Modality.
Modal Verbs
1. Introduction. Modality (Huddleston & Pullum 2002)
Modality is an area of meaning concerned with the "speaker’s attitude towards the
factuality [i.e. truth] or actualisation [i.e. occurrence] of the situation” (H&P
2002:173)
Modality – speaker’s attitude to – factuality/actualisation of the situation
1.1. Factuality – epistemic modality
(1) The patient walked in the park.
Sentence (1) does not include markers of modality, it is „unmodalised” – it is an
assertion that is assumed to be true – the speaker is commited to the
truth/factuality of the situation.
(2) a. The patient may be walking in the park.
b. The patient must be walking in the park
c. The patient can’t be walking in the park.
The sentences in (2) include modal auxiliaries and are „modalised.” They express
the speaker’s attitude to the truth of the propositions expressed by each clause.
(2a) – may – no commitment to the truth of the situation – the speaker does not
know for sure whether the patient is walking in the park or not, and he speculates.
The situation is merely possible.
(2b) – must – even if the situation isn’t presented as 100% true, there is significant
commitment to the truth of the situation – the speaker has some evidence that the
situation is in progress and he draws the logical conclusion that it is so.
"the truth of the proposition is not presented as something that is directly known
but as something that is inferred.”
(2c) – can’t – the speaker is expressing disbelief – the evidence points towards the
situation not being in progress – the speaker is committed to the idea that there is
no evidence that the walking situation is actually occurring.
Modality concerned with factuality – whether a situation is possible, highly
probable or impossible – is called epistemic modality (i.e. modality related to
what the speaker knows about the likelihood of the situation).
episteme (Greek) - knowledge
Epistemic modality is modality related to the laws of reason. Sentences with
epistemic modals suggest that logical deductions and speculations are made based
on rational principles.
Epistemic modality - certainty, probability, possibility, weak possibility,
impossibilty based on evidence and logical principle, based on what we know.
1.2. Actualisation – deontic modality
(3) The obese patient must walk more.
- in this case, the speaker is concerned with the patient doing more walking in the
future, i.e. with the situation actually occurring in the future, i.e. actualisation
Modality concerned with actualisation – whether a situation is possible or
necessary because some authority allowed or suggested it – is called deontic
modality
deontic – binding (Greek)
Deontic modality - obligation, advice, granting permission, prohibition, duty
Deontic modality is related to social laws laid down by an authority that
establishes what is compulsory, appropriate, etc. This authority is called the
deontic source.
1.3. Key modal concepts
In traditional descriptions of modal auxiliaries: obligation, advice, permission, etc.
These notions can be reduced to the following modal concepts: necessity,
possibility (and probability)
1
“Necessity involves a strong commitment to the factuality or actualisation of
the situation, possibility a weak commitment”
(4) a. Investors must remain cautious this week.
b. It is necessary that investors should remain cautious.
(5) a. He must have overslept.
b. It is necessarily true that he overslept.
(6) a. You should try getting a job in retail.
b. It is necessary for you to get a job in retail.
(7) a. You may take the day off.
b. It is possible for you to take the day off. (I make it possible by allowing it)
(8) a. He may be hurt or lost.
b. He is possibly hurt or lost.
1.4. Dynamic modality
The third type of modality is concerned with “properties and dispositions of
the subject” – ability + volition + capacity. “It does not involve the speaker’s
attitude to the factuality or actualisation of the situation”
(9) They can climb the mountain in under 5 hours.
= they have the ability to climb the mountain in under 5 hours.
(10) I will take you there myself.
= I am willing to take you there myself.
Dynamic modality is related to natural laws (laws of physics, chemistry, biology,
etc.)
Dynamic and deontic modality may be included in the more general category
of root modality.
1.5. External and internal negation
External negation – negation applies to the modal verb, not to the verb phrase
Internal negation – applies to the complement of the modal verb, to the verb
phrase, not to the modals
(11) a. He may not have read it.
b. It is possible he did not read it (negation takes scope over the verb phrase
=> internal negation
(12) a. He can’t have read it.
c. It is not possible that he read it (negation takes scope over the modal)
=> external negation
1.6. Syntactic properties of modal auxiliaries (the NICE properties)
Modal verbs are not lexical verbs, they are called modal auxiliaries.
