5.2.1Explicitness

Explicitness is a scalar dimension (Hámori 2010Hámori, Ágnes 2010 “Illocutionary Force, Salience and Attention Management – A Social Cognitive Pragmatic Perspective.” Acta Linguistica Hungarica 57 (1): 53–74. ). When authoritative academic suggestions are activated by IFIDs, their suggestive force tends to demonstrate varying degrees of explicitness. At one end of the scale is the specification of explicit suggestions; at the other end is the schematisation of implicit suggestions. As seen in Table 2, 46.6% of suggestions are made relatively explicit via performative verbs, nouns of suggestion, negative imperatives as well as speech act modals, while 53.4% of suggestions are made implicit by using indirect performative verbs and no-subject sentences.

In our dataset, explicit suggestions are highly constructive and they pertain to the following five aspects:

1. stipulating the addressees’ deontic obligation of practising ecological governance (178 out of 274), for example:

   (1)

   从法律的公平原则来看，各种企业主体在其经营活动中有义务防止生态破坏。

   Considering the principle of fairness of the law, various business entities are obligated to prevent ecological damage in their business activities.

2. expounding the epistemic necessity for carrying out ecological governance (forty-seven out of 274), for example:

   (2)

   [对于复杂的生态治理项目， 需要 第三方机构进行评估，以确保过程的独立性、客观性和公正性 _{explicit/specific}]。[依据评估结果，进行适当奖惩 _{implicit/subsidiary}]。

   [As regards complex ecological governance projects, a third-party organization should be invited to evaluate them to ensure the independence, objectivity and impartiality of the governance process_{explicit/specific}]. [According to the evaluations, appropriate rewards and punishments will be given_{implicit/subsidiary}].

3. granting permissions to the addressees for implementing ecological governance (twenty-two out of 274), for example:

   (3)

   其次，针对普通民众，相关部门可以新媒体等方式进行线上、线下森林防火意识和方法的宣传。

   Secondly, as for ordinary people, relevant departments can publicize the awareness and methods of forest fire prevention online and offline through new media.

4. estimating the likelihood of the realization of ecological governance (seventeen out of 274), for example:

   (4)

   在治理生态问题的过程中，将公民参与作为生态治理现代化的导向, 可以起到事半功倍的效果。

   While addressing ecological problems, taking citizen participation as the guidance of ecological governance modernization can achieve twice the result with half the effort.

5. putting forward novel law and policy tools steering ecological governance (eleven out of 274), for example:

   (5)

   [第一，完善长三角区域生态治理模式。关键在于协调不同地方政府之间的利益，形成区域生态治理的合力 _{implicit/schematic}]。[建议从中央层面成立长三角地区区域生态治理工作组，对长三角地区的生态治理工作统筹推进 _{explicit/specific}]。

   [First, (we should) improve the regional ecological governance model of the Yangtze River Delta. It is critical to coordinate the interests of different local governments and form the resultant force of regional ecological governance_{implicit/schematic}]. [We suggest that a regional ecological governance working group should be established at the central level to promote the ecological governance in the Yangtze River Delta_{explicit/specific}].

The explicit suggestions tend to be autonomous, with specific suggestive force being somewhat foregrounded. As illustrated in Examples (1)–(5), they are identifiable in a completely de-contextualized form without consulting the surrounding context. By contrast, implicit speech acts tend to be moderately autonomous, with schematic suggestive force being backgrounded to some extent. They may not necessarily be recognizable in a completely de-contextualized form, but have to be inferred on the basis of the context as in Examples (2) and (5) above. Implicit suggestions are either general or subsidiary, albeit they are also constructive. In Example (2), the explicit specific suggestion ‘a third-party organization should…governance process’ is further elaborated by the implicit schematic one ‘According to…be given’. While in Example (5), the explicit specific suggestion ‘We suggest that…he Yangtze River Delta’ is generalised by the implicit schematic one ‘First, (we should)…regional ecological governance’. An explicit suggestion in the foreground is generally more salient and thus easier to access than an implicit one (Langacker 2008Langacker, Ronald W. 2008 Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ) which relies on the addressees’ inference and deductive reasoning. Hence, through the lens of explicitness strategy, the speakers profile different semantic components of a speech event in tune with their communicative goals (Hámori 2010Hámori, Ágnes 2010 “Illocutionary Force, Salience and Attention Management – A Social Cognitive Pragmatic Perspective.” Acta Linguistica Hungarica 57 (1): 53–74. ). This profiling makes it possible to distinguish suggestions of central importance from general or subsidiary ones.

