This article will help you to find more details and examples on modality modality.

You can scan it looking for examples and explanations on epistemic, deontic, dynamic dynamic and boulomaic modality. I hope you enjoy reading it.

AN APPROACH TO MODALITY FOR HIGHER EDUCATION STUDENTS OF ENGLISH Authors:

MARTA CARRETERO Universidad Complutense de Madrid JUAN RAFAEL ZAMORANO Universidad Complutense de Madrid CRISTINA ALONSO Universidad de Castilla La Mancha JORGE ARS Universidad Complutense de Madrid FRANCISCO NIETO Universidad Complutense de Madrid ASUNCIN VILLAMIL Escuela Oficial de Idiomas de Cuenca

AN APPROACH TO MODALITY FOR HIGHER EDUCATION STUDENTS OF ENGLISH1

ABSTRACT
It is well known that English modal expressions pose no small problems for Spanish-speaking students. We believe that Higher Education students, due to their capacity for conceptual reasoning, may benefit from understanding the concept and types of modality and by knowing the main expressions of each type. This paper will set forth an approach to the expression of modality in English in these lines: modal auxiliaries will be shown to have a given degree of strength in all their uses, which may apply to two or more types of modality. Due to the functional basis of this proposal, modals will be viewed together with other realizations of all the meanings within the area of modality. We will also suggest diverse activities geared towards familiarization with modal expressions, including analysis of authentic texts and exercises based on communicative functions such as supposing or requesting.

1. INTRODUCTION It is well known that English modal expressions (i.e. modal auxiliaries and other expressions conveying similar meanings) pose no small problems for Spanish-speaking students. Here are authentic samples of some common students misuses of modal expressions, in this case modal auxiliaries, involving grammatical errors (1), semantic inadequacy (2), or pragmatic inadequacy (3): (1) (2) (3) In conclusion we must integration in the society and they must studied more less or not. I think that he can need his relatives and some special attention (cf. might or may) I think that handicapped children mustnt go to normal schools (cf. shouldnt) These problems can obviously be lessened by exposure to authentic English in varied communicative contexts. We believe that Higher Education students, due to their capacity for conceptual reasoning, have an additional resource at their disposal: understanding the concept and types of modality as well as knowing the main expressions of each type. The present paper will be devoted to this resource. The approach proposed here is functionally-oriented, and consequently configured by the following two features: 1) the starting point will be the meanings of the modal expressions, i.e. 1

2 we will proceed from meaning to form; 2) the description of the different kinds of modality will not only cover the modal auxiliaries, but also other expressions with similar meanings.

2. GENERAL MEANINGS OF MODALITY After many years of research in the area of modality, we have found it impossible to single out elements of meaning common to all occurrences of modal expressions (see also Nuyts 2001: 26). We will single out three features present in most prototypical occurrences of modality: a) Modality conveys an attitude of the addresser (speaker or writer) at the speech moment towards what is communicated. For instance, the addresser views a state of affairs (SoA) as possible (4) or as permissible (5). Possibility and permission may also be expressed as someone elses attitude (6-7), or as formulated in the past rather than the present (8-9), but these are not prototypical cases of modality, and it is not surprising that they cannot be conveyed by modals: (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Peter may be having a good time with the Smiths now. You may go home now if you wish. Anne thinks Peter is having a good time with the Smiths now. Our boss has permitted us to leave early today. I thought Peter was having a good time until I realized how uneasy he was. Yesterday I had to tidy my room and yours.

b) Modality often conveys non-factuality, that is, the utterance is neither true nor false, or it has not been carried out yet, at the speech time. For example, in (4) the speaker does not know whether Peter is or is not having a good time with the Smiths at the time of speaking; and in (5) we do not know if the permission was finally carried out or not. However, in (8) we know that

3 Peter was having a good time with the Smiths is false, and in (9) we know that the obligation of tidying both rooms was finally carried out. c) Scalarity. As we will see in later sections, all the types of modality can be treated in terms of scales, graded according to the strength of the different lexical items. We adopt the terms high, median and low from Halliday (1985), even if we do not attribute to all the expressions the same value as he does.2 Thus, all the meanings of the modal auxiliaries may be located in the same part of the scale throughout the different types of modality:
HIGH will must would MEDIAN should ought to LOW may might can could NEG. MEDIAN NEG.HIGH (negated modal auxiliaries) (other expressions)

Table 1. Strength of the modal auxiliaries

Obviously, the strength of the modals varies in individual cases: for instance, will conveys a higher degree of probability in (10) than in (11) in most contexts; nevertheless, must always conveys a stronger modality than should or may. For this reason, it is better to see each modal as occupying a given area of the scale, rather than a given point. (10) Dont worry! Her mother will know her birthday! (when her refers to the same woman in both cases) (11) Dont worry! Everything will be all right after all. Sections 3 to 6 will cover the different types of modality, as well as the most important expressions of each type.

