Expressing Modality

UNIVERSITATEA DIN PITEŞTI
FACULTATEA DE LITERE
SECŢIA ROMÂNĂ-ENGLEZĂ
LUCRARE DE LICENŢĂ
Îndrumător ştiinţific,
Lect. univ. dr. Alina Miu
Absolvent,
STÎLPEANU MIHAELA-MIRABELA
2009
UNIVERSITY OF PITEŞTI
FACULTY OF LETTERS
ROMANIAN-ENGLISH SECTION
MEANS OF EXPRESSING MODALITY

IN ENGLISH
Scientific adviser,
Lect. univ. dr. Alina Miu
Defender,
STÎLPEANU MIHAELA-MIRABELA
2009
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................5
Chapter 1: VIEWS ON MODALITY

1.1. Defining Modality..........................................................................................................7
1.1.1. Deontic vs. Epistemic
Modality…………………………………………………….8
1.1.2. Modality Viewed as a Matter of Degree and as the Attitude of the
Speaker……..10
1.1.3. Propositional and Event
Modality………………………………………………...14
1.1.4. Modality as Viewed by Functional
Grammar…………………………………….15
1.2. Short Overview of Widely Recognized Concepts in the Study of Modality……...15
1.3. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………21
Chapter 2: MODALITY RELATED TO MOOD, TENSE AND ASPECT

2.1. The Time – Aspect – Modality System......................................................................23
2.2. Modality and Mood……………………………………………………………….…24
2.2.1. Modality and the Indicative

Mood………………………………………………..24
2.2.2. Modality and the Conditional
Mood……………………………………………....26
2.2.3. Modality and the Subjunctive
Mood……………………………………………....27
2.2.4. Modality and the Imperative
Mood………………………………………………..29
2.3. Tense and Modality………………………………………………………………….30
2.4. Aspect, Voice, and Modality………………………………………………………...32
2.5. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………....34
Chapter 3: MODALITY EXPRESSED BY MODAL VERBS AND

PHRASES
3.1. The Modal in Old English…………………………………………………………...35
3.2. Morphological and Syntactic Properties of the English Modals………………….36
3.3. Modal Auxiliary Verbs………………………………………………………………37
3.4. Semi-Modals………………………………………………………………………….49
3.5. Modal Verbs in Proverbs............................................................................................53
3.6. Conclusion....................................................................................................................54
Chapter 4: MODALITY AND PRAGMATICS

4.1. General remarks……………………………………………………………………..55
4.2. Modality and Context……………………………………………………………….56
4.3. Modality and Translation...........................................................................................59
4.4. Conclusion....................................................................................................................61
CONCLUSIONS ..........................................................................................62
BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………64
INTRODUCTION
In this paper our aim is to make a comprehensive approach to the concept of

modality in English setting out briefly the framework within which it is possible to deal
with it and considering some of the major issues that are involved. The work consists of
what is called the basics of modality, covering various definitions, classifications, means
by which it is rendered and also the elements involved in the use and choice of modal
expressions.
We are dwelling upon this subject because it is a highly complex matter that
generates many difficulties both for native speakers of English and especially for
foreigners. It is of utmost importance to have sensible knowledge about modality
particularly for translators because every mechanical rendering will alter the connotations
of the original text.
In approaching this topic we used a variety of bibliographic sources consisting in
both Romanian and English grammar books but also studies in pragmatics and linguistics.
Besides the theoretical background we added many examples from literary works and an
analysis of a text from a modal perspective.
Our paper is organized into four chapters each having a relevant title for the
information provided. To the respective chapters we added significant conclusions that
summarize the issues under discussion. The four chapters are entitled as follows:
Under the title ‘Views on Modality’ the first chapter provides definitions, various
classifications and types of modality as viewed by both traditional and functional grammar.
Furthermore, it presents a brief survey of widely recognized concepts in the study of
modality given by works written in a classical traditional style.
Chapter two is entitled ‘Modality related to mood, tense and aspect’. This section
brings into discussion the connection between modality and these grammatical categories.
One should distinguish modality from mood; while the former deals with meaning the
latter is a grammatical category. Moreover, some of the modals are constituents of moods
and tenses and by means of them various modal attitudes can be expressed. When
combined with modal verbs, aspect can also imply modal connotations.
The third chapter is entitled ‘Modality expressed by modal verbs and phrases’. In
this chapter the theoretical background is combined with practical application to throw
light upon the different modal connotations expressed by modal verbs and their equivalents
but also by semi-modals. The subject arises many difficulties because the same modal
value may be expressed by different modal verbs.
‘Modality and Pragmatics’ is the title of the last chapter that will deal with the
importance which contextual, pragmatic factors have for a proper decoding of modal
expressions. In addition, a practical application on a text will be used to draw attention to
the problems that a foreign speaker of English might face when trying to transpose the
modal nuances from a given text.
CHAPTER ONE: VIEWS ON MODALITY
1.1. Defining Modality

The Oxford English Dictionary (1989:939) gives the most complete
definition of modality explaining the meaning of this notion in every area of knowledge:
1. a. The quality or fact of being modal. Also, a modal quality or
circumstance; the modal attributes of something; a question or point relating to mode,
manner or method, and not to substance.
b. In diplomacy, politics, etc. a procedure or method; a means for the
attainment of a desired end.
Everyone involved in the peace talks agrees that the military modalities of a
cease – fire are more easily negotiated than the political modalities.
2. Logic. a. In the scholastic logic, the fact of being a modal proposition or
syllogism. Also, the particular qualification by the presence of which a proposition is
rendered modal.
b. In Kantian and subsequent use, that feature of a judgment which is
defined by the class in which it is placed when judgments are classified into problematic,
assertory and apodictic.
Related to the problems of mixed modalities are the problems of super –
imposed or higher order modalities.
3. Civil Law. ‘The quality of being limited as to time or place of
performance, or, more loosely, of being suspended by a condition: said of a promise’
4. Psychology. a. the nature or character of sensation or stimulus as
determined by the sense – department to which it belongs or appeals.
b. A term used to denote qualitatively different attributes or traits of
personality.
There are three classes of ‘modalities’ of traits:
- dynamic traits: disposition, sentiments;
- temperament traits: general emotionality, personal tempo;
- cognitive traits: native general intelligence, acquired skills.
Most grammarians view modality as the attitude of the speaker towards the
content of the communication. On the other hand, Gramley and Pätzold (2003:123) claim
that ‘modality in English has to do with the world, not so much the way it is as the way it
might potentially be. This may revolve around people’s beliefs about it or around their
potential actions in it.’
Generally speaking, both traditional and modern grammar books analyse modality
from various points of view. Consequently they classify it as: epistemic, evidential,
deontic, dynamic, intentional, unintentional, propositional and event modality or they view
it as a matter of degree and as the attitude of the speaker.
1.1.1. Deontic vs. Epistemic Modality
As Elena Croitoru (2002:11) points out ‘a fundamental aspect in dealing with

modality is the difference between the deontic modality (ranging from permission to strong
obligation, with weak obligation as an intermediate value) and the epistemic modality
(from possibility to certainty, with probability as an intermediate value)’. In order to fully
understand the distinction between them, we will treat them in opposition:
Characteristics
DEONTIC MODALITY EPISTEMIC MODALITY
a) The perfect and the progressive aspects a) The epistemic modals have both the
are excluded. perfect and the progressive aspect.
E.g. ‘You may go,’ said the King, and the E.g. They may be having dinner now.
Hatter hurriedly left the court, without even
waiting to put his shoes on. (L. Carroll,
Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland)
b) The subject must be animated. b) The epistemic modals do not impose any
E.g. But one must fight, vanquish, have restriction on the subject.
faith in God. (V. Woolf, Mrs. Dalloway) E.g. The air must have stirred some flounce
in the room. (V. Woolf, To the lighthouse)
c) The deontic modals have past tense c) The forms: might, could, would are
forms: might, could, would etc. subjunctives not past tense equivalents.
E.g. He asked if he might spend the night in E.g. I wish he might be here.
their chalet.
Meanings
DEONTIC MODALS EPISTEMIC MODALS
MAY= permission MAY= possibility
E.g. And now, my dear young friend, if you E.g. A person may be proud without being
will allow me to call you so, may I ask if vain. (J. Austen, Pride and Prejudice)
you really meant all that you said to us at
lunch? (O. Wilde, The Picture of Dorian
Gray)
CAN= ability, permission CAN= possibility
E.g. If this girl can give a soul to those who E.g. Can it be true?
have lived without one, if she can create the
sense of beauty in people whose lives have
been sordid and ugly, if she can strip them
of their selfishness and lend them tears for
sorrows that are not their own, she is worthy
of all your adoration, worthy of the
adoration of the world. (O. Wilde, The
Picture of Dorian Gray)
MUST= obligation MUST= certainty
E.g. And remember also that in fighting E.g. ‘He must have imitated somebody
against Man, we must not come to resemble else’s hand,’ said the King. (L. Carroll,
him. (George Orwell, Animal Farm) Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland)
WILL= volition, willingness WILL= prediction, high probability

E.g. I will speak to her about it myself E.g. You will be as happy as she is one of
directly.(J. Austen, Pride and Prejudice) these days. You will be much happier, she
added, because you are my daughter. (V.
Woolf, Mrs. Dalloway)
SHOULD= obligation SHOULD= probability
E.g. Tess had drifted into a frame of mind E.g. They should have gone already – they
which accepted passively the consideration had to catch the tide or something. ( V.
that if she should have to burn for what she Woolf, To the lighthouse)
had done, burn she must, and there was an
end of it. (T. Hardy, Tess of the
D’Urbervilles)
1.1.2. Modality Viewed as a Matter of Degree and as the Attitude of the