Notably, as Langacker (1994Langacker, Ronald W. 1994 Concept, Image and Symbol. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter., 90) maintains, in a performative clause, the profiled process is identified with the speech event itself, so it is not only possible but actually necessary for the two to coincide. The following Figure 2 illustrates how suggestions are explicitly construed by means of IFID tools. ‘S’ represents the speaker, ‘A’ stands for the addressee, ‘Base’ indicates the immediate scope. The content expressed is a profiled process, represented via a heavy-line box, in that suggestions pertain to actions. In regard to this process, the speaker takes a stance of intending to bring about its occurrence. To realise this intent, the speaker explicitly subjects the addressee to social and psychological force, represented by the bold solid double arrow.

More specifically, explicitness strategy will be discussed first by examining conventionalised IFIDs, i.e. speech act modals, in Chinese authoritative academic suggestions. Note that conventionalised suggestions with root modals occur more frequently than those with epistemic modals. They tend to be less explicit than those direct ones, but they are still identifiable in a de-contextualized form without consulting the immediate context. In this sense, a conventional suggestion involves the foreground of its specific suggestive force. The following example illustrates its use:

In Example (6), the modal verbs are deployed to foreground explicit suggestion speech acts together with their specific suggestive force. By using the root modal ‘should (要 yao)’, the scholars direct a compelling socio-physical force at the governments and the exertion of the force is one aspect of Chinese academia-government interaction. In a contrasting manner, ‘will (可以 keyi)’ and ‘need (需要 xuyao)’ belong to epistemic modals. Using such modals, the speakers strive for epistemic control and develop a conception of reality. It should be noted here epistemic modals serve to profile speakers’ reasoning force. By the same token, the scholars exert and convey a suggestive force at the governments. Since modals in suggestions are typically future-oriented with respect to both the process itself and its incorporation in conception of reality, they always pertain to the process of suggestion speech acts from the standpoint of bringing them about.

When it comes to explicit specific suggestions with direct IFIDs, they are normally embedded in implicit schematic ones. This embeddedness can be illustrated in Figure 3. Notably, specific suggestive force in direct suggestions is indicated by a bold solid double arrow, whilst schematic suggestive force in indirect suggestions is represented by a non-bold solid double arrow. This non-boldness implies that implicit suggestions may render the identification of suggestive force difficult, due to the fact that speakers probably require additional processing in order to find and verify some schemata in memory to account for these implicit suggestions (Gibbs 1980Gibbs, Raymond W. 1980 “Spilling the Beans on Understanding and Memory for Idioms in Conversation.” Memory & Cognition 8 (2): 149–156. ). As shown in Figure 3, the dotted correspondence line equates the implicit suggestions designated with the immediate scope for the incorporated explicit suggestions, as Example (7) demonstrates:

In Example (7), the suggestion evoked by indirect performative verb ‘increase’ tends to be implicit, because it is not recognizable in a completely de-contextualised form, but has to be inferred by applying the inferential networks on construing speech acts on the basis of the immediately surrounding context (Langacker 2001Langacker, Ronald W. 2001 “Discourse in Cognitive Grammar.” Cognitive Linguistics 12 (2): 143–188. ). In contrast, the suggestion operating with the performative verb ‘suggest’ tends to be explicit, due to the fact that it is identifiable in a completely de-contextualised form without consulting the surrounding context. As diagrammed in Figure 3, the implicit suggestion ‘(Chinese governments should) increase…’ demonstrates the full extent of the explicit suggestion ‘(We) suggest setting up…’. The conception of the former is established as the immediate scope for the latter. Or rather, the explicit suggestion incorporates in its matrix the essential content of the implicit one that precedes it in the hierarchy. This degree of embedding, as Langacker (2008)Langacker, Ronald W. 2008 Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. argues, correlates with degree of foregrounding and directness of mental access. As a consequence, explicit suggestions along with specific suggestive force tend to be foregrounded, whilst implicit suggestions together with schematic suggestive force tend to lie in the background.