Modal auxiliaries have some syntactic properties that they share with aspectual
auxiliaries, which distinguish them from lexical verbs. These are called the NICE
properties (where the acronym NICE stands for Negation, Inversion, Coda,
Emphasis)
1.6.1. Negation -Modals are negated with the negative marker not, they do not
need do-support when negated, unlike lexical verbs
(13) I cannot live without you. vs. *I not live with you./I do not live with you.
1.6.2. Inversion- In interrogative sentences, modals can invert with the subject,
unlike lexical verbs which need DO support
(14) Can you follow me? * Follows she you every day? /Does she follow you
every day?
1.6.3. Codas- Modals can appear in isolation in codas, unlike lexical verbs which
need DO support
(15) She can dance and so can you. * She smiles and so smile you. /She smiles and
so do you.
1.6.4. Emphasis/Emphatic affirmation- Modals can be stressed in emphatic
sentences, while lexical verbs cannot.
2
(16) a. She COULD work on the project, if she wanted to!
b. *She WORKED on the project, didn’t she?
c. She did work on the project, didn’t she?
1.6.5. Modals are always followed by the bare form of the verb/the short infinitive
(16’) a. She must *to leave.
b. She must leave.
c. Trebuie, din păcate, să plece =>*She must, unfortunately, to leave
. Unfortunately, she must leave
1.6.6. Differences between modals and the aspectual auxiliaries BE and HAVE
Modals a) do not take agreement or tense markers (17a), do not have non-finite
forms (no present participle, no infinitive) (17b-c) , modals do not co-occur (17d)
Modals are inherently tensed – they come from the Lexicon with tense features
inherently marked on the modal verb: i.e., may is a present tense form, might is a
past tense form, etc. Modals cannot be followed by the long infinitive (with to)
(17e). They are inserted straight under I0 (the inflection head) because they are
inherently tensed
(17) a. *She mays/mayed like you.
b. *canning
c. *to must
d. *He must can help you.
e. *He must to help you.
The aspectual auxiliaries have and be do conjugate for tense and agreement (18a),
they do have non-finite forms (18b-c), and they can co-occur (18d).
Aspectual auxiliaries are not inherently tensed. They are not inserted straight
under I. They are projected under a V head and they move from there to Inflection
(I)
(18) a. ... am/are/is dancing // was/were dancing...have/has//had gone...
b. to be dancing/ to have danced
c. Having reached his goal, he resigned.
d. He has been looking for an answer.
1.7. Syntactic differences between epistemic and deontic modals
Epistemic modals can generally be followed by: a) the progressive infinitive
(19a), the perfect infinitive (19b), the passive infinitive (19c). Epistemic modals
do not require a certain kind of subject (the subject may be animate or inanimate)
(19d)
(19) a. He may be waiting for you.
b. He may have already decided.
c. The decision can be made on the spot.
d. The man/his interest may have disappeared.
Deontic modality presupposes a future act, hence deontic modals like MAY,
CAN; MUST are incompatible with the progressive or perfect infinitive.
(20). a. You must tidy up the house. (deontic necessity – obligation)
b. You must be tidying up your house (no deontic interpretation, epistemic)
c. The boy may leave the house only after he’s made his bed (deontic
possibility – permission)
d. The boy may have left the house (no deontic interpretation).
e. The horse may make mistakes from time to time (only epistemic int)
f. Children may make mistakes from time to time (deontic/epistemic int)
But this observation does not apply to modals like SHOULD, OUGHT TO which
can have a deontic meaning even if they are followed by the progressive infinitive
or the perfect infinitive:
(21) You should be sleeping now.
The subject of root modals (deontic and dynamic) is generally animate. Expletive
subjects (there, it) do not occur with deontic modals (22a), although there are
exceptions (22b)
(22) a. It may rain at night (only the epistemic interpretation is possible)
b. There must be silence in the courtroom (institutional deontic source,
objective deontic necessity, not imposed by a person)
Individual-level states (i.e. permanent states) generally do not allow the deontic
interpretations of modals, they are more likely to elicit an epistemic interpretation
(23a). If the predicate is recategorized into an achievement or activity, the
sentence becomes ambiguous (23b).
3
 Epistemic CAN is most frequent in negative sentences and in interrogative
(23) a. He may be handsome. sentences:
b. I must be the healthiest version of myself! -> epistemic int: I probably
am... (27) a. Can it have been fear?
-> deontic int: I should become... b. Can they be on holiday?
2. CAN/COULD c. It can’t have been in April, milord.
d. He can’t have been hiding at that time.
The modal CAN has three possible interpretations: deontic,/epistemic/dynamic
possibility Negation is external with epistemic CAN since the modality is negated.