Speaker
One can say that modality is a matter of degree because one modal concept may
have different intensities. The intensity of a modal’s value can be shown only in the
discourse context. Modality is marked out in terms of the attitude of the speaker towards
communication. The speaker is characterized as the source of the speech act while the
attitude is defined as a certain degree of belief or as the act of volition, desire, intention.
Elena Croitoru (2002:20) states that one can distinguish between the following
types of modality:
a) Intellective modality (belief, conviction, doubt, possibility, probability etc.)
b) Emotional modality (anger, admiration, love, desire, hatred, appreciation,
disapproval)
c) Volitional modality (firmness, order, necessity, request, application)
A similar theory was given by Leon Leviţchi (1970:137) who maintained that
‘in linguistics, the attitude of the transmitter towards the content of the communication is
often called modality.’ Modality is rendered by various means: phonetic, lexical,
morphological, stylistic and syntactical.
Phonetics displays many aspects of modality and is in close connection with
style and grammar. Consequently, the stylistic and the grammatical contexts may influence
such aspects of speech as : differences in word – stress, differences in sentence – stress,
differences in pitch (the utilization of the upper or lower emphatic or emotional ranges in
particular segments of speech), differences in rhythm (determined by the stress of
emotions, circumstances etc.), differences in the use of tones (hurried and high – level
tone), the use of emphatic pronunciation, the utilization of strong forms (in public oratory,
on stage, in dictation).
On the lexical plane modality can be expressed through:
a) Certain personal or finite verbs that have modal force such as ‘to like’, ‘to intend’,
‘to decide’, ‘to order’, ‘to command’, ‘to warn’;
E.g. I warn you to refrain from provoking me, or I’ll ask your abduction as a
special favour! (Emily Brontë, Wuthering Heights)
b) Other parts of speech with modal force: the noun ‘intention’, the adjective ‘sure’,
the adverb ‘firmly’.
E.g. No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal.
(George Orwell, Animal Farm)
c) The so-called parenthetical words – adverbs and adverbial phrases which lend a
colouring of modality to whole sentences: ‘likely’, ‘probably’, ‘certainly’ ‘definitely’,
‘positively’, ‘maybe’, ‘perhaps’.
E.g. But it is very likely that he may fall in love with one of them, and therefore you
must visit him as soon as he comes.
(Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice)
His eyes, of the usual blue, were perhaps remarkably cold, and he certainly could
make his glance fall on one as trenchant and heavy as an axe.
(Joseph Conrad, Heart of Darkness)
On the morphological level modality is expressed by moods, modals verbs and
modal phrases. While Bantaş (1977:378) includes interjections in this plane, Leviţchi
(1978:137) considers that they are ‘the most important of all phonetic means by which
modality can be expressed’.
The stylistic means by which modality is expressed are represented by various
stylistic devices and figures of speech, for example tautology:
E.g. ‘A stranger is a stranger, be he rich or poor: it will not suit me to permit any
one the range of the place while I am off guard’ said the unmannerly wretch.
(Emily Brontë, Wuthering Heights)
On this level we can also include stylistic inversion by means of which modality is
rendered. This occurs when:
- the predicative is placed in front position with an emphasizing role
E.g. Such was the very armour he had on
When he the ambitious Norway combated
So frown’d he once, when, in an angry parle,
He smote the sledded Polacks on the ice.
(W. Shakespeare, Hamlet, Prince of Denmark)
- the direct object can take initial position having an emphatic result
E.g. A sorrowful sight I saw: dark night coming down prematurely, and sky and
hills mingled in one bitter whirl of wind and suffocating snow.
- an adverbial modifier is placed in front position which is not its usual place:
E.g. Instantly afterwards, the company were seized with unspeakable

consternation, owing to his springing to his feet, turning round several times in an
appaling spasmodic whooping-cough dance and rushing out at the door.
(Charles Dickens, Great Expectations)
- some adverbial modifiers of place can take initial position for emphasis
E.g. There I was, on Joe’s back and there was Joe beneath me, charging at the
ditches like a hunter, and stimulating Mr. Wopsle not to tumble on his Roman nose,
and to keep up with us.
Another contradiction between Bantaş and Leviţchi appears: while the former
claims that parenthetical words belong to the syntactical level the latter argues that they are
lexical means of expressing modality.
It should be pointed out that some of the means of expression can be
supplemented or even replaced by gestures. ‘Certain gestures may be more expressive than
interjections – showing disgust, praise, satisfaction, admiration, enthusiasm etc. On the
other hand, some intonational patterns may be accompanied by adequate gestures that
emphasize the nuance of modality:
- raising one’s head or at least eyebrows and widening one’s eyes expresses curiosity;
- a shrug of the shoulders shows that the speaker is not willing to participate or to get
emotionally involved in the respective matter or even in the conversation as a whole ;
- a slow, benevolent lowering of one’s head when making statements or apologizing
indicates modesty, humility;
- the repeated nod expresses agreement and understanding in exclamations and
statements while a more emphatic movement of the same type indicates insinuation.’
(Cf. A. Bantaş 1977:380)
1.1.3. Propositional and Event Modality
There are two main types of Propositional modality: epistemic and evidential. The
former is concerned with expressing the speaker’s judgment about the factual status of the
proposition whereas the latter indicates the evidence he has for its status. The speaker’s
judgement can be speculative, deductive and assumptive:
John may be at home now. (speculative)
John must be at home now. (deductive)
John will be at home now. (assumptive)
Unlike the above examples with epistemic value, the examples below include
evidence: established facts (known by everybody), visual experience or auditory
experience:
It usually rained a lot in that part of the country and the crops were very good. (an
established fact: everybody knew that)
When I stayed in the countryside it rained every day. (visual experience: I saw it)
When I got there the villagers said that it had rained heavily. (hearsay: I was told)
Event modality is divided into deontic and dynamic. Relating to permission and
obligation with regard to an action, deontic modality expresses the fact that the
conditioning factors are external to the individual, while with dynamic modality, which
relates to ability and willingness, they are internal.
Mary can go now. (permission)
Mary must go now. (obligation)
Mary can speak Chinese. (ability )
Mary will do it for you. (willingness)
According to Palmer (2001:8) ‘epistemic modality and evidential modality are
concerned with the speaker’s attitude to the truth - value of factual status of the proposition
(Propositional modality). By contrast, deontic and dynamic modality refer to events that
are not actualized, events that have not taken place but are merely potential (Event
modality)’.
Unlike the already mentioned views on modality, Andrei Bantaş (1977: 376)
argues that ‘modality may be subdivided into two broad types: intentional and
unintentional. For instance, surprise, fear, disgust, etc. are subjective elements of an
unintentional nature, - finding their expression in interjections, and generally speaking, in
exclamatory sentences while wish, desire, passing criticism, advice or reproaches,
expressing firm opinions or standpoints, are intentional finding their expression in assertive
sentences, in statements as well as commands – therefore in declarative or imperative
sentences. On the other hand, curiosity is more or less on the border between intentional
and unintentional and, as a matter of fact, it may also differ in degree, therefore employing
variations on the patterns of interrogative sentences.’
1.1.4. Modality as Viewed by Functional Grammar
Functional Grammar classifies modality as follows:
a) inherent modality – expressing the relation between a participant and the realization of
the state of affairs in which he is involved;
b) objective modality which refers to the speaker’s evaluation of the likelihood of
occurrence of the state of affairs;
c) epistemological modality which express the speaker’s personal commitment to the
truth of the proposition. It can be subjective and evidential.
1.2. Short Overview of Widely Recognized Concepts in the Study of Modality

