1 Introduction

According to Systemic Functional Grammar (Halliday, 1994), language realizes three meta-functions, namely ideational function, interpersonal function, and textual function. Interpersonal function is realized by mood and modality.

Halliday and Matthiessen (2004:146) propose that “These intermediate degrees, between the positive and negative poles, are known collectively as modality. What the modality system does is to construe the region of uncertainty that lies between ‘yes’ and ‘no’”. Modality is necessary for interpersonal communication, the creation and maintenance of social bonds, the modification of other people's behavior and opinions, the expression of subjective opinions, and many other human activities.  

Theoretical and empirical studies have been conducted in terms of modality. Li (1998) accounts for the definition and description of modality and Li (2008) analyzes modality and engagement. Fan (2006) focuses on the realization of modality in different contexts. Han & Zhang (2019) investigate the explanation of the system of linguistic modality among formal grammar and functional grammar. Other scholars (Torres, 2021; Wang & Cheng, 2007; Ren &Wang, 2017) concentrate on comparison of Chinese and English political news discourses. O’Neil et al. (2021) investigate the combination of modality use and classroom teaching.

News reports on science and technology is one of the instrumental genres. Thompson (2000:64) points out that a “genre where an investigation of modality is often rewarding is journalism”. Important as it is, relatively few comparative studies of modality in Chinese and English news reports have been conducted. Thereby, this paper tends to compare the English news reports on AI in Chinese and American prominent newspapers from the perspective of interpersonal meaning, analyzing their differences and similarities in the use of modality.

2 Modality in Systemic Functional Linguistics

2.1 Types of modality

There are different types of speech functions; a proposition is used to exchange information, and a proposal is employed to exchange goods or services. Modality is consequently divided into modalization and modulation based on this distinction. Lexico-grammatically, finite modal operators and finite adjuncts can be used to convey modalization, from which a speaker can determine the reliability of information from the aspect of probability (possibly, certainly) and usuality (sometimes, always). Modulation, distinguished from modalization, refers to extents of obligation (be allowed/supposed to) and inclination (be willing to/want) (See Fig 1.)

fig. 1 types of modality (halliday& matthiessen, 2014: 691)

2.2 Orientation of modality

The basic distinction that determines how each type of modality will be realized is the orientation: that is, the distinction between subjective and objective modality, and between the explicit and implicit variants (Halliday, 2014). The speakers can state their opinions in a way that makes it apparent whether they are expressing a personal viewpoint or an objective characteristic of the event in question. Examples of the combination of orientation and type are further depicted in Tab.1. The modal orientation has four categories: explicit subjective, explicit objective, implicit subjective, implicit objective.

tab.1  modality: examples of ‘type’ and orientation combined（halliday, 1994: 358）

2.3 Values of modality

The third modality variable is value that is associated with modal judgment. Polarity is defined by Halliday (2014) as a choice between ‘yes’ and ‘no’. But intermediate degrees between positive and negative are modality; choosing among different modality realizations conveys views either more positively or negatively. Modality realizations carry distinct values: high, median, and low. Tab. 2 illustrates the values of modality in English.

tab.2  three ‘values’ of modality (halliday& matthiessen, 2014: 694)

Similarly, modality in Chinese is also featured by different values (see Tab. 3).

tab. 3  values of modality in english and chinese

3 Modality in News Reports

In this section, a comparative study of modality in English and Chinese news reports is conducted. The corpus to be analyzed for comparison are 15 English news reports randomly chosen from the Cable News Network (CNN), and 15 Chinese news report from China Daily and Economic Daily. All of these news reports feature AI, and released in 2022-2023. There are 13,628 words in the English reports and 32,192 words in the Chinese ones.

3.1 Data analysis

The study focuses on the distinctions and similarities between English and Chinese news reports on AI concerning the realization of modality. The instances of modality were identified, classified and quantified manually. Each modal expression’s frequency of occurrence will be counted separately in English and Chinese. The proportion each modality orientation occupies in English and Chinese news reporting will be contrasted, allowing the tendency between the two languages’ modality orientations to be shown. Then, the modal expressions in the language materials are manually labeled and counted from the aspect of values of modality.

3.2 Distribution of modality types

tab.4  distribution of types of modality in english and chinese news report

The overall use of modal types by Chinese and English speakers is shown in Tab 4. Although there is a slight difference in the frequency between Chinese and English news reports in the four modality types, they show similar patterns. The frequency of probability modal words (73.26% in Chinese, 72.83% in English) is significantly higher than that of the obligation modal words (21.16% in Chinese, 17.92% in English); the frequency of inclination modal words (3.25% in Chinese, 7.80% in English) is higher than that of the usuality modal words (2.33% in Chinese, 1.45% in English). Among the four types of modality in English and Chinese news reports, the modal operator “probability” appears most frequently, followed by “obligation”, “usuality” and “inclination”.

It is found that both English and Chinese have the same modal words, which can express probability and obligation in different contexts.