2.1. Deontic CAN is associated with the idea of permission or deontic possibility
– the subject is authorized to act given the social/moral laws. There is a deontic
source (an institution or a person) that allows the situation to occur.
(24) a. You can eat as much as you want.
b. You can’t marry a close relative.
c. Can I speak to your boss?
Negative sentences with deontic CAN are generally instances of external negation:
(25) You cannot leave your wife and children for a floozy. As your father and
king, I forbid it.
=You are not allowed to leave your wife and children...
(28) She can’t have filed for divorce. She loves me.
= It is impossible that she should have filed for divorce
There are syntactic contexts that suggest that the interpretation of CAN is
epistemic: a) the perfect infinitive, b) the progressive infinitive, c) the passive, d)
impersonal or expletive subjects, e) inanimate subjects;
(29) a. He can’t have lost the tickets. He is very organised.
b. He can’t be swimming across the channel right now.
c. Any problem can be solved.
d. One can easily find himself in trouble if not careful.
e. There can be only one way out of this predicament.
f. Too much dieting can be dangerous.

2.2. Epistemic CAN “indicates that empirical circumstances are such as not to Past events are referred to using the perfect infinitive:
preclude the event” (Stefanescu 1988:433) – the event is possible because
circumstances allow it. (30) He can’t have resigned himself with the situation

(26) a. There can only be one outcome of nuclear war. 2.3. Dynamic CAN expresses possibility deriving from physical or mental ability
b. Cigarettes can seriously damage your health
c. Even expert drivers can make mistakes. (31) He can read very fast.= It is possible for him to read very fast because of his
d. Lightning can be dangerous. natural talents
e. He can’t be working at this hour.
-characteristic behaviour:
(26a) – “from all we know, we can reasonably infer a certain outcome of a nuclear (32) He can be very cranky.
war, i.e., by applying the rules of reason, the evidence we have is such that the
sentence is true” Can vs Be able to
CAN – potential ability; BE ABLE TO – actual accomplishment