In her work Aspects of Modality in English (1979) Elena Bîră makes a brief
survey of some proposals for the analysis of modality in English given by works written in
the classical traditional style of Chomsky (1965), Jenkins (1972) , Newmeyer (1970),
M.A.K. Halliday (1970), Calbert (1970, 1975) and others.
In many languages the modals are, syntactically and semantically, highly
irregular, very complex and unpredictable. It is unanimously agreed that the syntactic
modals are the most complex and unsystematic aspect of English syntax.
Most traditional grammar books list the English modals among the (semi -)
auxiliary verbs, some consider them ‘modals ’with some uses and ‘auxiliaries’ with other.
The criteria of classification are the idiosyncratic, syntactic and distributional behaviours
which are viewed as signs of ‘grammaticalization ’.
In classical transformational theory (Chomsky 1965) modals are dealt with
as a special syntactic category M (odal) apart from verbs that is as an element of the
Auxiliary which is not generated by the set of rules by which V (erb) is derived along with
its complements. This theory emphasizes the syntactic status of English modals and does
not show that they are in any way related to ‘true’ verbs; nor does it account for the
systematic ambiguity of modals. The extended standard theory (Chomsky, 1970; Jenkins,
1972) allows certain surface structure properties to play a role in semantic interpretation
along with the grammatical relations of deep structure.
Several semantic analyses of the English modals have been advanced; some
point the existence of universal features such as possibility, necessity, permission etc.
which might account for what happens in all languages and which could therefore,
characterize the English modals as well as the German, French, Romanian etc. modal
verbs. Ross, for example, proposes to subclassify English verbs according to the feature
(V) and (Aux). Thus, the English modals are marked with the feature (+Aux) whereas the
non – auxiliary verbs such as ‘like’ are marked (-Aux).
This analysis has been criticized for leaving unexplained the puzzling fact
that in English modals behave differently syntactically than verbs, whereas in other
languages the opposite obtains – with certain exceptions, the modals pattern syntactically
like real verbs.
Similarly, grammarians have noticed that modals sometimes overlap in
meaning with their various paraphrases (will with be going to; can with be able to etc.).
Also, it is often claimed that modals are ‘defective’ in certain contexts and that the semi –
modals are their ‘suppletive’ forms.
The modal as main verb proposal claims that epistemic modals are subject
embedding intransitive verbs (like ‘seem’) while deontic modals occur in transitive
structures (like ‘try ’). Although many linguists have adopted this hypothesis, there seems
to remain, however, a certain disagreement as to whether modals should be analysed as
main verbs proposal on various grounds. Jenkins (1972), for example, argues that there is
very little motivation for generating modals in all the places that main verbs occur – after
other modals, in infinitive and possessive – ing clauses. Jenkins also argues that there is no
semantic or syntactic evidence for the existence of fundamentally different deep structure
for the epistemic and deontic meanings of modals.
Newmeyer (1970) also refutes the claim that ‘root’ (= deontic) modals
should be analysed as transitive complement – taking verbs in underlying structure. He
notes that ‘the root modal can often be interpreted as the epistemic modal with an added
causative or affective sense’.
The notion of causation has been used in other studies by Dakin, Antinucci
and Parisi, Calbert, Leech. Dakin noticed that any explanation can be paraphrased with
verbs such as ‘cause’ and ‘demand’ and also that there is a close relationship between these
verbs and the modals occurring in explanations. His thesis is that the modals occurring in
explanations imply some kind of ‘causality’, a ‘physical cause’, a state of affairs,
circumstances or known demands such as laws, rules, regulations etc. which may cause or
create a demand for an event.
Antinucci and Parisi (1971) borrowed Dakin’s idea of causation and
reinterpreted it in the sense that a modal always implies a cause. In their analysis, causation
is viewed as a relation between two events and not as one between a person or an object
and an event. The deontic sense of ‘must’ is analysed as the existence of an obligation on
the actualization of the state of affairs which causes the existence of the obligation. The
epistemic sense of ‘must’ is interpreted as an obligation which has as its object not the
actualization of a certain state of affairs, but the speaker’s belief.
Under this interpretation, permissive ‘may’ also implies the presence of
another event which causes the existence of permission. To say that someone may do
something is equivalent to saying that he is ‘not obliged not’ to do it. Epistemic ‘may’ too
is analysed as epistemic ‘must’ plus two negations. It says that the speaker is ‘not obliged
not ’to believe something; epistemic must says positively that the speaker is obliged to
believe something. Thus ‘may and must’ differ only in force: the former is weaker and
farther from certainty, the latter is stronger and closer to certainty.
This analysis also postulates the presence of an agent in the Fillmorian
sense.
E.g. His family {may/must} meet him at the airport.
He {may/must} be met by his family at the airport.
If interpreted epistemically the sentences are synonymous but in the deontic
reading they are not. The notion of ‘agent’ can account for the difference. In the first
sentence it is his family who receives the permission or obligation to meet him and must do
something about it, in the second sentence, however, it is ‘he’ who is the recipient of
permission and obligation and must do something about it. In the epistemic reading, the
active and passive versions of the same sentence are synonymous because the person who
expresses his belief that a state of affairs is the case is always the speaker.
Calbert (1970, 1975) also uses the notions of agency and causation but in a
different manner. The model he proposes for the generation of modal sentences is based
essentially on Fillmore’s modified version of case grammar. In this analysis, modality is
viewed as a semantic property of a higher predicate in the deep structure. Starting with the
major semantic components of the meanings of modal verbs, the inferential (epistemic) and
the non – inferential (deontic + ability) types of modality, Calbert postulates two basic
logico - semantic systems involving the concepts of possibility and obligation with the
same alternatives of volition and causation.
Calbert distinguishes between agentive (or volitive) obligation or possibility
and causal obligation or possibility. This distinction is made in terms of the source of the
modality which is agentive if it is an animate cause, typically a human being, or causal if it
is an inanimate cause, typically facts, circumstances, events etc.
Calbert also reconsiders the view that modality is the expression of the
attitude of the speaker towards the content of his utterance and redefines the terms
‘attitude’ and ‘speaker’. In his system, ‘attitude’ means ‘the act of volition or permission
(for someone to do something or for someone to infer) or a certain degree of prediction or
belief (as the result of a causal possibility or necessity’. The ‘speaker’ or source of the act
of saying is defined as the ‘animate source’ of a certain degree of ‘obligation’ or
‘possibility’ to infer in the case of volitive inferential modality.
E. Bîră (1979:35) argues that ‘Calbert’s analysis still presents some major
shortcomings by positing one general abstract structure for all modal expressions. It
assumes that they are exact semantic equivalents, which is not the case. Also, it does not
adequately account for the variations in intensity, although it admits that modality is also a
matter of degree. Nor does this analysis account for the different overtones and subtle uses
of the various kinds of modality in actual speech contexts.’
The English linguist M.A.K. Halliday uses a functional approach in his
consideration of modality in English (1970). The notion of functional diversity in language
is basic to his analysis. There are, it is claimed, three aspects of the use of language, three
basic functions:
1. the content or ideational function relatable to the speaker’s experience of the real
world;
2. the interpersonal or social role function, the expression of speech role in a
communication situation, the function whereby the speaker enters into communication
process, in its social and personal aspects ;
3. the textual or discourse function which takes on the form of a message that is
operational in the given context. All these components are normally present in an
utterance: an utterance usually embodies an element of content ‘this is what I have to say’,
an element of speaker’s involvement, ‘this is where I come in’, and a third element, ‘this is
the kind of message I want’, which gives the utterance the status of a text.
In his functional treatment of modality, Halliday distinguishes between two
systems in English syntax (1) modality and (2) modulation. In Halliday’s terms modality
represents the semantics of personal participation and is related to the category often
known as ‘speaker’s comment ’. Modality expresses ‘the speaker’s assessment of the
probability of what he is saying, or to the extent to which he regards it as self-evident.
Modulation or quasi-modality (in terms of permission, obligation, ability etc. ) is viewed as
part of the ideational content of the utterance, expressing factual conditions on the state of
affairs referred to, as the participant’s relations to the state of affairs, his ability,
circumstances etc. enabling him to carry it out. Modulation is incorporated into the content
as ideational material and represents that part of it that is oriented towards the interpersonal
– it is the content as interpreted by or filtered through the speaker. Modulation, especially
of what Halliday calls the ‘passive type’ (permission and obligation), is a condition
imposed by someone and if that someone is the speaker himself, then it becomes a kind of
modality (hence the term quasi-modality).
Modality and modulation are related, Halliday argues, to different
neighbouring systems in the grammar of English, modality to mood and modulation to
transitivity and the grammar of process and participants. There are some fundamental
differences between the two in their interaction with tense, negation, voice etc. Modality, it
is argued, has no tense polarity or voice of its own, but combines freely with them.
Modulation, however, can carry tense and negative polarity and is either inherently active
(ability and inclination) or inherently passive (permission, obligation etc.)
E. Bîră (1979:39-40) considers that ‘Halliday’s approach is a very
productive one, that a noticeable feature in this analysis is that it does not dismiss as
coincidence the fact that although the two systems of modality and modulation look
different, in fact they match very closely. The relationship between the two systems, the
differences, the similarities are all accounted for in functional terms. This analysis has
many good points in common with the theory of speech acts and the theory of discourse
analysis.’
Another survey concerning the various concepts in the study of modality
was made by Stephen J. Nagle (1989). In his study Inferential Change and Syntactic
Modality in English , he claims that logicians and semanticists identify from four ( Von
Wright 1951 ) to eight (Rescher 1968) modes or modalities, the difference in number being
as Perkins notes ‘ to some extent a matter of different ways of slicing the same cake ’.
Rescher (1968) views modality as a qualification operating on a proposition
such that ‘the entire resulting complex is itself once again a proposition’. According to him
‘not only the so-called alethic modalities (It is possible that ...),but also his epistemic
modalities (It is known or expected that...), his temporal modalities (It was yesterday the
case that ...),his boulomaic modalities (It is hoped or feared that ...), his deontic modalities
(It ought to be brought about that ....), his evaluative modalities (It is a good thing that ...),
his causal modalities (The existing state of affairs will bring it about that ...) and his
likelihood modality (It is likely that ...) all exemplify the qualification of a proposition’.(in
Alan R.White 1975:168)
Lyons (1977) in proposing a less abstract view of modality, characterizes it
as operating on ‘second-order entities, conceptual entities such as events, processes, and
states-of-affairs’. A more accessible description is that of Shepherd (1982) who states that a
modality ‘alters the neutral semantic quality of a proposition’.
Since Aristotle, scholars have focused upon necessity and possibility as central
modal notions. Contemporary linguists interested in the English modal have generally
accepted a distinction made by Hofmann (1966) between root and epistemic modals. As
Perkins (1983) notes, it was offered primarily as a syntactic distinction, but it has
inevitably taken on semantic overtones. As used today, the term root refers to modals
which indicate obligation or permission as in:
He must come here now. (obligation)
He may stay out until seven. (permission)
Root modal readings generally correlate with the logician’s deontic mode. Epistemic
modals signify the speaker’s relative state of knowledge about a situation and generally
correlate with the epistemic mode, from which the term is adopted.
Another view is that of von Wright who argues that ‘modalities are said to be de dicto
when they are about the mode or way in which a proposition is or is not true and de re
when they are about the way in which an individual thing has or has not a certain
property’. (in Alan R.White 1975:165)
1.3. Conclusion
Modality is a very complex notion that aroused the curiosity of various

grammarians, logicians and semanticists. An enthralling feature of this term is that it can be
found in every area of knowledge, from grammar to politics and psychology. As a general
view, modality is marked out in terms of the attitude of the speaker towards the content of
the communication. Both traditional and modern grammar books make a broad
classification of modality, the difference between deontic and epistemic modality being
perhaps the most highlighted. Another interesting characteristic of the term in discussion is
that besides the various means by which it can be rendered (stylistic, phonetic, lexical,
morphological and syntactical), modality can also be expressed by gestures. In analysing
modality, we can start from Chomsky’s classical transformational theory (1965) and reach
more recently approaches (E. Croitoru, 2002). Being a matter of debate among
grammarians due to its complexity, the approaches to it are often contradictory.
CHAPTER TWO:
MODALITY RELATED TO MOOD, TENSE AND ASPECT
2.1. The Time – Aspect – Modality System

Taking into consideration the fact that modality, tense and aspect are three
categories of the clause and are generally marked within the verbal complex, we can say
that they are closely associated. Elena Croitoru (2002:249 – 253) claims that ‘modality,
tense and aspect are concerned with the events, actions, situations, states etc. reported by
the utterance.’
While aspect is concerned with the nature of the action reported by the utterance, tense
makes reference to the time of the action and modality is concerned with the status of the
proposition.
However, there is a difference between these three categories because
modality refers to the status of the proposition without making any direct reference to any
characteristic of the situation, actions, states or events reported by the utterance. Tense is
related to the ‘external’ configuration of the time, i.e. the distribution of events along a
temporal line and aspect is related to the ‘internal’ structure of time, i.e. to the view in
which it is organized in a situation.
In their work A University Course in English Grammar (2002), Angela
Downing and Philip Locke argue that ‘tense, aspect and modality represent three different
angles of vision in our experience of events in time’. Tense involves visualizing events as
points in a sequence that precede or follow a central point which is usually the present
moment. Aspect involves ‘the notion of boundedness’: whether the action is visualised as
having limits or not, whether it is seen as an on-going process or as completed. With
modality, the choice is to modalise or not to modalise, that is to express our statements and
questions by means of a plain declarative or interrogative, or instead, to add by means of a
modal auxiliary a subjective meaning such as necessity, obligation, possibility, prediction
or probability.
2.2. Modality and Mood

The term modality is used to refer to a semantic category that consists of two
types of meaning: the representation of the speaker’s assessment of the likelihood that a
proposition is true or that the situation referred to by a proposition, actualizes, and the
representation of one of the factors affecting the (non) actualization of the situation
referred to, such as (un) willingness, (imp) possibility, (in) ability, obligation, necessity,
advisability, permission, prohibition, volition, etc.
Modality, which has to do with meaning, should be distinguished from mood,
which is a grammatical category. The English moods reflect different ways in which a
clause may function in communication. There is, however, a close relationship between
mood and modality taking into consideration that moods may occur with many of the
meanings that modal verbs express and that some of the modals are constituents of moods
and tenses. For example, we have simple and perfect future, present and perfect
conditional, subjunctive equivalent, which have modals as one of their constituents
(will/shall – Indicative Mood –Future tense; would/should – Indicative Mood – Future in
the past; should – Subjunctive). Although the modals ‘will’ and ‘shall’ are traditionally
viewed as markers of the future in English, this is a relative fact because all English modals
may refer to the future and there are sentences where shall/will do not express futurity but
have epistemic or deontic interpretations:
E.g. My elder sister will be twenty next week.
That will be her purse.
2.2.1. Modality and the Indicative Mood

The Indicative Mood is viewed as the mood of reality, as it expresses a state
of affairs considered as real. If there is no modal verb present, most grammarians prefer to
declare it neutral. An opposite point of view is that any human expression points to some
modality or attitude: thus the indicative includes the attitude of assertiveness, because any
statement presupposes some degree of certainty, assurance etc. Among other grammarians,
this view is shared by Andrei Bantaş (1977:375) and Elena Croitoru (2002:133).
By means of the Indicative Mood we can express the following modal
attitudes:
- irritation can be expressed by ‘ever’ and the colloquial use of ‘on earth’, ‘in the world’,
‘the hell’, ‘ the devil’
E.g. ‘What the devil is the matter?’ he asked, eyeing me in a manner that I could ill
endure, after this inhospitable treatment.
‘And why on earth don’t you let him stop? It’s just what he wants.’
‘Of course,’ cried the mother, ‘you know what he wants.’
(D.H. Lawrence, Sons and lovers)
- we can express a suggestion using the gerund after ‘how about’ and ‘what about’
E.g. How about going to the movies tonight?
- so + adjective/adverb is used to indicate consequence, result
E.g. The lurid presentment so powerfully affected her imagination in the silence of the
sleeping house that her nightgown became damp with perspiration, and the bedstead shook
with each throb of her heart.
(T. Hardy, Tess of the D’Urbervilles)
- hope is expressed by verbs such as ‘to hope’ and ‘to trust’ followed by may and might:
E.g. I just hope, I pray, that he may forget his diabolical prudence and kill me! The
single pleasure I can imagine is to die, or to see him dead!
She trusted that her son may find a good job.
- promise and threat are indicated by the verbs ‘to promise’ and ‘to threaten’ used with
that – clauses
E.g. Mrs. Bennet and her daughters apologized most civilly for Lydia’s interruption and
promised that it should not occur again.
(J. Austen, Pride and Prejudice)
- purpose is expressed by in order + that clauses:
E.g. He needed to bask himself in that smile, he said, in order that the chill of so many
lonely hours among his books might be taken off the scholar’s heart.
(N. Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter)
- probability and likelihood are expressed by a future form associated with the adverb
‘probably’
E.g. Say you said that and even Joseph will probably betray surprise.
2.2.2. Modality and the Conditional Mood