3. EPISTEMIC MODALITY, OR DEGREES OF PROBABILITY Epistemic modality concerns degrees of probability, that is, the middle points between

4 total positive certainty, as in Washington is in the USA, and negative certainty, as in Washington is not in Spain. The main expressions of epistemic modality in English may be seen in Table 2, in terms of a scale of strength.
HIGH MEDIAN be bound to will think should be sure to must believe ought to be certain to would suppose probably be to be supposed to probable have (got) to be likely to expect LOW may may not might might not could needn't possibly maybe perhaps possible NEG.MEDIAN NEG.HIGH doubtful be unlikely to won't shouldnt cant

Table 2. Modal expressions of epistemic modality, or degrees of probability

The expressions in bold are those which, in our view, pose most problems to Spanish students. The reasons may be: a) Syntactic, when there is no structural correspondence between the two languages. This is the case of the beto structure, in the following expressions: (12) Mary is bound/certain/sure to be in class now. Es cierto / seguro que Mary est en clase ahora (13) Marys (un) likely to be in class now. Es (im)probable que Mary est en clase ahora b) Semantic. This factor conditions the expression of epistemic low probability. It must not be forgotten that Spanish has only one periphrasis for expressing the low degree of all kinds of modality, namely poder + infinitive3, whereas English has four auxiliaries (can, may, might and could). In present-day British English, can does not convey epistemic possibility. This one-tomany correspondence, together with the fact that can is usually learned before any other modal, leads to the common error of expressing epistemic modality with can in English: (14) *Mary can be in class now. (expressing epistemic modality; cf. may, might or could)

5 Mary puede estar en clase ahora / Es posible que Mary est en clase ahora

4. DEONTIC MODALITY, OR 'DEGREES OF OBLIGATION PERMISSION Deontic modality concerns the degrees between obligation (as in Copy this out again!) and prohibition (Dont copy this out again!). The middle point lies in permission, which means neither obligation nor prohibition (You may/can copy this out again if you like.). The main expressions of deontic modality are specified in Table 3, in terms of a scale of strength.
HIGH MEDIAN imperative must should mood have (got) to ought to had better be due to be expected to be supposed to LOW can may be allowed to needn't NEG. MEDIAN shouldn't NEG. HIGH mustn't can't may not

Table 3. Modal expressions of deontic modality, or degrees of obligation-permission

Of all these expressions, the most problematic for Spanish students are probably those marked in bold, since this syntactic construction is not used in Spanish with a deontic meaning: (15) I had better copy this out again. (Ser mejor que lo copie otra vez) (16) I am due/expected/supposed to copy this out again. (Debo copiarlo otra vez / Se supone que lo tengo que copiar otra vez)

5. DYNAMIC MODALITY, OR 'DEGREES OF ABILITY-TENDENCY Dynamic modality concerns degrees of predisposition (ability-tendency). In spite of this common element, the meanings it comprises are more varied than those of all the other modalities. To distinguish it from deontic modality, we will adopt Perkinss (1983) approach, according to which deontic modality has to do with social laws (legal authorities, social status, 5

6 etc.) and dynamic modality relates to natural laws (laws of physics, biology, etc.). For instance, cant is deontic in (17) and dynamic in (18), the source of the impossibility being legal authorities and physical limitations respectively: (17) We cant smoke in public buildings. (18) I cant run very fast. From the pedagogical viewpoint, the difference between deontic and dynamic modality is not of much importance, since both English and Spanish have expressions which may convey both deontic and dynamic modality (for example, can, must and have (got) to in English and poder, deber and tener que in Spanish. The following table specifies the most important expressions of dynamic modality in English, graded in terms of strength.
HIGH can't help will would used to MEDIAN be liable to be apt to be able to LOW can could NEG. MEDIAN NEG. HIGH won't can't wouldn't couldn't

Table 4. Modal expressions of dynamic modality, or degrees of capability-tendency

Even if the concept of dynamic modality is not of much pedagogical importance, as we stated before, there are expressions which pose problems to Spanish students. Concerning the modals will and would, they tend to be strongly associated with the Spanish future and conditional tenses. We believe that this association is helpful to account for many of the uses of both modals; however, it makes it difficult for students to grasp, and consequently to use, these modals with habitual meaning, as in (19-21). In their turn, be liable to and be apt to also pose difficulties, due to their syntax; the latter is even a false friend, since the Spanish ser apto para means be suitable/fit for something: (19) He will make mistakes in dictations. (Siempre comete faltas en los dictados) 6

7 (20) He would make mistakes in dictations. (Siempre cometa faltas en los dictados) (21) Hes liable/apt to make mistakes in dictations. (Tiende a cometer faltas en los dictados)

6. BOULOMAIC MODALITY, OR 'DEGREES OF WISH Boulomaic modality concerns degrees of volition/wish, i.e. the degrees between strong positive wish and strong negative wish, the middle point being acceptance. The expressions of boulomaic modality may be seen in Table 5.
HIGH will would expect hope wish MEDIAN LOW dont/doesnt mind wouldnt mind accept admit NEG. MEDIAN NEG. HIGH wont wouldnt fear

Table 5. Modal expressions of boulomaic modality, or degrees of wish

Among the boulomaic expressions, those which probably deserve most attention are the auxiliaries will and would, since their boulomaic meaning is often not well understood by students, in a similar way to what happened with their dynamic meaning. The boulomaic meaning accounts for some pragmatic uses of will which have to be pointed out, since the Spanish future tense is not adequate in these contexts. This is the case of commands (22), offers (23) and promises (24). In its turn, the progressive infinitive will + -ing is useful to avoid any implications of boulomaic modality, especially when the information is unfavourable to the addressee (25): (22) Will you clean the kitchen tomorrow?