It is worth noting that the terms ‘explicit’ and ‘implicit’ refer to the levels of directness and politeness with which a speech act is expressed (Stadler 2011Stadler, Stefanie Alexa 2011 “Coding Speech Acts for Their Degree of Explicitness.” Journal of Pragmatics 43 (1): 36–50. ). In this sense, Chinese authoritative academic suggestions tend to be construed in an indirect way, indicating a certain degree of politeness. In a contrasting manner, explicit suggestions create an impression of constructivity whereas implicit ones highlight the speakers’ polite attitude to the addressees. As our dataset reveals, Chinese authoritative academic suggestions are predominantly directed at government officials (577 out of 589). It is logical to argue that these suggestions are prone to be influenced by the academia-government relationship in China. As He and Mao (2020)He, Shanhua, and Tiaoyuan Mao 2020 “Can the Research on Language Planning Be Also Planned?: Recent Academia-Government Interactions In China.” Current Issues in Language Planning 21 (4): 434–453. argue, Chinese academia are highly mobilised and institutionalised: on the one hand, experts must affiliate with a university or research institution, and no such institution can alienate itself from the state; on the other hand, governments increasingly rely on experts’ technological schemes as solutions to major social problems (Gillingham 2019Gillingham, Philip 2019 “From Bureaucracy to Technocracy in a Social Welfare Agency: A Cautionary Tale.” Asia Pacific Journal of Social Work and Development 29 (2): 108–119. ). In addition to serving their rulers, the Confucian doctrine of ‘cultivating the self, regulating the family, governing the country, and leading the world into peace’ has nurtured in Chinese intellectuals a strong sense of responsibility for the collective well-being (Zha 2012Zha, Qiang 2012 “Intellectuals, Academic Freedom, and University Autonomy in China.” In University Governance and Reform. Policy, Fads, and Experience in International Perspective, ed. by Hans G. Schuetze, William Bruneau, and Garnet Grosjean, 209–224. London: Palgrave Macmillan. ). It should be noted here that China has not yet entered a postmodern era where critical discourse prevails in academics (Zhao and Shang 2016Zhao, Shouhui, and Guowen Shang 2016 “Language Planning Agency in China: From the Perspective of the Language Academies.” Current Issues in Language Planning 17 (1): 23–35. , 33), Chinese governments remain sensitive to anything it perceives as potentially harmful or inappropriate (Gu and Goldman 2004Gu, Edward, and Merle Goldman 2004 “Introduction: The Transformation of the Relationship between Chinese Intellectuals and the State.” In Chinese Intellectuals between State and Market, ed. by Edward X. Gu, and Merle Goldman, 1–18. London: Routledge. ). That means most Chinese scholars are inclined to actively and deliberately seek a high level of articulation between their academic pursuits and national interests, rather than seeking to function as a critical voice in national or global affairs. Indeed, they also criticise, yet they criticise constructively, seeking the improvement of current policies.

5.2.2Perspectivity

The construal strategy of perspectivity refers to the way suggestions are perspectivised in terms of IFIDs, which is connected to the aforementioned types of subjectivity, i.e. subjective and objective. As Table 3 indicates, whilst only 13.9% of Chinese authoritative academic suggestions are subjectively construed, 86.1% tend to be objectively construed. The subjective construal is related to the subjective use of direct IFID tools and conventionalised epistemic modals, whereas the objective construal involves the objective use of conventionalised root modals, indirect performative verbs and no-subject sentences. Thus, it is logical to argue that direct suggestion speech acts tend to be subjectively construed, while conventionalised and indirect suggestions tend to be objectively conceptualised.

With regard to direct suggestions, such as “建议 ……（We suggest…)” in Examples (5) and (7) above, “不可 …… (Please don’t…)” in Example (8) below, they demonstrate the functioning process of a highly subjective construal. According to Langacker (2008)Langacker, Ronald W. 2008 Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. , the speakers themselves are objectified, in the sense that they become part of the discourse objects, while the discourse objects are subjectified because of the speakers’ subjective presentations. For example:

Yet, the situations are relatively complicated in the case of conventionalised and indirect suggestions in that both of them involve creating an embedded subdomain in discourse reality. This creation points to the use of root and epistemic modals. As Sanders and Redeker (1996)Sanders, José, and Gisela Redeker 1996 “Perspective and the Representation of Speech and Thought in Narrative Discourse.” In Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar, ed. by Gilles Fauconnier, and Eve Sweetser, 290–317. Chicago: Chicago University Press. define, a discourse segment, for example, that expresses a proposition of a suggestion, is perspectivised if its relevant context of interpretation is a person-bound, embedded domain within the speaker’s discourse reality. This interpretation involves how variations of subjectivity can be described by means of a mental space model. Note that in our dataset, indirect performative verbs merely function as IFIDs in Chinese no-subject sentences which primarily express permission or obligation in context (Wu and Huo 2016Wu, Shuqiong, and Jing Huo 2016 “A Cognitive Research of No-Subject Sentences in Chinese Legislative Texts.” Foreign Language and Literature Studies 33: 266–271.). It is thus particularly necessary to add root modals before indirect performative verbs in the English translation, albeit the newly added modals are only potential rather than actual in sentence context. In light of this, the suggestions realised with root modals and indirect performative verbs will be investigated using the same mental space model.

As in Figure 4, root modals, like ‘must’ (必须 bixu), ‘should’ (有义务 you yiwu) and ‘may’ (可以 keyi), usually serve to create a mental subdomain (M) relative to the speaker’s base (B), indicated by the arrow from the base domain (B) to the mental subdomain (M). In the subdomain, as an embedded material, a proposition (P) determining a suggestion speech act is correspondingly placed. This subdomain embedding will determine the validity of the propositional content in the speaker’s discourse reality. As Sanders and Spooren (1997)Sanders, José, and Wilbert Spooren 1997 “Perspective, Subjectivity, and Modality from a Cognitive Linguistic Point of View.” In Discourse and Perspective in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Wolf-Andreas Liebert, Gisela Redeker, and Linda R. Waugh. Amsterdam: John Benjamins publishing Company. claim, the speaker regards it as true in his or her discourse reality, yet this need not be the case. A perspective therefore signaled by root modals expresses that the validity of the propositional content specifying a speech act is bound to a sentence subject rather than the speaker. Using root modals, the proposition presented from a perspective can be modified afterwards.

As illustrated in Example (9), the potential IFID ‘should (应该 yinggai)’ recasts the propositional content ‘(Chinese governments at all levels) thoroughly check whether the publicity and education are in place, to implement mass prevention and mass treatment’. In (10), the actual IFID ‘must (必须 bixu)’ modifies the proposition ‘(Chinese governments at all levels) give full play to their imagination in ecological governance’. These IFIDs are deployed to create mental subdomains relative to the base domain. In the subdomains, the modified propositions determining the suggestions are correspondingly placed. For example:

It is worth noting that in interpreting suggestion speech acts with modal verbs, the pragmatic factors involved in identifying the imposer of the modality include all our knowledge about the modality in question, and about the authority of contextually present agents (Sweester 1990). In Chinese authoritative academic suggestions, the external impersonal circumstances are identified as root modality imposers. Thus we argue that root modal imposees are under externally imposed obligations. This is because the modality imposed on them is attributed not to the speakers but to the impersonal circumstances, that is, the higher discoursal authority (A) illustrated in Figure 4. Since the authority (A) is created implicitly in the non-encoded area of the speaker’s base (B), the deontic subdomain represents an implicit perspective, that is, a subdomain connected to the implicit authority (A). To put it differently, the compelling force conveyed is not produced by speakers but by implicit impersonal circumstances. These circumstances are very likely to create a suggestive force on the basis of root modals and make the addressees, the sentence subjects such as ‘Chinese governments at all levels’ in (9) and (10), obliged to take targeted actions (Sweetser 1990Sweetser, Eve 1990 From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ). We may thus conclude that it is the speakers’ moral judgement that conveys suggestive force obliging the addressees to perform the illocutionary acts.

In contrast to suggestions determined by root modals, those indicated by epistemic modals are subjectively construed in our dataset. Epistemic modal expressions pertain to speakers’ estimation concerning the realising potential of the propositional content designating a speech act. Rather than simply stating something, via an epistemic modal, the speakers add a degree of certainty to their statements. The acceptance by the addressees of epistemic modalised speech acts to a very large extent relies on the credibility of the speakers as a reliable source of reality conceptions (Marín-Arrese 2011Marín-Arrese, Juana I. 2011 “Epistemic Legitimizing Strategies, Commitment and Accountability in Discourse.” Discourse Studies 13 (6): 789–797. , 792). Epistemic modification can also be construed in a domain representation (Sanders and Spooren 1997Sanders, José, and Wilbert Spooren 1997 “Perspective, Subjectivity, and Modality from a Cognitive Linguistic Point of View.” In Discourse and Perspective in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Wolf-Andreas Liebert, Gisela Redeker, and Linda R. Waugh. Amsterdam: John Benjamins publishing Company. ), however, the epistemic domain structure differs crucially from a deontic one.

