24/01/2012

(1)

Modality (a.k.a. Mood)

1. Introduction 2. The realisations of modality 3. Dimensions of modality Sources: Downing and Locke (2000), module 44 Huddleston and Pullum (2002): 172-212

a. It is raining. b. #It is raining but I dont believe it. c. It may be raining (people are carrying wet umbrellas).

(2) You may use the phone, as long as you pay for the calls.

Dimensions of modality
Kind: epistemic, deontic, (dynamic) Strength: weak, strong, medium Degree: modalised and unmodalised clauses

Kinds of modality
1. The linguistic expression of the speakers judgement or assessment of the truth (factuality, actuality) of the situation (EPISTEMIC / LIKELIHOOD) 2. The linguistic means by which speakers influence and control others and commit themselves to certain courses of action (the speakers attitude to the actualisation of future situations (NON-EPISTEMIC / DEONTIC)

24/01/2012

The realisations of modality

Through verbs:
modal auxiliaries: can, could, will, would, must, shall, should, may, might, ought to, need, dare lexico-modal auxiliaries: have got to, be bound to, be to, performatives: allow, beg, command, forbid, warn wonder and wish

The realisations of modal meanings

Through other categories:
adverbs: probably, possibly, surely, hopefully, thankfully, obviously adjectives: possible, probable, likely: Its possible he may come; the most probable/likely outcome of this trial. Nouns: probability, possibility, chance, likelihood

Kinds of modality: epistemic

Epistemic modality: certainty

Prediction based on repeated experience or common sense.
Expressed by will and would. Also with be apt to.

Certainty (100%-90%) Probability (75%) Possibility (60%-10%?)

Logical necessity, deduction or conclusion.

Expressed by must. Also by be bound to, be sure to.

24/01/2012

Its 5:50. The secretary usually leaves her office at 5:45). A: The secretary is not answering the phone. B: She will be gone already. (The doorbell rings) A: That will be Peter. Water will boil at 80C. Indian families will not accept family planning until they have two sons.

Its 5 pm. The secretary usually leaves her office at 5:45). A: The secretary does not answer the phone. B: She must have left earlier today.

Epistemic modality: probability or what is reasonable to expect

Expressed by should and ought to. They admit the non-fulfilment of the activity (non-binding or non-factive, as opposed to the binding or factive modals will and must)
a. He should reach the office at 9 am (but the trains are running late, so Im afraid he will not be there in time). b. #He will reach the office at 9 am (but the trains are running late, so Im afraid he will not be there in time).

should and ought to

With past time reference they can be counterfactive [in contrast with will and must]:
a. He should/ought to have reached the office by now and he probably has. b. He should/ought to have reached the office by now but he probably hasnt. c. He will have reached the office by now *but he probably hasnt. d. He must have reached the office by now *but he probably hasnt.

24/01/2012

Epistemic modality: possibility

(Its 5:30. The secretary usually leaves her office at 5:45). A: The secretary is not answering the phone. B: She should /ought to be in the office. Its only 5:30 and she didnt have any errands to run.

Expressed by may, might, (could). They express the speakers assessment of the possibilities that something is true. They can be paraphrased as it is possible that X.
a. It may snow tomorrow. b. It might snow tomorrow. c. *It can snow tomorrow. BUT d. It cant snow tomorrow. [can is restricted to non-affirmative contexts]

Kinds of modality: Deontic or intrinsic (with deontic source)

Obligation and necessity
Inescapable obligation Non-binding obligation (advisability)

Obligation and necessity: inescapable obligation

Expressed by will, must, have to and have got to Will and be going to (2nd and 3rd persons):
You will report back for duty on Friday morning [implicature from prediction in the future]

Must: to impose subjective obligation

strong and direct illocutionary force (direct command) when:
The deontic source is the speaker (cultural context) The Subject is you The verb is agentive and in the active voice

Permission

To mitigate directness:
Impersonal devices [third person, passive voice, etc]

24/01/2012

Other modals for inescapable obligation

Shall: formal, used mainly in legal language Have to: objective obligation Have got to: subjective obligation
You must wash your hands before returning to work. [direct] Applications must be in by June 30. [mitigated directness] Lizards must hibernate if they are to survive the winter [scientific fact expressed as necessity] I must leave now. [subjective obligation] You definitely have to stay with us when you come to Barcelona. [indirect speech act: request]

Time reference: suppletive forms for the past and the future:
I must leave leave I had to leave; I will have to

Unfulfilled obligation
Expressed by should, ought to and be supposed to Motivations:
lack of authority on the part of the speaker tact, politeness lack of conviction

Negation [external vs internal]:

You must leave You must not leave. (internal) You must leave You need not leave / You dont have to leave (external)

One-time event vs. habitual or recurring

We must/*have to call a doctor straight away.

24/01/2012

Kinds of modality: Dynamic (without a clear deontic source)

Should / ought to + perfect [past reference] Counterfactuality:
The book should have been on the shelf (but for some reason it was not there.) You were supposed to wait for me at the station (why did you stand me up?)

Volition/ dispositions Propensity/ properties of the subject Abilities

Volition (strong)
Expressed by will, shall (restricted to some speakers, first person)
A: Will you make a donation to the Red Cross? B: Yes, I will. Will has the illocutionary force of a promise or a threat
A: Ill bring you something back from Paris (I promise). A: (I warn you that) if you keep talking this way Ill hang up.