8 Limpias (simple present) t la cocina maana? (23) Will you have another piece of cake? Tomas (simple present) otro trozo de pastel? (24) Dont worry: Ill wait for your purse. No te preocupes: yo me ocupar/ocupo (future or simple present) de tu monedero (25) I'm afraid we won't be considering your application. Me temo que no vamos a considerar (periphrastic future with ir a) tu solicitud.

8. ADVANTAGES OF THIS APPROACH, AND SUGGESTIONS FOR APPLICATIONS The division of modality into the four types explained above may well help students to tackle difficult issues such as the following: A) The overuse of can by Spanish students could be avoided by reminding them that can is never epistemic in British English. B) Reference to past time with modals could be made easier by insisting that all epistemic modals require, or at least admit, the construction same modal + have + -ed participle. C) Insistence on the epistemic value of be bound / sure / certain / likely to could lead to a more accurate use of these constructions. D) Students might be warned to be careful with deontic expressions used to convey directives (e.g. You must leave now!), for reasons of politeness. Conversely, when these expressions do not impose a course of action on the speaker, they are adequate in most contexts (I must / have to take this medicine every second day). To apply this classification, a suggested type of task is to work with text types in which one type of modality is clearly more prominent than the others. For instance, rules, regulations and laws are rich in deontic expressions, and texts about future events (weather forecasts, 8

9 horoscope sections, etc.) tend to contain a high number of epistemic expressions. In the workshop, it was shown that the horoscope section in an issue of Marie Claire (British edition, April 2004, no. 200) contained many occurrences of epistemic may, might and could, and only one of can (which conveyed dynamic modality). A more interactive type of task is to match missing halves of sentences, as proposed in the activity designed by Cintron and Graham (1999), in which all the complete sentences contain one or two epistemic modals.

9. CONCLUSIONS As was stated in the Introduction, we believe that an approach to modality in the lines of our proposal is beneficial for Higher Education students. Obviously, the main difficulty lies in the conceptual complexity involved in learning the four types of modality and the expressions corresponding to each type. However, this drawback does not seem to be a major problem in this educational context, due to the capacity for conceptual reasoning of this type of students. Since this approach is meaning-to-form and functionally oriented, it permits to view the different meanings of each modal and the cases in which the same meaning is expressed by more than one modal (leaving subtle differences apart). Moreover, the approach favours a global view of each modality, in which modals are seen jointly with other expressions conveying similar meanings.

Finally, we would also state that this perspective serves to avoid complexities in the long run. For instance, Murphy (2004: 58-60) characterizes the following as different uses of might: a) to say that something is a possibility (26); b) to talk about possible actions or happenings in the future (27); c) when the situation is not real (28); d) for possible plans (29).

10 (26) It might be true. (his example) (27) I havent decided yet where to go for my holidays. I might go to Ireland. (his example, with the exception that may has been substituted for might; both modals were included in this use) (28) If I were in Toms position, I might look for another job. (his example) (29) I might be going to Ireland in July. (his example, with the difference that he proposes may as another possible modal) We believe that the account of all these uses will be made easier by underlying that they are all occurrences of epistemic modality (or low probability, if preferred). NOTES
1. We are grateful for the support of the Universidad Complutense of Madrid (research project La adquisicin de los verbos modales en ingls como segunda lengua por los hispanohablantes, Ref. PR/105-13277). 2. In the most recent version of Hallidays grammar (Halliday and Matthiessen 2004), a first distinction is made between median and outer modality, subdividing outer into high and low. However, we prefer to maintain the original three-term distinction. 3. It must be noted that the Spanish impersonal construction puede (ser) que + Subjunctive , with the verb poder, inequivocally expresses epistemic modality, in contrast with the personal construction with the verb poder + infinitive.

REFERENCES Cintron, K.M. and Graham, K. 1999. Find your partner strips: modals of inference. Doc. de Internet disponible en http://www.eslpartyland.com/teachers/grammar/fpmodals.htm]. Coates, J. 1983. The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm. Downing, A. and Locke, P. 2002. A University Course in English Grammar. London: Routledge.(First edition: 1992, Prentice Hall.) Halliday, M.A.K. 1994 (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold. Halliday, M.A.K. and Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Third edition. London: Arnold. Murphy, R. 2004 (1987) (1994). English Grammar in Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nuyts, J. 2001. Epistemic Modality, Language and Conceptualization. A Cognitive-Pragmatic Perspective. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10

11

Perkins, M. R. 1983. Modal Expressions in English. London: Frances Pinter.

11