As diagrammed in Figure 5, epistemic modifiers, like ‘must’ (就是要 jiu shi yao), ‘will’ (将 jiang) and ‘may’ (会 hui), open an embedded subdomain (M) within the speaker’s base (B), indicated by the arrow from the base domain (B) to the mental subdomain (M). In the subdomain, as an embedded material, a proposition (P) specifying a speech act is correspondingly placed. Importantly, epistemic modals represent highly subjective evidence which concerns the speakers’ reasoning based on their own knowledge of a situation (Sanders and Spooren 1997Sanders, José, and Wilbert Spooren 1997 “Perspective, Subjectivity, and Modality from a Cognitive Linguistic Point of View.” In Discourse and Perspective in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Wolf-Andreas Liebert, Gisela Redeker, and Linda R. Waugh. Amsterdam: John Benjamins publishing Company. ). This reasoning reveals an epistemic stance, that is, the speakers’ certainty regarding the realisation of the propositions. In view of the fact that the same type of force may display varying degrees of strength, epistemic ‘must’ expresses a higher degree of certainty to the factuality of propositions than ‘will’ and ‘may’. By means of epistemic modals, the speakers state that they consider the propositions to be at least quite factual. Consequently, the perspective signaled by epistemic modals expresses that the reality conception of the proposition determining suggestion speech acts is not bound to subjects within the discourse, but to the speakers. This further implies that the suggestive force is manifested in the speakers’ subjective reasoning in their discourse reality, not in the socio-physical sphere of objective reality (Sweetser 1990Sweetser, Eve 1990 From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. , 59).

In Example (11), the actual IFID ‘must (就是要 jiu shi yao)’ modifies the proposition ‘The community of human destiny put forward by China regards all mankind as a community of common destiny’. In (6), the actual IFID ‘will (将jiang)’ modifies the proposition ‘it is given priority in future governance’. These IFIDs are used to create mental subdomains relative to the speakers’ base. In the subdomains, the modified propositions designating the suggestions are respectively placed. Furthermore, Sweester (1984) maintains that the explanation of epistemic modals pertains to ascertaining their reasoners as well as the impingements constraining them toward certain conclusions. In our dataset, the epistemic reasoner in the world of reasoning is ascertained as the speaker (I), i.e. the scholar as in Example (12). Since the speaker (I) stays implicit in the non-encoded area of speaker’s base (B), the epistemic subdomain represents an implicit perspective, that is, a subdomain connected to the implicit speaker (I). Note that the authoritative reasoning force indicated by epistemic modals cannot be imposed by anything but premises which compel the scholars to reach the conclusion embodied in the sentence (Sweetser 1990Sweetser, Eve 1990 From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ). Meanwhile, this authoritative reasoning force can probably convey a suggestive force, compelling the addressees to perform actions. Therefore, we argue that epistemic modals foreground speakers’ authoritative reasoning force and reflect their active consciousness in their discourse reality, whilst backgrounding the speakers themselves. For example:

To sum up, the speakers in Chinese authoritative academic discourse prefer to suggest in an objective manner instead of a subjective one, by means of conventionalised or indirect suggestions. There are a number of differences between these two perspectives as highlighted below: (1) Whilst the validity of a proposition modified by a root modal is bound to the sentence subject; the validity of a proposition modified by epistemic modality is bound to the speaker. (2) Root modality imposers refer to external impersonal circumstances; whereas epistemic modality imposers are speakers. (3) Root modal imposees are forced by an externally imposed suggestive force connected to speakers’ moral judgement; while epistemic modal imposees are compelled by an internally imposed suggestive force indicated by speakers’ epistemic stance. Due to the fact that both root and epistemic modality imposers stay implicit in the non-encoded area of the base domain, the suggestions to a large extent represent an implicit perspective. In principle, we argue that the construal strategy of perspectivity allows speakers to foreground their suggestive force, whilst backgrounding themselves to maintain the negative face of addressees, indicating a certain degree of politeness.