Volition (medium and weak)

Medium (Intention), expressed by intend to and want) Weak, expressed by be willing to and be prepared to Differences between will and be willing to.
A) Degrees of strength: () a. I will be back before six #but I may not be able to manage it. b. I intend to be back before sixbut I may not be able to manage it.

It lends itself to various pragmatic (indirect) uses:

[polite offer] Will you have another slice of melon? [directive] Will you listen to me and stop interrupting? [request] Will you lend me your pen? [offer] Shall I carry these bags for you? [suggestion] Shall we take the umbrella?

24/01/2012

Volition (medium and weak)

Differences between be willing to and will
B) No contrast between external and internal negation: () a. She isnt willing to receive any payment. [negation of volition] b. She is willing not to receive any payment.[internal negation, volition for something not to happen] () a. Jill wont sign the form. [negation of volition] b. ?

Propensity
Will for characteristic of habitual behaviour of animates or general properties of inanimates (usually in negative sentences):
The car wont start (present tense reference). The key would not go in the lock. He will lie in bed all day, reading trashy novels.

Ability
Expressed by can (cant), could, may, might, its not possible to X, it is not possible for Y to do X Meaning = Nothing prevents X from occurring (something = natural laws, laws of physics, moral laws, good manners, etc.) Dynamic vs Deontic modality (ambiguities)
() a. She can stay as long as she likes. b. She can easily beat everyone else in the club. c. She can speak French.

Pragmatic interpretations by inference:

[offer] I can pick you up at the station, if you want. [request] Can you pass the salt?

Past time reference (single situation viewed as completed):

How did the highjacking end? *Could the hostages escape? How did the highjacking end? ______ the hostages _______ escape?

Past time reference (no completion):

When he was twelve he could talk backwards, but now he cant.

24/01/2012

May [more formal]. Possible inferences:

[Polite requests] May I use your computer to check my email? [Offers] May I pour you some tea?

Possible: able to be done or achieved, able to exist [+ (for) to]

Is it possible for someone to be tickled to death? How is it possible for insects and spiders to walk on water or walls? Is it possible for an undergraduate to take graduate-level courses? Is it possible to buy tickets in advance? Is it possible for a woman to receive too many jewelry gifts?

Possible: not certain [+ (that)]

It's possible that the tapes were stolen. How is it possible that our world was created in six days? Is it possible that my computer crashes because of the cosmic radiation? But: Is it possible for my computer to become infected with a virus through the ResNet? Yes.

Modals and past time reference

Past time can > could [deontic and dynamic readings].
Exception: could cannot be used in affirmative contexts when it is a matter of actualisation of a single situation viewed perfectively. () a. I left early but still I couldnt get a seat. b. I left early and *could get a good seat. c. I left early and was able to get a good seat.

24/01/2012

Modals and past time reference

will would [dynamic readings] () a. I had no money on me but he wouldnt lend me any. [volition].
but : I had no money on me but he *would lend me some. [Restriction against would in singular situations in affirmative contexts]

Modals and past time reference with the perfect

Perfect have, when following a modal auxiliary, may belong semantically in the complement of the modal or may have scope over the modal: internal perfect: the modality is present, the past time reference applies to the situation expressed by the lexical verb. external perfect: the past time reference applies to the modal, indicating counterfectuality [it changes the polarity of the proposition] Modal verbs vary in their scope possibilities [should/ could vs must].

b. Whenever he heard her coming he would quickly put out his pipe. [propensity] c. Only a few months later their love would change to hate. [futurity, actual event, narrative genres]

Modal auxiliaries and the scope of the perfect

External perfect with deontic/dynamic readings
() a. He should have told her but he didnt. [obligation applied in the past] b. *He must have told her. [not for obligation in the past, only internal in Standard English]] c. He could have told her if he had wanted to. [permission applied in the past] d. He might/could have told her. [reproach]

Modal auxiliaries and the scope of the perfect

internal perfect with epistemic readings () a. He must have told her. Thats why she was so upset.
[I am forced to conclude that ] b. You must have been working all night. c. He may have been working all night.

24/01/2012

Modal auxiliaries and the scope of the perfect

Ambiguities: () He neednt have told her [epistemic or deontic/dynamic readings] 1. He didnt have to tell her but he did. 2. It isnt necessarily the case that he told her. () He might have frightened her. 1. It might be the case that he frightened her. 2. His frightening her is a possible [but unrealised] consequence of something that he did.

Modals and negation

external negation: negated modality vs internal negation: negated situation Modal verbs vary in their scope possibilities [need and can vs must and may].

Internal negation with deontic senses You must not feed the animals. [obligation not to] For external negation of must, use have to or need [necessity]: You dont have to feed the animals. [no obligation to] You need not feed the animals. [no need to] Internal negation with epistemic senses If you're at home, you must not be working. Most home-based business owners feel the effects of this myth from time to time. [present tense reference, note the progressive form] The cops arrived, Britney was breathalized, but the machine must have not been working because she was released without charge. [past tense reference, note the progressive form]

Internal negation with epistemic senses

Sometimes the product may not have been working properly, but often the reason for the return was something as minor as the customer not knowing how to use it.

10

24/01/2012

Logical relation between epistemic necessity and possibility

Epistemic necessity: must, need, necessary, necessarily Epistemic possibility: may, can, possible, possibly, perhaps. The necessity of P is equivalent to the negation of the possibility of not P.

Logical relation between epistemic necessity and possibility

Logical necessity He must be guilty. He must be not guilty. He isnt necessarily guilty. He isnt necessarily not guilty. Possibility -> He cant be not guilty. -> He cant be guilty. -> He may be not guilty. -> He may be guilty.

11