‘The Conditional Mood is modal both in form and meaning. Formally, it
makes use of modal verbs (can, could, may, might, should, would) and semantically it
expresses unreal circumstances (optional, tentative, hypothetical, counterfactual etc).’ (Cf.
E. Croitoru 2002:136). There are three types of conditional clauses, each of them
containing a different pair of tense and expressing a different kind of condition.
Conditional clauses type 1 have the verb in the if - clause in the present tense
and the verb in the main clause in the future tense. They are used to express probable
condition:
E.g. Mouse dear! Do come back again, and we won’t talk about cats or dogs either,
if you don’t like them!
(L. Carroll, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland)
Then, if you hear of me being discovered dead in a bog or a pit full of snow,
your conscience won’t whisper that it is partly your fault?
In conditional clauses type 2, the verb in the if-clause is in the past tense
simple and the verb in the main clause is in the present conditional. They are used to
express improbable condition:
E.g. If he made a good recovery, he might expect to live another three years, and he
looked forward to the peaceful days that he would spend in the corner of the big pasture.
Alone among the animals on the farm he never laughed. If asked why, he would
say that he saw nothing to laugh at.
The traditionally called third type of conditional clause has the verb in the if
-clause in the past perfect tense and the verb in the main clause in the perfect conditional. It
expresses impossible condition, ‘the time is past and the condition cannot be fulfilled
because the action in the if- clause didn’t happen.’ (A. J. Thomson, A. V. Martinet
1986:200)
E.g. If my vanity had taken a musical turn, you would have been invaluable; but as it
is, I would really rather not sit down before those who must be in the habit of hearing the
very best performers. (J. Austen, Pride and Prejudice)
- ‘Not bitten, are you?’
- ‘If I had been, I would have set my signet on the biter.’
2.2.3. Modality and the Subjunctive Mood

The English Subjunctive Mood ‘is dying out as an independent mood, its
specific functions being taken over by other moods’ (Leon Leviţchi 1970:201). It is used in
that- clauses after verbs of imperative force (urge, command, order), of reactive force
(inform, remind, warn, assume) and after emotive predicates:
E.g. The king ordered that the queen should be kept looked in her room.
They persuaded her that she should leave.
It is surprising that she should choose him.
Quirk et. al (1985:298) make a distinction between three types of subjunctive:
a) the mandative subjunctive, that can be used with any verbs in subordinate that –
clauses when the main clause contains an expression of recommendation, resolution,
demand, a use that is specific to American English and to formal style.
E.g. It is recommended that you follow your parents.
b) the formulaic subjunctive, used in clauses and certain expressions:
E.g. They said he had caused the fire in some way; be that as it may, he was
screeching most horribly.
‘Far be it from me’, he presently continued, in a voice that marked his
displeasure, ‘to resent the behaviour of your daughter.’
God forbid that I should say I am a good man – and you know I don’t say
any such thing. I am new to goodness, truly; but new comers see furthest sometimes.
Come what may, I’ll be there for you.
c) the ‘were subjunctive’, which is hypothetical in meaning and occurs in
conditional and concessive clauses, as well as in subordinate clauses after optative verbs:
E.g. ‘Take me with you’, Clarissa thought impulsively, as if he were starting
directly upon some great voyage; and then, next moment, it was as if the five acts of a play
that had been very exciting and moving were now over and she had lived a lifetime in them
and had run away, had lived with Peter, and it was now over.
(V. Woolf, Mrs. Dalloway)
In Today’s English Grammar Timothy Cobb and Richard Gardiner (1994: 88)
classify the English subjunctive as:
- optative (when it expresses a wish)
- potential( when it expresses possibility)
- irrealis (when it expresses unreality)
The irrealis is usually used in spoken and ordinary written English, the optative
and the potential being practically confined to literary English.
Mention should be made about the opposition between the indicative and the
subjunctive moods. It is especially marked in the case of to be which when conjugated in
the present subjunctive has the form ‘be’ in all persons singular and plural.
E.g. The captain demanded that the flag be lowered.
Another formal opposition is that between ‘were’ and ‘was’ in the first and
third persons singular of the past tense of ‘to be’. In expressions of doubt or unreality,
‘were’ is more usual than ‘was’.
She behaves as if she were my chief. (but she is not)
Observation: ‘In conversation, however, was is often used instead of were.’ (A. J.
Thomson, A. V. Martinet 1986:253)
The present subjunctive may alternate with the present indicative in the that –
clause but there is a difference in meaning:
E.g. I insist that he do not miss the meeting. (emphatic order)
I insist that he doesn’t miss any detail. (statement: I know he usually doesn’t)
2.2.4. Modality and the Imperative Mood

When the speaker wants to impose something by means of orders, urge,
commands, requests, suggestions, the Imperative Mood is used. It has the same form as the
bare infinitive and the person addressed is very often not mentioned, but it can be
expressed by a noun placed at the end of the phrase:
E.g. Stop being so stubborn Boxer!
Wait!
Be quiet, Jane!
Observation: The pronoun ‘you’ is used only when ‘the speaker wishes to be rude,
or wishes to make a distinction’ (A. J. Thomson, A. V. Martinet 1986: 246) as in:
E.g. You bring the glasses, John and you bring the plates George.
‘Do’ placed before the affirmative imperative could be persuasive, but could also
express irritation:
E.g. Do hurry!
Imperative sentences are used to perform speech acts with impositive force:
E.g. I order you to come back at once!
Modal values expressed by the Imperative Mood:
- prohibition is expressed by negative imperative or by brief announcements consisting of
‘no + verbal noun’:
E.g. Don’t smoke in here!
No smoking!
- command and request:
E.g. Bring the money tomorrow.
- imperative with subject is used to express irritation, annoyance and impatience :
E.g. You mind your own business.
- the verb ‘promise + that clause’ is used in the imperative to make a promise:
E.g. Promise me that you will take care of the children.
2.3. Tense and Modality

The Present Tense Simple expresses modality when it is used to perform speech
acts with imperative force such as commands, orders and requests:
E.g. Nobody goes anywhere, without my permission.
The Present Tense Continuous may express disapproval, reproach, admiration,
irritation, complaint when associated with adverbs of indefinite time and frequency:
E.g. Diana is always helping her little sister. (admiration).
It also expresses modality when used to denote actions permanently
characterizing the subject:
E.g. She is always looking down on everybody. (disapproval, reproach)
The Past Tense Simple is used after such expressions as ‘if only’; ‘it’s time’, ‘as
if’; to express hypothetical, closed or unreal states of affairs:
E.g. If only he helped me.
It’s time we went home.
She behaves as if she were mad.
Usually, this use of the preterite is called past subjunctive but some grammarians
denominate it modal past tense. One of its characteristic features is the use of ‘were’ forms
of ‘to be’ for all persons. Nevertheless, in spoken English one can also use the form ‘ was ‘
for the first and third person singular.
The Past Perfect is used in conditional, comparative clauses and other contexts
to express regret, wish, preference etc. about unreal past conditions, activities, and
circumstances:
E.g. I wish you had come to my party.
If only he hadn’t gone forever.
Depending on the context we can decide whether the form of the verb belongs to
the perfect subjunctive or to the indicative mood.
Modality can also be expressed by the future tenses because when one refers to a
future action the fulfillment of the respective action is always relative. Besides being
markers of the future tense in English, ‘will’ and ‘shall’ may have epistemic or deontic
interpretations. We can compare the following examples:
My sister will leave for Italy. (next week)
These will be my colleagues; we are supposed to have a meeting this morning.
While in the first example there is reference to future in the second ‘the hearer
interprets the content of the proposition as assessment of probability about the present.’
(Elena Croitoru 2002:132)
The Future Perfect can imply the epistemic value of probability in such examples
as:
E.g. She won’t have to cook and lay the table herself; by the time she arrives
home her husband will have done all that.
2.4. Aspect, Voice, and Modality

According to Douglas Biber et. al. (2002: 183) modals cannot combine with tense,
but they can combine with aspect and voice.
- modals with perfect aspect ( modal + have + ed – participle):
E.g. No mother could have nursed an only child more devotedly than Edgar tended
her. (Emily Brontë, Wuthering Heights)
- modals with progressive aspect ( modal + be + ing − participle):
E.g. Jane will be coming back.
- modals with passive voice (modal + be + ed – participle)
E.g. I am quite satisfied with my own name, and I am sure Mr. Gray should be
satisfied with his. (O. Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray)
They argue that although ‘the great majority of modals do not occur with
marked aspect or voice, there are a few cases which deserve discussion’.
Aspect can be used with the following modal meanings:
- should + perfect aspect shows an unfulfilled past obligation:
E.g. He should have done it long before.
- must + prefect aspect is interpreted as logical necessity; the respective event occurred at
some point in the past:
E.g. So the wind must have blown it here.
- may and might + perfect aspect are used to express a certain degree of doubt about past
events or situations.
E.g. Yesterday he confessed he might have forgotten one.
Observation: Irina Panovf (2001:122) makes a different classification and claims
that may + perfect aspect expresses possibility, must + perfect aspect shows deduction and
should + perfect aspect indicates advice:
E.g. They may have missed the train.
He must have forgotten to call her.
You should have listen to reason and stop drinking!
• Modality and Voice

