MODAL EXPRESSIONS IN ENGLISH

A** <r^

1. 0. lntroduction. The treatment of modaiity so tar has focused on a formal and pragmatic account of die modal auxiliaries. It is natural for 7^^~ linguistic treaunents of modaiity in English to have as their niain focus this t, finite set of ver!s" in eomparison #idi odier modal expressions. die modals A**$%A are syntactically distinct, readily lending diemselves to fonnal definition and analysis& they are the most granunaticali'ed exponents of the system of modaiity in English. Indeed the study of the modals is often regarded as synonymous #idi die study of modaiity itself, since the range of meanings they eni!race largely corresponds to a typological account of modaiity in language 1. This is not to imply that linguists fail to recogni'e the existence of other carriers of modaiity. English has an armoury of devices !y #hich it can signal modal contrasts. These include, for iustance, die use of" modal idioms sucii as (iad !etter), )sure)& nouns such as )possi!ility), )li*elihood), )certainty)& adver!s such as )perhaps), )!elieve). In speech, modal expressions can com!ine #ith a particular intonational contour to modify in +onie #ay the original modal meaning expressed. ,or example, in the utterance" )It cduld iiave !een an accident, perh-ps), the coni!ination of the fail and r.se$ fall tones, in harness #ith die modal and adver!, conveys the meaning of possi!ility !ut #idi evident overtones of spea*er reservation and a hint of scepticism a!out die very possi!ility die spea*er is in the act of conceding/.

1 See Palmer (1986) whcre the grammat cal categ!r" !# m!$a t" % $e&t # e$' $e%cr (e$ a&$ c!m)are$ acr!%% a &*m(er !# $ ##ere&t a&$ *&relate$
la&+*age%'

/ See Hall $a" #!r #*rther $eta l%, M' A' -' Hall $a"' Dversity in Language ax Seen front a Consideralion of Modaiity and Mood English, .!*&$at !&% !#
La&g*age 6' 19/0' 122316'

101

7 2345$$6768.OHtJSfSX5 *n#hich modal ity can manifest itself and there is rich poten9ial for the

assoc.:9.oii;of ;diverse modal elements #ithin the one sentence. <ecognition of the significance of differept modal expressions prompted =almer 1 to o!serve that modality is not necessarily mar*ed in the ver!al element of a clause and that diere is no particular reason #hy this should !e so apart from the fact that the ver! is the most central part of the sentence. It is of course this very centrality #hich has encouraged linguists to rehearse modal concepts almost exclusively in tenns of the modal auxiliaries and aii too fre>uently at die expense of other modal expressions. %hen cited, these have often only !een used for their heuristic value to elucidate the meanings of the modals, rarely attracting much attention in dieir o#n right. ?o account of modality #hich aims to !e comprehensive can claim to !e descriptively ade>uate !y focusing on the modals alone, nor !y discussing chem in isolation from other modal elements #ith #hich they may !e functioning synergetically #ithin the same environment. Analysis of language corpora reveals that modal elements fre>uently com!ine and interact dynainically& modality can therefore !e seen to reiate not exclusively or even principally to the ver! !ut to die sentence as a #hole. The present chapter examines a range of modal expressions" modal idioms& modal ad@ectives phrases& modal noun phrases& and modal lexical ver!s. %hilst each category is revie#ed in turn, it should !e noted that these different modal expressions often com!ine to create a +trand of modally hannonic expressions #hich pervade the utterance. 1. 1. (odal Idioms. (odal idioms include a fe# multi$#ord ver! constructions #hich, in accordance #idi the idiom principie, function as single semantic units. Ayntactically, this type of modal expression is invaria!le, the constituents of the idiom appear in a fixed relation to one another. In this category, #e focus on )had !etter), )#ould rather), )have got to), (s to) and a num!er of modal$ adver! collocations, such as )could possi!ly) and )may #ell). The latter are not typically cited as modal idioms in the literature !ut recent research has sho#n that there are instances of nodal$adver! co$ occurrence #hich clearly demonstrate idiomaticity and vvliich may !e construed as ready$made utterances or )ha!itual collocations)/. 1. /. (ulti$%ord er!s. These constructions all !egin #idi an auxiliary
See .al& er' V. R'' Mood arid Modality, 4am(r $ge5 4am(r $ge 6& 7er% t" Pre%%, 1986, )' \ . 8' .!r a %*cc &ct acc!*&t !# m!$al a$7er( c!m( &at !&% & E&gl %h' %ee H!"e, L' .', !"he ira##ar and Se#anli$s of Modal%&dver' Co#'inations in English8, Re7*e R!*ma &e $e ' &g* %l 9*e' .!rthc!m &g 199:' Seeal%!, H!"e L' .' ; <$re&ghea, M ha ' 199:, !Modalsand (lver's in English )ith referen$e lo *otnanian! RAS-, I, 2, ))' 2:3:0'