4
They can be interchangeable – be able to is preferred in written texts (more
formal)
(33) They can beat their opponents./They are able to beat their opponents.
BE ABLE TO can be combined with other modals, while CAN cannot.
(34) a. They should be able to point you in the right direction
b.*They should can point you in the right direction.
However, in the past tense, they are no longer interchangeable. WAS ABLE TO
introduces an event that actually occurred, while COULD designates a potential
event
(35) a. I woke up early and I was able to go to the gym – I actually went there
b. I woke up and I *could go to the gym
c. I could go to the gym when I was physically stronger
Negative sentences with dynamic CAN – external negation
(36) They can’t stay away from food.
=They are unable to...
The modal COULD has parallel meanings to CAN
2.4. Dynamic COULD – ability: either present ability (with a suggestion of
conditionality) (37a) or past habitual/generic ability (37b), past potentiality (37c)
as opposed to BE ABLE TO which suggests that the event actually took place
(37d) ; past actualised ability (37e)
(37) a. Do you think you could teach young children? [if necessary]
b. Last year, she could get her students excited about anything.
c. I was plenty scared. In the state she was in, she could actually kill.
d. She was able to kill the mosquito that bugged her [the insect is dead]
e. I could hear something rattling (actualised)
f. Could you pass the salt? (questioning the ability of the hearer, politeness)
g. I wish you could understand me (subjunctive)
Negation is external (38)
(38) She couldn’t bring herself to leave her mother like that
= It was impossible for her to bring herself to leave her mother like that.
= She wasn’t able to...
“There is no difference between COULD and BE ABLE TO in interrogative and
negative sentences” (Drăgan 2002:92)
2.5. Deontic COULD – permission (deontic possibility)
(39) a. Could I see your driving licence? (asking for permission)
b. In those days we could borrow as many books as we wanted.
Since permission cannot be given for past events, in the past, deontic CAN takes
the form COULD in indirect speech (40)
(40) Father said I could choose my own path in life.
Deontic COULD can be used in reproaches (instances of pragmatic strengthening
– you could have... is interpreted as you should have …– stronger illocutionary
force)
(41) You could have cleaned up (you should have cleaned up, but you didn’t)/
2.6. Epistemic COULD – tentative / conditional possibility
(42) a. There could be trouble at the elections tomorrow.
b. Could he have set the bird free?
c. He could be sleeping now. Let’s not disturb him.
Note the use of expletive subjects, the perfect and progressive infinitives which are
typical of epistemic modals.
Negation is external (43)
(43) He could not be a bad man whose wife loves him so.
= It is impossible that he should be a bad man.
Could + perfect infinitive => contrary-to-fact/counterfactual interpretation
5
 - the situation could have occurred but it didn’t.
(44) You could have helped me (but you didn’t)
3. MAY / MIGHT
MAY can have deontic and epistemic readings.
3.1. Deontic MAY – permission or deontic possibility; a deontic source (an
authority, an institution) makes it possible for someone to perform an act.
(45) You may leave the table when everyone has finished (The Speaker is the
deontic source – the speaker allows for the act to be performed)
Negative sentences with deontic MAY illustrate external negation
(46) You may not get off the bus while it is on the move.
= You are not allowed to get off.../It is not possible for you to get off the bus...
Since permission is only granted with respect to a future event, past time reference
can be expressed by might/could in indirect speech or by was/were allowed in
direct speech.
(47) a. The boss said I might/could leave earlier if I needed to.
b. I was allowed to spend my allowance as I pleased.
3.2. Epistemic MAY – epistemic possibility – given what is known, the event is
possible: “the evidence available to the speaker is such that the sentence cannot
currently be assumed to be true, but nor can it currently be assumed to be false.”
(48) a. There may be roadblocks along the way.
b. You may suffer from heart disease.
c. Lovely as she may be, you can’t marry her = even if she is lovely...
(adverbial of concession) = concessive MAY
MAY – “the truth of the proposition can be currently verified” – MAY is
associated more with speculation
CAN – the circumstances make the event possible
(49) a. A friend can betray you. – the circumstances are such and friends are such
that the event may occur
b. A friend may betray you – I’m warning you – you can check the truth of the
proposition – more imminent threat
CAN – subject-oriented – the properties of the subject make the event possible
MAY – not subject-oriented
Negation – internal
