrequested advice as ways of seeking feedback or inclusion in Spanish conversation. Opposed to this trend, the politeness pattern (+ distance, - power) is found to dominate most of the native English writers articles scrutinized. The following examples may help illustrate the foregoing point altogether: (1) X can be obtained by solving this equation [ can be could be here substituted by is, since the equation is actually solved in the paper]. (11) This can be due to [native English writers would use may instead of can ] (12) As we can see [ can can be omitted here. In fact, native English writers resort to impersonal constructions of the type It can/will be seen that or As seen/shown in figure X ]. Apart from these pragmatic reasons, the overuse of can by Spanish writers appears closely bound to other typological and instructional factors: a) the corresponding Spanish verb poder is inherently ambiguous and polysemous (Silva-Corvalán, 1995) for it agglutinates deontic and epistemic meanings (e.g. ability, permission and possibility), as well as the dynamic uses distinguished by Palmer (199: 35-38). Therefore, it is not surprising that Spanish writers ignore more detailed alternatives like may or might and set up a symmetrical correspondence of uses with the past form could. b) Furthermore, Spanish writers experience a phenomenon of accommodation of their scanty modal repertoire to their actual expressive needs: can is the first modal verb learned in Spanish EFL classrooms, and high-school syllabi in general introduce the rest of modal resources sparsely and superficially, embedded in 92 Ibérica 19 (21): 77-96
A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF THE USE OF MODAL VERBS topical units and without much insistence upon the various shades of meaning conveyed by each of them. Another interesting finding of this research is the sketchy modalisation observed in the Spanish articles, which confirms Holmes s (1988) view that the use of hedges varies cross-culturally. It is also in accordance with Hoye s (1997) conclusion that native Spanish speakers tend to underuse stance markers in L1 and when speaking English encounter special difficulties with those subject to idiomatic collocations ( may / might + well ). It should be added that, most probably owing to above mentioned instructional factors, Spanish writers show a deficient handling of hedging and boosting resources. Lack of modalisation seems to be a natural tendency for Spanish writers and is per se a type of boosting device. This fact would partly explain the prevalence of this rhetorical function throughout Spanish RAs with the logical consequence of making refutable, risky or even threatening claims. This suggests considerable lack of expertise on the part of Spanish writers and an ignorance of rhetorical genre standards. Spanish writers predominantly express certainty through the use of can and will and exhibit a significantly low proportion of probability and possibility meanings through would, should and may (see Figure 2). Native English academic writers, in contrast, show a higher frequency of use of would, should and might in their academic papers. Native English writers would use should instead to tone down the brusqueness of the imposition. Notice, however, that in the first two cases (in the use of can and will ), Spanish writers combine deontic modality with the passive voice, which serves as mitigator. 6. Concluding remarks The results obtained in this study point in the direction that there are obvious differences between the use of modal verbs by native English writers and the use of modal verbs by non-native Spanish writers. The most remarkable aspect is that Spanish writers show a deviant handling of hedges and boosters. Therefore, they have difficulties in establishing a proper tenor when they write in English. This is related to the mismatch observed in the expression of epistemic meaning between some modal verbs: can is used instead of may to express possibility. Spanish writers express epistemic Ibérica 19 (21): 77-96 93
IGNACIO VÁZQUEZ ORTA stance differently. This deviant use of the modals by Spanish academics writing their articles in English is conditioned by the writing conventions of their national culture. [Paper received April 29] [Revised paper accepted July 29] References Biber, D. & E. Finnegan (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text 9: 93-124. Biber, D., S. Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad & E. Finegan (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education. Davies, E. (21). Propositional attitudes. Functions of Language 8: 217-251. Downing, A. & P. Locke (1999). A University Course in English Grammar. London: Routledge. Fillmore, C.J. (1982). Frame semantics in Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm, 111-137. Seoul: Hanshin. Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd ed. London: Arnold. Hernández-Flores, N. (1999). Politeness ideology in Spanish colloquial conversation: The case of advice. Pragmatics 9: 37-49. Holmes, J. (1988). Of course: A pragmatic particle in New Zealand women s and men s speech. Australian Journal of Linguistics 8: 49-74. Hoye, L.F. (1997). Adverbs and Modality in English. London & New York: Longman. Hunston, S. & G. Thompson (eds.) (2). Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hyland, K. (1999). Disciplinary discourse writer stance in research articles in C. Candlin & K. Hyland (eds.), Writing: Texts, Processes and Practices, 99-121. London: Longman. Hyland, K. (24). Genre and Second Language Writing. Ann Arbor: Michigan Press. Hyland, K. (25a). Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies 7: 173-192. Hyland, K. (25b). Metadiscourse. London: Continuum. Hyland, K. & P. Tsé (24). Evaluative that constructions: Signalling stance in research abstracts. Functions of Language 12: 39-63. Markkanen, R. & H. Schröder (eds.) (1997). Hedging and Discourse Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic texts. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. Martin Martin, P. (22). A genre-based investigation of abstract writing in English and Spanish. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 44: 47-64. Martin Martin, P. (25). The Rhetoric of the Abstract in English and Spanish Scientific Discourse: A Cross-Cultural Genre-Analytic Approach. Bern: Peter Lang. Mur, M.P. (27). A Contribution to the Intercultural Analysis of Metadiscourse in Business Management Research Articles in English and Spanish: A Corpus-driven approach. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Zaragoza, Spain. Neff, J., E. Dafouz, M. Díez, H. Herrera, F. Martínez, J.P. Rica & C. Sancho (24). Subjective and objective expression of evidentiality in native and non-native argumentative texts in R. Facchinetti & R. Palmer (eds.), English Modality in Perspective. Genre Analysis and Contrastive Studies, 141-161. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Palmer, F.R. (1986). Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Palmer, F.R. (199 [1979]). Modality and the English Modals, 2nd ed. London: Longman. Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech & J. Svartvik (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman. Scott, M. (1999). WordSmith Tools (Version 4.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Silva-Corvalán, C. (ed.) (1995). Spanish in Four Continents. Studies in Language Contact and Bilingualism. Washington, DC: Georgetown 94 Ibérica 19 (21): 77-96
A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF THE USE OF MODAL VERBS University Press. Vassileva, I. (1997). Hedging in English and Bulgarian academic writing in A. Duszak (ed.), Culture and Styles of Academic Discourse, 23-222. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Vassileva, I. (21). Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes 2: 83-12. Ventola, E. (1997). Semiotic spanning at conferences: Cohesion and coherence in and across conference papers and their discussions in W. Bublitz, U. Lenk & E. Ventola (eds.), Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse. How to create it and how to describe it, 11-123. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. White, P.R. (21). Appraisal: An Overview. URL: http://www.grammatics.com/appraisal/ AppraisalGuide/Framed/Appraisal-Overview.htm [1/5/29]. Dr. Ignacio Vázquez is coordinating a research group (InterLAE) working on writer stance in academic and professional discourse from a sociopragmatic perspective. At present, the group is developing a new project on generic integrity in academic and professional communication to be completed by 211. NOTES 1 This research has been carried out within the framework of the project entitled InterLAE (Interpersonalidad en el Lenguaje Académico Escrito/Interpersonality in Written Academic Language), financially supported by local and national authorities (Diputación General de Aragón (InterLAE group) and Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia (HUM25-3646). 2 The absence of a modal verb (or other stance marker), however, can also be considered as choice of stance, with the writer attributing unquestioned validity to the proposition. This is Davies (21) position. According to this scholar, all finite verbal groups are said to express a modal position or stance, which is related to the exchange function of the utterance. 3 A term borrowed from Charles Fillmore s (1982) frame semantics. A frame can help create a subjective construal, which is the type of construal in which the speaker as cognizer is involved in the very scene s/he is construing. This is contrasted with the objective construal, i.e. the type of construal in which the speaker as cognizer is detached from the scene s/he is construing. 4 Intrinsic modality is discourse-oriented. It refers to the speech act. 5 Extrinsic modality is synonymous with extra-propositional modality, expressing the speaker s attitude towards the content of a proposition. It covers the area of epistemic modality. For Biber et al. (1999: 485) it refers to the logical status of events or states, usually relating to assessments of likelihood: possibility, necessity, or prediction and is synonymous with epistemic modality (which for him, however, also includes dynamic modality). 6 There is a basic distinction in English between modals with a specific interpersonal function, like the epistemic modals, and modals that do not have an interpersonal meaning, like the modals of ability and volition. 7 This does not necessarily mean an adherence to the Hallidayan separation of modal and ideational meanings. 8 Biber et al. (1999) say that very seldom can modal verbs with intrinsic meaning be regarded as attitudinal. Ibérica 19 (21): 77-96 95