According to Douglas Biber et. al. (2002:184) ‘can and could are relatively
common with passive voice. The use of the passive avoids identification of the agent of the
main verb. As a result, the permission meaning does not occur and the ability meaning is
also less likely to occur than in the active, therefore, the possibility meaning is most
common in passive:
E.g. The methods could be refined and made more accurate. (possibility)
< compare active voice: We could refine the methods. (ability)
As the above example suggests, can + passive is most common is academic prose.’
In academic prose, ‘must’ and ‘should’ are also relatively common with the
passive voice, and are used to express a kind of collective obligation. The passive voice is
useful in allowing the writer to avoid identifying who has the obligation:
E.g. Care must be taken to ensure that the diffusion in stator is kept at a
reasonable level.
The deontic value of willingness and the ability modality are inherently active:
E.g. John is willing to help.
John is able to help.
These inherently active modalities can also combine freely with voice on the
complement verb. In an active construction, like in the above examples, ‘the subject is the
source of modality as well as agent with respect to the process described by the
complement verb. If the construction is passive, there is a distinction between the deontic
modality of willingness and the ability modality’ (E. Bîră 1979:103). For instance, in the
following example:
This problem was able/could to be solved.
the inanimate subject ‘this problem’ cannot be interpreted as the origin of willingness.
Hence, we cannot say: ‘This problem was willing to be solved’. In the ‘ability’ case,
however, the passive sentences are acceptable no matter whether the surface subject is
animate or inanimate because the source of the ability is identical with the agent of the
process indicated by the complement verb.
2.5. Conclusion
Modality, tense and aspect are three different notions but they have a feature in
common: they are categories of the clause. While modality has to do with the meaning of a
proposition, tense is related to the distribution of events along a temporal line and aspect
makes reference to the view in which time is organized in a situation. Although it is a
grammatical category, mood is closely connected to modality because some of the modals
are constituents of moods and tenses and by means of them, various modal attitudes can be
expressed. In combination with modal verbs, aspect can also display modal meanings such
as: unfulfilled past obligation, logical necessity and doubt about past events. As regards
voice, we can conclude that the deontic values of willingness and ability are inherently
active; the deontic modalities of permission and obligation are inherently passive while
epistemic modality is always active.
CHAPTER THREE:
MODALITY EXPRESSED BY MODAL VERBS AND PHRASES
3.1. The Modal in Old English

In his work Inferential Change and Syntactic Modality in English (1989), Stephen
J. Nagle mentions the forms that modal verbs had in Old English. He claims that with the
exception of will, the modals belonged to an inflectional class known as ‘preterit-present
verbs’. The class was unique for several reasons:
− its membership was very small;
− its present tense was an old strong verb preterit reanalyzed as present but exhibiting
preterit morphology;
− its ‘new’ preterit tense exhibited weak verb morphology, characterized by dental
suffixes;
− most of the past participles were strong, with –en rather than a dental;
The preterit-presents that ultimately became modal auxiliaries had both modal and
non-modal senses and included:
a. agan ‘own, owe, have to’ , surviving in owe, own and ought
b. cunnan ‘physically be able to, know’ , surviving in can and could
c. durran ‘dare’, surviving in dare
d. magan ‘be mentally able to’, surviving in may and might
e. motan ‘be permitted, may, must’, surviving in must
f. sculan ‘have to, owe’ , surviving in shall and should
The history of will is very interesting because in Old English there were three
similar verbs of volition with the root wil- or will- : an anomalous verb willan; a weak
verb willian and a second weak verb wilnian which survived into Middle English.
3.2. Morphological and Syntactic Properties of the English Modals

− they do not take the concord morpheme ‘-s’ in the third person singular, present tense
simple, e.g.1*she cans/ musts/mays
− they do not have non-finite forms, e.g. *to must, to may, musting, maying
− they are defective in the sense that they cannot be conjugated in all moods and tenses
− questions, negatives, tags and short answers are made without do
E.g. Can you swim? (NOT Do you can swim?)

She shouldn’t be doing that. (NOT She doesn’t should…)
− they invert with the subject in interrogation and ‘after certain preposed negatives’
(Stephen J. Nagle 1989:9)
E.g. Must you leave so soon?

Can you speak five languages?
Never again would the prisoner see the light of day.
− they can be directly negated by ‘not’
E.g. You may not leave the room.

He should not come here.
Observation: Their contracted negative forms (won’t, can’t etc.) are used in an
informal style; ‘shan’t and mayn’t are only used in British English; mayn’t is very rare, will
and would also have contracted affirmative forms (‘ll, ‘d)’ ( Michael Swan 2001:334)
− a modal verb is always the first word in a verb phrase
E.g. You should stay home and take a rest.

− ‘they have no imperatives: *Can be here! *Must come now!’ (F. Palmer 2001:100)
1
* incorrect forms
− they are complemented by a verb in its short infinitive form, ‘they do not take direct
object complements unlike their cognates in other Germanic languages’ (Stephen J. Nagle
1989:9)
− There is used as ‘ a preparatory subject with modal verbs especially when these are
followed by be’ ( Michael Swan 2001:334)
E.g. There may be rain later today.
3.3. Modal Auxiliary Verbs

Irina Panovf (2001:106) states that ‘at the level of linguistic manifestation, modal
verbs represent one of the two basic sets of expressing modality along with the verb
category of mood.’ The verbs can, could, may, might, will, would, shall, should, must and
ought to are called modal auxiliary verbs. ‘Time, status and relevance are used to report
what happened, what is going to happen etc. In addition to these three types of information,
it is possible to express an attitude or evaluation of a situation. For example, we can
indicate that an action is probable or that it is contrary-to-fact; we can indicate that there is
permission or an obligation to do something. Modal auxiliaries and phrases are used in
order to give the speaker’s or writer’s point of view about a situation.’ (Irwin Feigenbaum
1985:115)
• SHALL is used:
− to express a threat or a command, in affirmative statements with a second-person
subject
E.g. You shall catch it for this, my gentleman, when you get home!
− to express a promise
E.g. Trust me, good jailer, you shall briefly have peace in your house; and, I promise
you, Mistress Prynne hereafter be more amenable to just authority than you may have
found her heretofore. (N. Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter)
You shall have a beautiful present for your birthday if you behave well.
Observation: M.M. Zdrenghea and A.L. Greere(1999:266) argue that ‘both uses are
old-fashioned and formal and normally avoided in modern English. Shall (=command) is
now used only in regulations and legal documents. In colloquial English, it is replaced by
must or be to.’
− to express supposition
E.g. He shall be mercenary and she shall be foolish.
− in offers
E.g. Shall I give you a ride, Miss Havisham?
− to express an intention
E.g. Look here, I have bought this bonnet. I do not think it is very pretty; but I thought I
might as well buy it or not. I shall pull it to pieces as soon as I get home, and see if I can
make it up any better.
− in requests for advice, orders, suggestions in the first person singular and plural, in
short questions
E.g. ‘Shall we go through the wood a little way?’ she asked him, knowing he never
refused a direct request. (D.H. Lawrence, Sons and lovers)
‘Shall we try another figure of the Lobster-Quadrille?’ the Gryphon went on.
‘Shall we go a walk on Monday?’ he asked. She turned her face aside.
− in formal rules and regulations

E.g. No player shall knowingly pick up or move the ball of another player.
− it can be used to emphasize something which the speaker feels is certain to happen or
wants to happen
E.g. I shall definitely give up smoking this year.
• SHOULD is used with the following modal connotations:

− moral obligation or duty
E.g. You should tell the truth.

− something that the speaker considers to be a correct, sensible action
E.g. An artist should create beautiful things, but should put nothing of his own life into
them.
(O. Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray)
− recommendation
E.g. I think you should talk it over with your parents.
− assumption
E.g. He should be very proud of Andrew if he got a scholarship, he said.
(V. Woolf, To the lighthouse)
Observation: According to A. J. Thomson and A. V. Martinet (1986:149)
‘assumptions with should are less confident than assumptions with will.’
− criticism of an action
E.g. You shouldn’t have lost your temper.
− after ‘in case’ to emphasize unlikelihood
E.g. I’m taking an umbrella in case it should rain.
− with ‘what’, ‘who’, ‘where’ in dramatic expressions of surprise
E.g. What should I find but an enormous spider!
− after ‘lest’ in expressions of fear and anxiety
E.g. For some days, I even kept close at home, and looked out at the kitchen door with
the greatest caution and trepidation before going on an errand, lest the officers of the
Country Jail should pounce upon me. (Charles Dickens, Great Expectations)
− advice
E.g. You should take a walk in the park, it’s gorgeous!
• WILL is used:
− to express supposition
E.g. He’ll be there by now.

By now he will be eating dinner.
− to indicate an estimation
E.g. This hall will hold a thousand people.

− to express probability or likelihood
E.g. This will be the book you are looking for, I think.
− it can also express obstinate insistence, usually habitual
E.g. If you will keep your watch half an hour slow it is hardly surprising that you are
late for your appointments.
− invitation
E.g. Will you have something to drink?
− to express prediction
E.g. Your brother will be pleased; the old lady and gentleman will not object, I think;
you will escape from a disorderly, comfortless home into a wealthy, respectable one; and
you love Edgar, and Edgar loves you.
She will go all day without eating.
− instead of the simple present in generally valid truths
E.g. Oil will float/floats on water.
− to express a polite request
E.g. Will you show me how to do this?
Observation: According to A. J. Thomson and A. V. Martinet (1986:246) ‘it is
possible to use you will for spoken commands’
E.g. ‘I'll leave you to-morrow, sir.’
‘No, you will not leave me to-morrow!’
You will not mention this meeting to anyone.
• WOULD indicates:
− past intention
E.g. She said she would write to him.
− strong supposition
E.g. Such an action would estrange the pair for ever from the Fynes!
(Joseph Conrad, Chance)
Observation: M.M. Zdrenghea and A.L. Greere (1999:264-265) claim that both
‘will’ and ‘would’ are used to express supposition but ‘would’ expresses a supposition with
a higher degree of certainty.
− would can refer to an annoying habit, typical of a person
E.g. Jack would get lost, wouldn’t he! It’s typical!
− stubbornness, lack of willingness
E.g. But John wouldn’t hear of that, at all, and again opened his mouth very wide, and
shook the form of a most emphatic word out of it.
− a past habit
E.g. Later, when the time for the baby grew nearer, he would bustle round in his
slovenly fashion, poking out the ashes, rubbing the fire-place, sweeping the house before
he went to work.
When we worked together we would often have lunch together.
− a characteristic action, usually one which annoys the speaker
E.g. You would spoil everything, wouldn’t you?
− would rather/sooner expresses preference
E.g. It was her grandmother's brooch; she would rather have lost anything but that, and
yet Nancy felt, though it might be true that she minded losing her brooch, she wasn’t
crying only for that. (V. Woolf, To the lighthouse)
I would rather stay at home.
− in polite requests
E.g. Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?
Would you please shut the door?
Observation: ‘The requests built up with would are considered to be more polite
than the ones with will.’ (C. Paidos 2001:91)
− ‘you’ll… won’t you?’ is a persuasive type of request used mainly among friends
E.g. You’ll write to me, won’t you?
− ‘perhaps you would’ implies confidence that the other person will perform your request
E.g. Perhaps you would let me know when your new stock arrives.
• CAN is used to show:

− ability (either intellectual or physical)
E.g. She can speak five languages.