(50) He may not have received the letter.
= It is possible that he didn’t receive the letter.
To negate the modality (external negation), and preserve the epistemic sense, =>
CAN’T is used
(51) He can’t have received the letter.
= It is impossible that he should have received the letter.
Past time reference – perfect infinitive
(52) He may have broken his leg
3.3. Deontic MIGHT – very rare – only in Indirect Speech as a reflex of the
Sequence of Tenses rule, or in questions that express polite requests:
(53) a. He said I might wash the dishes later.
b. Might I speak to your mother-in-law, please?
3.4. Epistemic MIGHT – most frequent – conditional/less likely possibility
(54) a. He might be looking at us through the peephole.
b. He might have forgotten your wallet at the restaurant.
(55) Strange as it might seem, I still love him – concessive MIGHT appears in
adverbial clauses of concession
6
4. MUST
MUST has deontic and epistemic uses.
4.1. Deontic MUST – indicates deontic necessity (obligation imposed by social
laws or by a person in authority (for instance, the Speaker)
(56) You must be back by ten o’clock.
- speaker-oriented use of MUST – the speaker takes responsibility for the
imposition
(57) The president insists that the government must negotiate.
Deontic MUST is used in polite forms of address to formulate invitations, offers,
etc (pragmatic weakening of a request). – The addressee benefits from the future
act
(59) a. You must say what you want for a present.
b. You must accept one of these flowers
c. You must come round and see us.
Deontic MUST is also used with conversation-related verbs of expressions to
weaken the assertion made:
(60) a. I must say, I’ve never known that – a weaker assertion than “I’ve never
known that”
b. I must confess, I had no idea you were married.
Deontic MUST + negation = internal negation – the event is negated, there is an
obligation not to act – (61a) can be paraphrased as (61b)
(61) a. You mustn’t reveal what I’ve told you.
b. It is necessary for you not to reveal what I’ve told you. (internal negation)
(61a) doesn’t mean “It isn’t necessary for you to reveal” (that would be external
negation)
It order to negate the necessity (external negation), NEEDN’T is used:
(62) You needn’t answer that question. (external negation)
Past time reference – HAD TO – the sense of accomplished situation
(63) She had to sleep in the kitchen last night (neutral necessity)
In indirect speech, there is a difference in interpretation between MUST and
HAVE TO
(64) Jane said he must go - obligation imposed by Jane
Jane said he had to go – the circumstances compelled him to go – neutral
necessity
I/we HAVE TO – generally associated with neutral or external necessity – there is
an external authority that imposes the obligation
I/we MUST – self-compulsion – I make the imposition onto myself
(65) a. I must clean the dishes – I am putting myself under the obligation to do it.
b. I have to clean the dishes – my mother has asked me to
4.2. Epistemic MUST – epistemic necessity – a situation is necessarily true
because of what is known or the available evidence – logical deduction – the truth
of the sentence is presented as being inferred rather than known
(66) a. It is snowing. It must be cold outside/ It is necessarily the case that it is true
b. There must be a mistake.
c. He must be tired. He worked all day long.
d. They must be waiting for us.
e. Jane must have lost her mind.
Indicators of epistemic modality in (66) – expletive subjects (it, there), the use of
stage-level state predicates (be tired), the perfect or the progressive infinitive.
Past time reference – perfect infinitive
(67) He must have left the building.
Epistemic MUST is negated by CAN’T – external negation
7
(68) a. He must be the culprit.
b. He can’t be the culprit.
c. It is impossible that he should be the culprit.
5. SHALL / SHOULD
SHALL has deontic, dynamic and epistemic interpretations
5.1. Deontic SHALL - obligation imposed by the Speaker = deontic necessity
the Speaker is the deontic source (69a-b, d); in legal documents (69c)
(69) a. You shall not go tonight. You shall not be excused if you go.
b. Leave her alone. She shall not be bothered.
c. The committee shall meet at least three times a year (rules and regulations)
d. You shall have your money back tomorrow (“Speaker’s guarantee” – I
make it a duty of mine to make sure that you get your money)
e. Shall I close the window? (“direction-seeking” – are you, as a deontic
source, of the opinion that I should close the window? – “it is more polite to
consult the wishes of the listener than to assert one’s own wishes as speaker”
(Leech 1987: 89))
f. Shall I do as she says? – deontic interpretation
Negation – internal – the predicate is negated, not modality.
(70) g. You shall not change rooms. I forbid it.
h. It is necessary that you do not change rooms.