1) She added: “Politicians, like journalists, must resist the urge to be impressed.” (CNN)

2) 因此，人工智能对现实世界的影响与科学家并没有太大联系，所以科学家必须快速成长、赶上潮流。(As a result, the impact of AI on the real world is not so relevant to scientists, so scientists have to grow up quickly and catch up.)(China Daily)

Example 1) and example 2) express the certainty of accomplishing something, which is one of the typical sentence patterns used to express the obligatory modality, and express the strong and resolute modal meaning in a firm manner.

3.3 Distribution of modality orientation

fig.2  a comparison of orientations of modality in chinese and english news reports

The distribution of modality orientation in Chinese and English news reports is shown in Fig. 2. Chinese reporters are more inclined to use subjective modality (99.33%) than objective modality (7.67%). Likewise, English reporters prefer subjective modality (93.08%) to objective modality (6.92%). Implicit subjective orientation ranks first.

3) 例如，要求人工智能尽快治愈癌症可能会有危险。（For example, asking AI to cure cancer as quickly as possible could be dangerous）(China Daily)

4) In the interview with the Times, Hinton echoed concerns about AI’s potential to eliminate jobs and create a world where many will “not be able to know what is true anymore.” (CNN)

In example 3), the word “可能” reduces the effect of the subjective attitude of the writer. English attaches great importance to subject and tends to use subjective expression in example 4).  

3.4 Distribution modality of values

fig.3  distribution of values of modality in chinese and english news reports

There are obvious differences in the distribution of modality values between Chinese and English news reports (see Fig. 3). The use of modal words with different values in Chinese and English news reports is more complicated. English news reports tend to favor modal operators of median value (66.57%), while Chinese news reports are inclined to choose modal operators of low value (40.23%). In comparison with English news reports, whose frequency of modal operators of median value is significantly higher than those of the other two, Chinese news reports is well-proportioned.

5) 但是，人工智能技术也有可能进一步拉大发达国家与发展中国家的数字鸿沟。（However, AI technology also has the potential to further widen the digital divide between developed and developing countries.）（Economic Daily）

6) 他认为，人工智能技术既可提升治疗方案的安全度和精准度，又可根据患者的不同病情提供个性化的医疗服务；(He believes that artificial intelligence technology can not only improve the safety and accuracy of treatment programs, but also provide personalized medical services according to different conditions of patients.)(China Daily)

In example 5), combined with the modal word “可能” which has a low value, greatly reduces the subjective emotional expression of the reporter. In example 6), “可” implies the possibility of boosting the security and precision of treatment programs and providing tailored medical services based on different conditions of patients. In conclusion, both these two kinds of news reports choose modal words with extreme care to realize their intentions.

4 Conclusion

This paper examines the occurrences of modality types, orientations, and values of English and Chinese news reports concerning AI. With regard to modality types, both kinds of news reports prefer probability. The use of probability can help avoid interpreting things literally and making the message simpler for the audience to accept. In terms of modality orientation, news reports in both languages prefer implicit subjective and objective orientations. The objective expression allows the speech content to be less constrained by the speaker’s subjective feelings while yet pursuing scientific objectivity and accuracy. While English news reports tend to utilize median-value modal words, Chinese news reports favor low-value modal words, which is consistent with the traits of ambiguity of Chinese and precision in English.

This paper might help figure out where opinions come from and whether they come directly from the reporter or indirectly from someone whose ideas the reporter is reporting. In addition, there are various means of expressing meaning and attitude in Chinese. However, the corpus in this study is limited to some extent, and more systematic methodologies should be used in further research.

References

[1] Fan Wenfang. (2006).The Meaning of Modality in Context. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, (10), 14-24.

[2] Halliday M.A.K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.

[3] Halliday M. A. K. & Matthiessen C.M.I.M. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (3rd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.

[4] Halliday M. A. K. & Matthiessen C.M.I.M. (2014). Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar. Oxon: Routledge.

[5] Han Li, Zhang Delu. (2019).On the System of Linguistic Modality. Foreign Language Research, (1), 9-44.

[6] Li Ji’an. (1998).The Study of Modality. Journal of Foreign Languages, (3),57-60.

[7] Li Ji’an. (2008).Modality and Engagement. Journal of Foreign Languages, (4),60-63.

[8] O’ Neill K, Lopes N, Nesbit J. Reinhardt S, Jayasundera K. (2021). Modeling undergraduates’ selection of course modality: A large sample, multi-discipline study. The Internet and Higher Education, 48, 1-11.

[9] Ren Kai, Wang Zhenhua. (2017). A Comparative Study of Chinese and English Modality in Political News Discourse: A Perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistics.Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, (2), 20-26.

[10] Thompson G. (2000). Introducing Functional Grammar. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching & Research Press.

[11] Torres P. J. (2001). The role of modals in policies: The US opioid crisis as a case study. Applied Corpus Linguistics, 1, 1-17.

[12] Wang Hongyang, Cheng Chunsong.(2007). A Contrastive Study of Modality in English Political Speeches and Academic Speeches.  Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, (5), 21-24.