He can run very fast.
Observation: Ability can also be expressed by means of ‘be able to’. There are,
however, the following rules to be followed:
▪ ‘In the present, either can or am/are/is able may be used. Can is, however, the
form preferred: Can you translate this text from English?
▪ For the present perfect only be able is used: Since the accident he hasn’t been
able to walk.
▪ In the future will be able is used: When he has learned more words in English,
he will be able to speak fluently.
▪ In the infinitive to be able is used: I want to be able to type fast.’ (M.M.
Zdrenghea and A.L. Greere 1999:255)
− permission
E.g. You can go now.
− possibility (= circumstances permit)
E.g. The road can be blocked.
− impossibility or disbelief
E.g. I cannot live without my life! I cannot live without my soul!
− with verbs of perception to replace the simple present
E.g. I can see in his face what a churl he is.
− ‘can I?’ is the most informal request for permission
E.g. Can I park my car in front of your house?
Observation: ‘The negative-interrogative forms can’t I? and couldn’t I? are used to
show that the speaker hopes for an affirmative answer:’ (A. J. Thomson and A. V. Martinet
1986:130)
E.g. Can’t we save the drawings?
(D.H. Lawrence, Women in love)
• COULD is used:
− to express a physical or mental ability
E.g. Muriel, the goat, could read somewhat better than the dogs, and sometimes used to
read to the others in the evenings from scraps of newspaper which she found on the
rubbish heap.
− possibility or uncertainty
E.g. This could be the house.
− general permission in the past
E.g. On Sundays, we could stay up till late.
Observation: ‘For special permission was/were allowed are used in the affirmative,
while both could and was/were allowed are used in the negative, e.g. They had a break so
they were allowed to go out and play. They had no break so they couldn’t’/weren’t allowed
to go out and play. For perfect and passive constructions allow is used: e.g. There’s nothing
wrong with it: the boy has been allowed to take any cassette he wants.’ (I. Panovf
2001:108)
− to make a suggestion
E.g. We could go to that new restaurant opposite the cinema.
− with comparative adjectives to express possibility or impossibility
E.g. The situation couldn’t be worse.
• MAY is used to express:

− a wish
E.g. ‘Her life closed in a gentle dream - may she wake as kindly in the other world!’
‘May she wake in torment!’ he cried, with frightful vehemence, stamping his foot,
and groaning in a sudden paroxysm of ungovernable passion.
May God grant you happiness!
− a possibility
E.g. Nobody knows for certain. He may die, of course.

(D.H. Lawrence, Women in love)
He may still come.
− permission
E.g. Now that you say she may go, she’ll doubtless avail herself of the permission.
Come here! You may kiss me, if you like.
Observation: ‘With this meaning, may can be replaced by to be allowed to/to be
permitted to: You may go to the cinema this week, you were allowed/permitted to go to the
cinema last week, and you will be allowed/permitted to go there next week, too.’ (C.
Paidos 2001:77)
− purpose
E.g. He comes here that he may see your picture.
− a polite request
E.g. ‘Pray, sir’ said I, ‘may I ask you a question?’
‘You may,’ said he, ‘and I may decline to answer it. Put your question.’
− to express doubt, uncertainty
E.g. Who may that old man be?
− to express prohibition (especially in official notices)
E.g. Candidates may not bring dictionaries into the examination room
• MIGHT is used:
− to express possibility in the present or future
E.g. They might come today/tomorrow.
− irritation or reproach are expressed by might + perfect infinitive
E.g. You might have sent me a card!

− ‘you might’ is used to express a command
E.g. You might help your little brother.
Observation: A. J. Thomson and A. V. Martinet (1986:249) claim that ‘you might
can express a very casual request: You might post these for me. But it can only be used in
friendly relaxed situations, otherwise it would sound rude.’
− ‘might as well’ is used to indicate intention, with a first –person subject
E.g. I might as well do it now.
− ‘might just as well’ is used to indicate an alternative (usually not a very desirable one)
E.g. ‘You might just as well say,’ added the Dormouse, which seemed to be talking in its
sleep ‘that I breathe when I sleep is the same thing as I sleep when I breathe.’
You might just as well jump in the lake.
• MUST is used to express:

− obligation for present or future
E.g. ‘Oh! certainly,’ cried his faithful assistant ,‘no one can be really esteemed
accomplished who does not greatly surpass what is usually met with. A woman must have
a thorough knowledge of music, singing, drawing, dancing, and the modern languages, to
deserve the word; and besides all this, she must possess a certain something in her air and
manner of walking, the tone of her voice, her address and expressions, or the word will be
put half-deserved.’ (J. Austen, Pride and Prejudice)
Observation: ‘Have to can also be used in affirmative statements in the present.
They both express obligation, but must expresses obligation imposed by the speaker: You
must stay here until you finish your assignments; have to expresses external obligation: You
have to leave now or you’ll miss the train.’ (M.M. Zdrenghea and A.L. Greere 1999:259)
− advice for future
E.g. You must take care, that you lose not both families.
(S. Richardson, Clarissa)
You must go for a walk, the weather is lovely.
− deduction
E.g. He must have thought I was dispassionately considering his proposal, because he
became as sweet as honey.
(Joseph Conrad, Lord Jim)
− ‘must not’ is used to express a prohibition
E.g. Visitors must not feed the animals.
• OUGHT TO
In his work The Significance of Sense: Meaning, Modality and Morality, Roger
Wertheimer (1972) makes an extensive analysis of the modal verb ‘ought’. Starting from
the idea that ‘ought’ and ‘should’ were originally the preterite form of verbs meaning ‘to
owe’ and that the former is simpler while the latter is ambiguous the author presents
‘ought’ in comparison with ‘should’ especially, but he also makes reference to the other
modal verbs.
In his account of the modals, Wertheimer places ‘ought’ between ‘must’ and ‘may’.
He states that ‘the modal auxiliary system contains twelve words, but, for my purposes,
less than half need attention. Four of them, could, might, would and should are essentially
past or conditional forms of four other modals: can, may, will and shall. The modal use of
two words dare and need is dying out, especially in America. (…) Intuitively, must
expresses the idea of necessity, can that of possibility and will that of future actuality. (…)
Further, while may is sometimes interchangeable with can, in another set of uses may
means something stronger than can. To say He may succeed is to say more than it is
possible he will succeed; it implies that there is some probability that he will succeed.
Ought fits between must and may; it is weaker than must and stronger than may, even
where may is stronger than can. To say The roast ought to be done is to say more than that
there is some probability that it is done, it implies that the probability is fairly high or that
one can legitimately expect it to be done. Such facts suggest that the definition of ought
may be a precipitate of an examination of the other modals and their relation to ought.’ (R.
Wertheimer 1972:83-84)
‘Ought to’ is used to express:
− moral obligation or duty
E.g. She ought to have known her own mind; no dependable woman made these
mistakes.
(J. Galsworthy, The Forsyte Saga)
You ought to be a more considerate husband.
− reproach
E.g. ‘You ought to be ashamed of yourself for using such wicked words!’ cried Tess
with spirit, from the top of the hedge into which she had scrambled.
− advice
E.g. You ought to be nicer to him if you need his affection.
− logical deduction
E.g. If they started at dawn, they ought to be there by now.
− disapproval on the part of the speaker for past actions
E.g. You ought to have told me that there was no more coffee in the house.
They ought not to have asked her; she ought not to have come.
(V. Woolf, To the lighthouse)
Besides the modal defective verbs, Alice Badescu (1935:140) mentions that the
following structures are also defective:
▪ Beware (= be + wary) – used only in the imperative mood
E.g. Shouldst thou fail me in this, beware! His fame, his position, his life will be in my
hands. Beware! (N. Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter)
▪ Me-seems (= it seems to me)
▪ Me-thinks (= I think)
▪ Quoth (= says,said) – it is used only in the first and third persons and it appears in front of
the subject.
E.g. ‘I am not such a fool as I look, quoth Plato to his disciples,’ he said sententiously,
emptied his glass with great resolution, and we rose.
▪ Wont (= accustomed)
E.g. ‘Nay, mother, I have told all I know,’ said Pearl, more seriously than she was
wont to speak. (N. Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter)
▪ Y-clept (= called)
3.4. Semi-Modals
There has always been a problem in giving a systematic account of the modals.
Along with modal verbs proper there are also certain ‘quasi-modals’ or ‘semi-modals’ that
have both modal and ‘ordinary verb’ forms. The verbs in question are ‘need’, ‘dare’ and
‘used to’. According to Irina Panovf (2001), Stephen J. Nagle (1989), M.M. Zdrenghea and
A.L. Greere (1999) , A. J. Thomson and A. V. Martinet (1986) and Elena Croitoru (2002)
they are semi-modals while John Eastwood (1994), B.D. Graver (1986) and Michael Swan
(2001) include them in the list of modal auxiliary verbs. In our paper, we will treat them as
semi-modals.
• DARE
In the affirmative ‘dare’ is conjugated as an ordinary verb and is followed by an
infinitive with ‘to’. In the negative and interrogative it can be conjugated either like an
ordinary verb or like a modal verb.
E.g. He does not dare / dare not
He did not dare / dared not
Does he dare? / dare he?
Did he dare? / dared he?
According to A. J. Thomson and A. V. Martinet (1986:150) ‘dare is not much used
in the affirmative except in the expression I daresay.’ This expression is used with the first
person singular only and it has two meanings:
a) ‘I suppose’
E.g. When I leave town now I never tell my people where I am going. If I did, I
should lose all my pleasure. It is a silly habit, I daresay, but somehow it seems to bring a
great deal of romance into one’s life. (O. Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray)
I daresay there’ll be taxis at the station.
b) ‘I accept what you are saying, but it doesn’t make any difference’
E.g. But the watch was given to me; I didn’t buy it.
I daresay you didn’t, but you’ll have to pay duty on it all the same.
As an ordinary verb, it is used with the meaning ‘to challenge’ (but only to deeds requiring
courage). It is followed by an object + a long infinitive:
E.g. I dare you to jump of that cliff.
When used as a modal verb, ‘dare’ indicates indignation or reproach by means of the
expression ‘how dare (d) you/he/they?’
E.g. How dare you tell me what to do?
• NEED
When used as an ordinary verb, ‘need’ has the meaning of ‘to require’, ‘to be in
need of’. As a modal, it is synonymous with ‘have to’ and its forms are need, need
not/needn’t for all persons in the present and future and in indirect speech.
E.g. ‘You needn’t bring the book till Monday’ she said.
She said that I needn’t bring the book till Monday.
In formal English, ‘it can be used with half negative adverbs such as hardly, barely,
scarcely, seldom, etc.’ (Irina Panovf 2001:120)
E.g. I need hardly say that he came late as usual.
It is used to show:
− an unnecessary action
E.g. You needn’t have bought so much fruit, we already have apples, oranges and
bananas in the house.
− an external authority
E.g. Holidays have started so children need not go to school for the time being.
− the speaker’s authority or advice
E.g. You need not be afraid. Our countrymen never recognize a description.
We needn’t hurry; we’ve got plenty of time.
You needn’t do it by hand. I’ll land you my machine.
Observation: One must distinguish between the three ways of expressing past
actions with the help of ‘need’: didn’t need to..., needn’t have + past participle and hadn’t
got to. The former construction shows that the action was not necessary but it was not
performed, the latter expresses an unnecessary action which was performed and the last is
not normally used for habitual actions.
E.g. I didn’t need to knock at the door since it was open. (so I didn’t knock )
I needn’t have knocked at the door since, in this way, I awoke the baby. (but I
knocked)
Constantin Paidos (2001:85) claims that ‘there are two idiomatic constructions with
need which, although considered to be archaic, must be taken into account:
Must needs underlines the idea of external necessity or obligation:
E.g. You must needs see that man today. (You must see him by all means)
Needs must has a strong sarcastic meaning:
E.g. She needs must ring me now when I have so much work to do.’
• USED TO is used only in the past and is followed by the full infinitive. It has no
present form, so for present habits one must use the present tense simple.
E.g. I take a walk through the park daily.
I used to take a walk through the park every day.
It is used to express:
− a past routine or habit
E.g. I remember that at a later period of my "time" I used to stand about the churchyard
on Sunday evenings when night was falling, comparing my own perspective with the
windy marsh view, and making out some likeness between them by thinking how flat
and low both were, and how on both there came an unknown way and a dark mist and
then the sea.
When we were young we used to swim and lie in the sun.
Observation: When expressing a past routine or habit, ‘used to’ can be replaced by
‘would’. T. Cobb and R. Gardiner (1994:84) argue that ‘the difference between would and
used to is a. that would does not emphasize the contrast between past and present as used
to does; b. that used to does not necessarily express repetition; c. that whereas used to
implies appreciable extent in the past, the action or state expressed by would + inf. may
cover a very brief space of time or be just momentary; d. that would usually implies
personal interest, whereas used to is more objective.’
E.g. He would spend every penny he earned on books.
− a discontinued habit which contrasts with the present
E.g. He used to drink alcohol; now he drinks spring water.
Observation: ‘One should not confuse used to (expressing a past habit) and to
be/get used to meaning to be/get accustomed to followed by a noun or a gerund:
She is/gets used to such noises.
Years ago most people used to spend their holiday at the seaside, but now,
because of the high prices, they are/get used to spending their holiday not very far from
their homes.’ (C. Paidos 2001:94)
3.5. Modal Verbs in Proverbs