5.2. Dynamic SHALL – volition/intention – with 1st person subjects, as a more
formal equivalent of WILL
(71) a. I shall do as she says
b. I shall inform you if the situation changes.
c. We shall succeed where others have failed.
5.3. Epistemic SHALL
With 1st person subjects SHALL may express futurity, as an equivalent of WILL
(72) a. Unless business improves, we shall have no alternative but to close the
factory.
b. If we don’t leave now we shall miss the bus.
c. When shall I be well enough to leave the hospital?
SHOULD has deontic, and epistemic interpretations
5. 4. Deontic SHOULD – more conditional equivalent of deontic SHALL –
weaker obligation (weaker deontic necessity)
(73) a. Husbands should love their wives.
b. He should have been more vigilant (perfect infinitive is allowed with deontic
SHOULD)
- SHOULD is stronger than OUGHT TO (74)
(74) He ought to have been more vigilant.
Negation is internal:
(75) a. You shouldn’t have asked that.
= It was necessary for you not to have asked.
5.5. Epistemic SHOULD – there is evidence that makes me conclude that...
- prediction, expectation, probability
(76) a. As I remember this should be the house. - present
b. It is past six. They should be coming soon. – future
c. The night should have turned wet since I came in, for he had a large hat on.-
past
6. WILL / WOULD
WILL has deontic, dynamic and epistemic readings.
6.1. Epistemic WILL - 3 uses that are epistemic:
a) central epistemic,
b) futurity,
c) conditional consequence
(77) a. They will have made that decision last week [central epistemic] -
probability
= They probably made that decision last week – past time reference
8
 b. [knock on the door] That will be our neighbour.
= It’s probably our neighbour. – present time reference
Central epistemic WILL is replaceable with MUST:
(78) a. Ed is Tom’s father and Tom is Bill’s father, so Ed will be Bill’s father
b. Ed is Tom’s father and Tom is Bill’s father, so Ed must be Bill’s father
(79) I am sure they will win the race – futurity
(80) If they are here they’ll be upstairs – conditional consequence- the main clause
in conditional clauses type I
Stefanescu (1988): with epistemic WILL, internal negation – the event is negated
(81) a. Inflation will not rise next year.
b. It is likely that inflation should not rise.
(82) a. He won’t have read it yet – internal negation
b. It is likely that he didn’t read it.
Past time reference – perfect infinitive
(83) They will have got ready by now.
Epistemic modals (with the exception of CAN’T) generally take internal negation.
CAN’T illustrates external negation.
6.2. Dynamic WILL – volition (a property of the subject - subject-oriented
modality) (84a) , determination (84b) => used to make promises (84c), threats
(84d), used in refusals (84e), requests (84f), in conditionals (84h)
(84) a.Why don’t you ask him if he will handle your work while you’re away?
b. I will go as far as to call it an interesting book.
c. I WILL help you out.
d. Do that and I will leave you forever.
e. I won’t sign the statement, it’s illegal.
f. Will you lend me some money?
g. Jim won’t let anyone near him.
h. I shall be glad if he will come.
i. Do what you will.
Negation is external – modality is negated
(85) He won’t do his homework = he doesn’t want to do his homework –
Past tense –BE WILLING TO;
WOULD is only acceptable in situations where there is no sense that the situation
occurred (in negatives, in indirect questions)
(86) a. I asked him and he was willing to come/*I asked him and he would come.
b. I asked him but he wouldn’t come.
(87) He asked if I was willing to /would help him out.
Dynamic WILL = Power WILL similar to Dynamic Can
(88) a. This bottle won’t fit into any box. /can’t fit
b. Will the ice bear? /can fit
c. The hall will seat five hundred people. / can seat
Dynamic WILL = Habitual/Propensity WILL –“ a situation occurs frequently as
a consequence of a natural tendency of a person or object” (Stefanescu)
H&P – propensity- habits of animate subjects, general properties of inanimates
(89) a. A falling drop will hollow a stone.
b. Boys will be boys.
c. People will talk, there’s no preventing it.
d. The cable requires delicate handling for the slightest kink will ruin it.
(kink=bucla)
e. He will lie in bed all day.
Past time reference – WOULD vs USED TO
USED TO is not subject-oriented – the situation does not occur because of a
property of the subject
(90) She used to live there – discontinued habit; no emphasis on repetition
9
(91) She would leave the house whenever necessary (dynamic WOULD) c. Of course she would know this.
-iteration; emphasis on repetition, the situation occurs because of a property of the
subject Power of capacity WOULD – dynamic modality
(100) a. A house in London would cost a fortune
6.3. Deontic WILL – requests, orders – the Speaker requires the act to be b. The hall would seat 1000 people.
performed c. He asked if the table would bear.