There are a lot of proverbs that include one of the modal verbs. We consider that it
is both interesting and useful to be acquainted with them.
CAN
The leopard can never change its spots.
What is done cannot be undone.
You can’t teach an old dog new tricks.
Never leave till tomorrow what you can do today.
You can take a horse to the water but you can’t make him drink.
You cannot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.
You can’t judge a book by its cover.
MAY/MIGHT
Pigs might fly.
A cat may look at a king.
Much good may it do you!
Men may come and men may go.
MUST
If the mountain will not come to Mohamed, Mohamed must go to the mountain.
As one makes one’s bed, so one must lie on it.
Needs must when the devil drives.
Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.
The show must go on.
NEED
Good wine needs no bush.
Need something as much as one needs a hole in the head.
Need a long spoon to sup with the devil.
SHALL/SHOULD
People who live in glass houses should never throw stones.
He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword.
The last shall be first.
The cobbler should stick to his last.
WILL/WOULD
Give him enough rope and he will hang himself.
Scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours.
Do as you would be done by.
Give somebody an inch and he’ll take an ell.
3.6. Conclusion
Modal auxiliary verbs represent, perhaps, the most common way of expressing
modality in English. Their frequent appearance in grammar books doesn’t make the subject
easier if we take into account the different views that grammarians exhibit and the
classifications made. The difficulty of the subject lays in the fact that a modal verb may
have different modal connotations and the same modal value may be expressed by different
modal verbs. Besides the modal auxiliary verbs, modality can also be expressed by the
different equivalents they have and by semi-modals. Unlike the modal verbs proper that are
different in form and possess other features than ordinary verbs, the semi-modals can
behave either as modal verbs or as ordinary verbs.
CHAPTER FOUR:
MODALITY AND PRAGMATICS
4.1. General remarks

Communication and language production are bound to human beings and extra-
linguistic situations. Any adequate description of an utterance should account for the
relationships between the real-world, extra-linguistic context and the linguistic choices
made by the participants in the discourse. The participants’ choices of the right modal verb
or modal expression involve pragmatic elements in addition to the syntactic and semantic
ones.
When discussing about pragmatics, the distinction between sentence and utterance
is of utmost importance. Stephen C. Levinson (1983:18) states that ‘a sentence is an
abstract theoretical entity defined within a theory of grammar, while an utterance is the
issuance of a sentence, a sentence analogue, or sentence-fragment, in an actual context.
Empirically, the relation between an utterance and a corresponding sentence may be quite
obscure, but is customary to think of an utterance as the pairing of a sentence and context,
namely the context in which the sentence was uttered.’
According to Elena Croitoru (2002:22) the pragmatic perspective on modality is
relevant for the following reasons:
▪ ‘According to the pragmatic perspective, modals have different illocutionary forces
depending on the identity of the participants in the discourse.
▪ The essential aspect of the pragmatic dimension of modals is that they are interactional
because they involve interactants in situations in which they try to dominate.
▪ Modals express the participants’ attitudes towards their interlocutors and establish the
connection between the performance of a given act and the world.
▪ As pragmatics is non-truth-conditional and proposes felicity conditions instead, it requires
a pragmatic treatment of modals which are essentially non-truth-functional.’
Concerning the close relationship between modality and pragmatics, mention
should be made about the fact that every sentence contains presuppositions of some kind
and the modals are used to distinguish between the types of presuppositions. A familiar
presupposition is illustrated in the following examples:
I must finish this paper.
I have to finish this paper.
The obligation of finishing the paper exists in both sentences, but in the first sentence the
speaker identifies with the necessity of performing the action and somehow admits his
validation of it, whereas in the second sentence an imposed action is implied. There is
inner obligation in the former example; the speaker considering that it is necessary for him
to finish the paper, nobody and nothing obliges him to do it. The modal connotation in the
latter example is that of external obligation (the speaker is obliged by someone to finish it,
there is no way out).
4.2. Modality and Context

Elena Bîră (1979:52) states that Fillmore (1974) has defined syntax, semantics and
pragmatics as follows:
Syntax: form, characterises the grammatical forms that occur in a language: the
structural organization of sentences and the co-occurence possibilities among lexical items
in particular kinds of grammatical constructions.
Semantics: form + function, relates the grammatical forms with their potential
communicative functions, that is with what users of a language can do with these forms, in
terms of the propositional content they can be used to express as well as the speech acts
they can be used to perform.
Pragmatics: form + function + context, is concerned with the threefold relation
between linguistic forms, their communicative functions and the contexts or settings in
which given linguistic forms can have given functions.
Fillmore has emphasized the necessity to ‘contextualize’, to anchor utterances in
some social system as a condition for understanding how they can be used, under what
circumstances, the role that they can play in ongoing conversations etc. In the discourse
context one can best see what the participants are doing and what they are experiencing;
that the illocutionary act potential of a sentence can be made most explicit and must be
studied.
A modal verb can have different values in different contexts. For instance, the
modal verb ‘will’ has different values in the following examples:
− I will walk with you as far as your home.’
‘O, yes,’ she answered with a jaded gait. ‘Walk with me if you will!’ (volition)
− It will be amusing to go to these eurythmic displays, and the German opera, the
German theatre. (prediction in the present)
(D.H. Lawrence, Women in Love)

− But humanity never gets beyond the caterpillar stage – it rots in the chrysalis, it never
will have wings. (prediction in the future)
(D.H. Lawrence, Women in Love)
− Women will be women. (permanent characteristic of the subject)
− I will call in this evening and we will talk it over. (determination)
− He will call on us twice a week. (habitual behaviour, frequency in the present)
− I will take due care of the child, leave him where he is, or take him with you, as you
please. (promise) (D. Defoe, Moll Flanders)
− ‘Stop, Basil! I won't hear it!’ cried Dorian, leaping to his feet. ‘You must not tell me
about things. What is done is done. What is past is past.’ (refusal, lack of willingness)
− I will put an end to those endless talks. (determination)
− Will you go to bed! (order)
− Will you fill up these forms in ten minutes? (request)
− ‘Will you have some breakfast?’ I said. ‘You must be hungry, rambling about all night!’
(invitation)
‘Besides syntactic and semantic elements, pragmatic factors are clearly involved in
the use and choice of modal expressions. The rules that enable one to define and classify
them, to account for their often peculiar behaviour, to tell whether they are appropriately
used and determine that use are also to be found in the area of pragmatics, in the real -
world context of the utterance; one has to know not only the syntactic features and
semantic values but also the social position assumed by participants in the discourse, the
relationship between speaker and addressee, between speaker and the surface subject,
between the source and the goal of the modality; also the contextual assumptions shared by
participants in the discourse, the impression the speaker wants to make on the hearer etc.’
( E. Bîră 1979:54)
The equivalence between two modals, between a modal and a ‘cognate’ verb or
between a modal and a modal phrase is a good example to consider. For instance, ‘must’
and ‘have to’ express obligation. Although the concept of obligation is present in both,
there are contexts where only one is possible or appropriate. In the following examples,
one should notice that only one modal corresponds in Romanian to the two English verbs:
You must wear a black dress tonight.
You have to wear uniform in the army.
In the first example, the obligation is imposed by the speaker while in the second
there is some external authority that sets the obligation. Romanian uses one modal ‘a
trebui’ for both ‘must’ and ‘have to’ and does not make the distinction between obligation
imposed by the speaker and obligation derived from other constraints.
From the modal expressions available to him, a speaker will make the choice that
best suits his communicative intentions in a particular contextual situation. To conclude we
can say that one should stress the importance of contextual, pragmatic factors, in addition
to the syntactic and semantic ones, for an adequate interpretation of modal expressions.
4.3. Modality and Translation