(92) a. You will do as you are told. 6.5. Epistemic WOULD- weaker probability – more tentative than WILL
b. You will not leave before dinner is ready.
= internal negation = It is necessary that you do not leave -central epistemic – weaker probability that WILL
(101) a. You would be the new supply teacher.
WOULD has mainly epistemic and dynamic meanings. b. He would be about sixty.
c. How long would that be? Two years.
6.4. Dynamic WOULD – volition d. That would be in the year 1878.

-negative contexts – refusal: -future-in-the-past (102)

(93) He knocked but I wouldn’t let him in. = I didn’t want to let him in. (102) Only a few months later their love would turn to hate.
= external negation = it actually turned to hate, WOULD suggests that the event actually occurred.

- indirect (more polite) requests – interrogative contexts – more polite than WILL:
(94) Would Mr Smith come to the information desk?
- in adverbial clauses of condition introduced by if or unless when it expresses
volition
(95) If you would sit by me, I would feel better.
-backshifted future (when the Sequence of Tenses rule is applied)
(103) a. I will see her shortly –
b. I knew I would see her shortly.
-modal remoteness – the main clause of conditional structures,
(104) If he paid the fare, I would take a taxi.

-in complement clauses of wish -the condition can be implicit:

(96) I wish he would stop that noise – volitional (Stefanescu 1988) (105) I wouldn’t sign (if I were you)

(97) a. I would like to see him tomorrow.
b. I would suggest it’s too expensive
- when the Sequence of Tenses rule is applied:
(98) a. He advised him that Germany would reject this
b. Fred said he would not vote to leave the EU.
-hedges : I am not sure, so I qualify my statement with a hedge, an expression that
suggests uncertainty (weak epistemic modality, there is some evidence for the
event) (106)
(106) a. It would appear they have stolen the goods.
b. I would think she has found a job.

Propensity/habitual WOULD – dynamic 6.6. Deontic WOULD

(99) a. Whenever he heard her coming, he would quickly put his pipe out. (107) He said smoking would not be tolerated
b. That’s what most men would say.

10
7. NEED – has deontic and epistemic interpretations - necessity
NEED used as a modal verb is followed by the short infinitive and can be negated
without DO support (108a)
NEED can also be used as a lexical verb, in which case it is followed by the long
infinitive and is negated with the auxiliary DO (108b)
(108) a. They needn’t bother.
b. The don’t need to bother.
7.1. Deontic modal NEED – usually negative
(109) You needn’t leave. (The Speaker permits it, the Speaker is the deontic
source).
Negation is external = It isn’t necessary that you should leave.
7.2. Epistemic modal NEED – usually in interrogatives and negatives (as the
external negation of epistemic MUST)
(110) a. He must be guilty.
b. He needn’t be guilty.
=It isn’t necessarily true that he is guilty. (epistemic MUST is also negated with
CAN’T, with a different meaning)
(111) He needn’t have saved her.
= ambiguous – epistemic reading + external negation: It isn’t necessarily the case
that he saved her (internal perfect)
- deontic reading = absence of deontic necessity + external negation
=He didn’t need to save her but he did (counterfactual) (external perfect)
7.3. Difference bt. didn’t need to and needn’t have +past participle
(112) a. He didn’t need to tell her = nu era nevoie sa ii spuna = we don’t know if
he told her or not
b. He needn’t have told her = he did tell her.
8. DARE
DARE used as a modal verb is followed by the short infinitive and can be negated
without DO support.
- it is generally dynamic and negative – it refers to a disposition of the subject (i.e.,
have the courage)
(113) I daren’t tell her truth.
= external negation = I don’t have the courage to tell her the truth.
(114) Dare she tell her the truth?
(115) I daresay her Majesty will not be pleased.
[to venture to say (something); assume (something) as probable]
(116) You know you daren’t have given the order if you hadn’t seen us coming.
DARE can also be used as a lexical verb, in which case it is followed by the long
infinitive and is negated with the auxiliary DO. It might mean „challenge” or
„have the courage to”
(117) He didn’t dare to wake up.
(118) He dared her to ride with him.
8. OUGHT TO - – has deontic and epistemic interpretations – weak necessity
(119) a. He ought to wake up earlier. – deontic weak necessity
b. He ought to have warned me. – past time reference
(120) a. The map ought to be here – epistemic weak necessity
b. The map ought to have been here.
References
Crainiceanu I. 2002 Elements of English Morphology
Dragan, R. 2002. English Morphology
Huddleston R., G. Pullum 2002 The Cambridge Grammar of the English
Language
Leech G. 1987 Meaning and the English Verb, Longman
Stefanescu I. 1988 English Morphology
11