As Elena Croitoru (2002:28) points out ‘the relationship between the linguistic
choices made by the participants in the discourse and the real world extra−linguistic
context has cross−linguistic significance, because the source language may use some
verbal forms, modal expressions or modal verbs to express a certain modal concept,
whereas the target language may use other means. If the background knowledge for
communication is culturally different it may bring about translation errors which consist in
choosing the wrong modal.’
Generally speaking, it is difficult for a foreign speaker of English to transpose
correctly the nuances of modality from an English text. In order to do that, he must know
the means by which the respective modal concepts are expressed in English. It is
interesting to study the choice of the modal verbs and other parts of speech expressing
modality in the excerpt below:
And musing thus on the general inclination of our instincts towards injustice I met
unexpectedly, at the turn of the road, as it were, a shape of duplicity. It might have been
unconscious on Mrs. Fyne’s part, but her leading idea appeared to me to be not to keep,
not to preserve her brother, but to get rid of him definitely. She did not hope to stop
anything. She had too much sense for that. Almost any one out of an idiot asylum would
have had enough sense for that. She wanted the protest to be made, emphatically, with
Fyne’s fullest concurrence in order to make all intercourse for the future impossible. Such
an action would estrange the pair for ever from the Fynes! She understood her brother and
the girl too. Happy together, they would never forgive that outspoken hostility — and
should the marriage turn out badly. . . . Well, it would be just the same. Neither of them
would be likely to bring their troubles to such a good prophet of evil. (Joseph Conrad,
Chance)
Si cugetand astfel la înclinatia generala a instinctelor noastre impotriva
nedreptatii, am vazut pe neasteptate, la cotitura drumului, ca sa spun asa, chipul
ipocriziei. Putea fi inconstienta la doamna Fyne, dar ideea ei principala imi parea a fi nu
aceea de a-l apara pe fratele ei, ci de a scapa definitiv de el. Nu spera sa împiedice nimic.
Avea prea multa judecata pentru asta. Si aproape oricine, afara doar de un idiot dintr-un
ospiciu, ar fi avut destula minte sa inteleaga asta. Vroia ca protestul ei sa fie facut,în mod
ferm, cu deplinul acord al lui Fyne, pentru a face imposibile relatiile pentru viitor. O
asemenea actiune îi va înstraina pe cei doi de sotii Fyne pentru totdeauna! Îi întelegea pe
fratele ei si pe fata. Daca vor fi fericiti împreuna, nu vor uita niciodata ostilitatea fatisa –
iar daca cumva casatoria ar iesi prost...Ei bine, ar fi acelasi lucru. Niciunul dintre ei,
probabil, nu-si va marturisi necazul unui atat de bun profet al raului. (our translation)
The adverbs ‘unexpectedly’, ‘definitely’ and ‘emphatically’ give a colouring of
modality to the text because each of them carries a modal connotation: ‘unexpectedly’
expresses surprise, ‘definitely’ expresses high probability in the narrator’s judgment and
‘emphatically’ is used in this context to express strong desire, to stress the importance of an
action in the performer’s opinion. We consider that it would be a mistake to translate them
in the literal sense (that is ‘brusc’, ‘precis’, ‘accentuat’) because the text would became
nonsensical for the reader and the nuance of modality would clearly disappear.
In the meaning of ‘might have been’ which shows possibility, we can also notice a
shadow of doubt about a past action if we take into account the presence of the adversative
conjunction ‘but’. Moreover, there may be ambiguity between ‘would estrange’ and ‘îi va
înstraina’, if translated ‘i-ar înstraina’ the nuance of modality would be lost; in this context
‘would’ is not a conditional present but it is used modally in order to express strong
supposition. As we know, both ‘would’ and ‘will’ express supposition the difference being
that ‘would’ is used to express a supposition with a higher degree of certainty.
Towards the end of the text we have two ‘hidden’ conditional clauses that might
bring translation problems. Happy together, they would never forgive that outspoken
hostility is a type 1 one conditional clause (Daca vor fi fericiti împreuna, nu vor uita
niciodata ostilitatea fatisa); this is again a case when ‘would’ is used instead of ‘will’ to
express a supposition with a higher degree of certainty. Should the marriage turn out
badly. . . Well, it would be just the same is a type 2 conditional clause (Daca cumva
casatoria ar iesi prost...Ei bine, ar fi acelasi lucru) where should is used to indicate that
the action is possible but improbable.
4.4. Conclusion
The pragmatic perspective is involved in the speaker’s choice of the right modal
verb in addition to the syntactic and semantic elements. According to the pragmatic
perspective, the modal ‘force’ that a modal verb has in a certain context depends on the
identity of the speaker. A modal verb expresses the speaker’s attitude towards his
interlocutor and establishes the connection between the performance of a given act and the
world. In conformity with this perspective, every sentence contains presuppositions of
some kind and the modals are used to distinguish between these presuppositions.
Moreover, contextualization is of utmost importance because only in the discourse context
the meanings and functions of a modal verb, a modal expression or a verbal form can be
determined. The intensity of modality, the equivalence of semantically related modal verbs
or modal phrases can also be proved in the social context. Problems may occur in
translation, especially when a foreign speaker of English translates a text in which modal
connotations are to be found. If he is not acquainted with the means by which the
respective modal connotations are expressed, translation errors may occur.
CONCLUSIONS
In this paper we approached modality from many different angles and all the
information provided led to the attainment of our main purpose that of presenting the
means of expressing modality in English. It’s worth mentioning that the stylistic, phonetic,
lexical and grammatical methods are the most notable.
All the research undertaken points to the conclusion that modality is a very
complex phenomenon that aroused the curiosity of various grammarians, logicians and
semanticists. Modality can be found in many areas of knowledge from grammar to politics
and psychology. As a general view, modality is marked out in terms of the attitude of the
speaker towards the content of the communication. Both traditional and modern grammar
books make a broad classification of modality, the difference between deontic and
epistemic modality being, perhaps, the most highlighted.
Special attention should be given to the interaction between modality, mood, tense,
aspect and voice. While modality has to do with the meaning of a proposition, tense is
related to the distribution of events along a temporal line and aspect makes reference to the
view in which time is organized in a situation. There is a close relationship between mood
and modality because moods may occur with many of the meanings expressed by modal
verbs and some of the modals are constituents of moods. In combination with modal verbs,
aspect can also display modal meanings such as: unfulfilled past obligation, logical
necessity and doubt about past events. As far as the relation voice – modality is concerned,
one should bear in mind that the deontic values of willingness and ability are inherently
active; the deontic modalities of permission and obligation are inherently passive while
epistemic modality is always active.
As we noticed, modal verbs represent the most common way of expressing
modality in English. Even if at a first glance the subject may seem easy it turned out to be
quite complex. In addition, modality can also be expressed by the different equivalents that
modal verbs have as well as by semi-modals.
We also tried to approach modality from a pragmatic point of view. Pragmatic
factors are clearly involved in the use and choice of modal expressions. The rules that
enable one to define and classify them, to account for their often peculiar behaviour, to tell
whether they are appropriately used and determine that use are also to be found in the area
of pragmatics, in the real - world context of the utterance. A further point to note in
connection with the pragmatic perspective on modality is that every sentence contains
presuppositions of some kind and the modals are used to distinguish between these types of
presuppositions. To end with, we can say that for an adequate interpretation of modal
expressions, one should stress the importance of contextual, pragmatic factors, in addition
to the syntactic and semantic ones.
There can be no doubt that modality has sparked off widespread debate among
grammarians due to its complexity. Thus, the approaches to it are often contradictory.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Alexander, L.G. Longman English Grammar Practice, Longman Group, 1990.

2. Bantaş, Andrei. Elements of Descriptive English Syntax, Tipografia Universitatii
Bucuresti, 1977.
3. Bădescu, Alice. Gramatica limbii engleze, Editura Curierul Judiciar, Bucureşti, 1935.
4.Biber, Douglas, Susan, Conrad and Geoffrey Leech, Longman Student Grammar of
Spoken and Written English, Pearson Education Limited, 2002.
5. Bîră, Elena. Aspects of Modality in English, Universitatea din Bucuresti, 1979.
6. Cobb, Timothy and Richard Gardiner. Today’s English Grammar, Ed. Prietenii Cartii,
Bucuresti, 1994.
7. Croitoru, Elena. Mood and Modality, Institutul European, Iasi, 2002.
8. Downing, Angela, and Phillip Locke. A University Course in English Grammar,
Routledge, New York, 2002.
9. Eastwood, John, Oxford Guide to English Grammar, Oxford University Press, 1994
10. Feigenbaum, Irwin, The Grammar Handbook, Oxford University Press, 1985.
11.Gramley, Stephan, and Kurt-Michael Pätzold. A Survey of Modern English, Routledge,
London and New York, 2003.
12. Graver, B.D., Advanced English Practice, Oxford University Press, 1986.
13. Levinson, Stephen C. Pragmatics , Cambridge University Press, 1983.
14. Leviţchi, Leon. Limba Engleza Contemporana -Morfologia, Editura Didactica si
Pedagogica, Bucuresti, 1970.
15. Nagle, Stephen J. Inferential Change and Syntactic Modality in English, Verlag Peter
Lang, Frankfurt, 1989.
16. Paidos, Constantin. English Grammar: Theory and Practice, Polirom, Iasi, 2001.
17. Palmer, Frank Robert. Mood and Modality , Cambridge University Press, 2001.
18. Panovf, Irina. English Descriptive Grammar, Lucman, Bucuresti, 2001.
19. Quirk, Randolph; Greenbaum, Sidney; Leech, Geoffrey; and Jan Svartvik.
A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Longman, London., 1985.
20. Swan, Michael. Practical English Usage, Oxford University Press, 2001.
21.Thomson, A.J., Martinet, A.V. A Practical English Grammar, Oxford University Press,
1986.
22. Wertheimer, Roger. The Significance of Sense: Meaning, Modality and Morality,
Cornell University Press, 1972.
23. Zdrenghea, Mircea Mihai and Anca Luminita Greere. A Practical English Grammar,
Clusium, Cluj-Napoca, 1999.
24. White, Alan.R. Modal Thinking, Cornell University Press, 1975.
25. The Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University Press, 1989.

Expressing Modality

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Expressing Modality

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

UNIVERSITATEA DIN PITEŞTI

MEANS OF EXPRESSING MODALITY

Chapter 1: VIEWS ON MODALITY

Chapter 2: MODALITY RELATED TO MOOD, TENSE AND ASPECT

2.2.1. Modality and the Indicative

Chapter 3: MODALITY EXPRESSED BY MODAL VERBS AND

Chapter 4: MODALITY AND PRAGMATICS

In this paper our aim is to make a comprehensive approach to the concept of

1.1. Defining Modality

1.1.1. Deontic vs. Epistemic Modality

As Elena Croitoru (2002:11) points out ‘a fundamental aspect in dealing with

WILL= volition, willingness WILL= prediction, high probability

1.1.2. Modality Viewed as a Matter of Degree and as the Attitude of the

E.g. Instantly afterwards, the company were seized with unspeakable

1.1.3. Propositional and Event Modality

1.1.4. Modality as Viewed by Functional Grammar

Functional Grammar classifies modality as follows:

1.2. Short Overview of Widely Recognized Concepts in the Study of Modality

Modality is a very complex notion that aroused the curiosity of various

2.1. The Time – Aspect – Modality System

2.2. Modality and Mood

2.2.1. Modality and the Indicative Mood

2.2.2. Modality and the Conditional Mood

2.2.3. Modality and the Subjunctive Mood

2.2.4. Modality and the Imperative Mood

2.3. Tense and Modality

2.4. Aspect, Voice, and Modality

• Modality and Voice

3.1. The Modal in Old English

3.2. Morphological and Syntactic Properties of the English Modals

− questions, negatives, tags and short answers are made without do

E.g. Can you swim? (NOT Do you can swim?)

E.g. Must you leave so soon?

E.g. You may not leave the room.

E.g. You should stay home and take a rest.

E.g. There may be rain later today.

3.3. Modal Auxiliary Verbs

− in formal rules and regulations

• SHOULD is used with the following modal connotations:

E.g. You should tell the truth.

E.g. He’ll be there by now.

E.g. This hall will hold a thousand people.

• CAN is used to show:

E.g. She can speak five languages.

• MAY is used to express:

E.g. Nobody knows for certain. He may die, of course.

E.g. You might have sent me a card!

• MUST is used to express:

3.5. Modal Verbs in Proverbs

4.1. General remarks

4.2. Modality and Context

(D.H. Lawrence, Women in Love)

4.3. Modality and Translation

1. Alexander, L.G. Longman English Grammar Practice, Longman Group, 1990.

18. Panovf, Irina. English Descriptive Grammar, Lucman, Bucuresti, 2001.

A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Longman, London., 1985.

24. White, Alan.R. Modal Thinking, Cornell University Press, 1975.

25. The Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University Press, 1989.

Вам также может понравиться