10B

ver!, follo#ed eidier !y die !are or to$infinitive" C1. 01D They HAD BETTER leave before sunset; C1. 0/D E)7 RATHER have the sporisem; C1. 01D +e!VE GOT TO have the matter resolve to ay; C1. 0BD The inau!ura"i#on #$ TO ta%e pla&e tomorro'( ?one of these has nonfinite fornis and they caiuiot therefore odier ver!s in the ver! phrase" C1. 03D )They HAD HAD BETTER leave before sunset; C1. 00D *+e +#,, HA-E GOT TO have the matter resolve to ay; C1. 0FD ./7ie inau!uration HA$ BEE0 to ta%e pla&e tomorro'( This feature distinguishes these idiomatic ver!s froni main ver!s, although to differing degrees. ;%ould rather) has no passive e>uiyalent" C1. 0GD 1The sports&ar 'oul rather be ha by me2 HA E IJT TJ and KA TJ, IuD#ever, exhi!it some main$ver! characteristics" they ta*e s$ inflection, and have normal presentEpast tense contrast" C1. 0LD $he HA$ GOT TO see the boss; C1. 10D The meetin! +A$ TO ta%e pla&e yester ay( ,inally, eniphasi'ers such as <EAMMN, OE<TA1?MN, AP<EMN may !e interpolated in each of these ver!al constructions although this) is usually not possi!le #ith any other adver!ial type" C1. 11D They HAD REA,,3 BETTER leave soon; C1. 1/D E)7 4ERTA#0,3RATHER have the Rolls2 if it)s all the same to youl C1. 11D *E HA -E GOT TO5ORRO+ TO !o to the ban%( )4e to) is an exception and eo$oceurs #ith NET or ATIMM #hen reference to the future is !eing highlighted" C1. 1BD The 'orst reports ARE 3ET TO &ome( These idioms all express modal nieanings #hich correlate to a large extent #ith those expressed !y the modal auxiliaries. )Had !etter1 is similar in meaning to )should) and the marginal auxiliary )oOiglit to) #hen these are used to convey senses related to )o!ligation). )Had !etter) can tiius only !e used to express deontic modaiity. In effect, the spea*er recomniends or advises the hearer to underta*e the )!est) course of action in the circunistances" C1. 13D They)D BETTER !et permission first( %hat distinguishes )had !etter) from )should) or )ought to) is that it is far from o!vious #ho the deontic source is" is it the spea*er, or an unspecified third party2 )Had !etter) additipnally conveys the inforniation that the spea*er considers it in the hearer)s !est interests to perform or ini9iate the action in >uestion. )%ould rather) contrasts #ith )had !etter) iu that it is clearly su!@ect$oriented. =almer 1 suggests that the t#o idioms function not unli*e )may) and can) #here these modals express permission and a!ility respectively. Again,
1 4I=' Palmer' I5' R'' (2&$ e$')' Modaiity and ilie liiig(sh Modals. I>&$!&5 L!&gma&' 1990' ,. 16/'

103

)#ould rather) is deontic and is used to convey the volitional$relatednieaning of preference, #here tlie spea*er refers to a preference Tor a present or future action" C1. 678 TD RATHER noi &omtnent on the issuefor the tirne bein!( xA )Have got to) is die only meni!er of die group #hich can also function ie epistemically conveying meamngs to do #ith the modal notion of )necessity) oi and spea*er @udgement. )Have got to) !ears a close relationship to )must) and ;EEQ the so"cal1ed >uasi$modals )need) and )have to). 1 As a suppletive for )must), 9E: ;have got to) is either more emphatic or impersonal according to #hedier it @@. is !eing used epistemically or deontically" C1. 1FD There HA$ GOT TO be a im@ ).)sto%e; C1 1GD +e HA -E GOT TO ma%e every effort to help them( 4ecause N8 D )have got to) in its deontic guise is more impersonal than )must), sorae linguists, sucii as =almer;, argue that it categorically denies any degree of spea*er involvement. Net, as Ooates 1 points out, in contrast to )have to), have got to) sho#s a tendency to indicate greater spea*er involvement. ?o dou)!t the collo>uial status accorded to )got) is a contri!utory factor here. ,rom a pragmatic poiut of vie#, deontic )have got to) is used in an@ &ori@ contexts #here to use )must) #ould sound impolite or lac* the necessary degree of formality. The issue iret dierefore is not necessarily #hether it is die spea*er #ho 8@ is in authority.
MAAlI

(l #o

In epistemic contexts, some commentators argue, mista*enly in our vie#, that, in te mD r tl iter contrast to )must), )have got to) expresses )o!@ective) epistemic modality. It is nect & posited that the evidence availa!le to the spea*er depends on ci reuni sta nces fraii edu & !eyond his control& the deductive processes !y #hich @udgement is reached entt fall outside his )su!@ective provinceB. 4y contrast, so the argument goes. )must) is compati!le
#ith either o!@ective or su!@ective epistemic modality& in the latter case, the evidence availa!le to the spea*er is assessed and interpreted exclusively from his o#n standpoint. There are tliree ma@or o!@ections to this vie#. ,irstly, in natural language, diere is no Ay evidence to suggest that #hen a spea*er ma*es an epistemic @udgement that "laus @udgement is anything other dian an expression of his o#n opinion on the evel general state of affairs of things, and is therefore, inherently su!@ective. Dossi
lonie ? Scc,"* r@ et aA (A98:) #!r $ela lc$ $ %c*%% !& !# the $ ##ere&ce% (etwce& =&ee$=, =ha7e t!= a&$
ha7e g!l t!=' B
*,r

2 Sec I8almer' 1". R'' Modality and tlie English Modals, IB&$!&5 L!&gma&' 19/9' 1 Sec 4ra c% (1981' )' C1)'

%*(D* C Sec l8c @ &%, M' R'' Modal Ex,ressions in English. L!&$!&5 .ra&ce% P &ler' 1981, )' 60tE'

100 Aecondly, )have got to) is regularly used in epistemic contexts #here there can !e no hint of )o!@ectivity) and #here its selection in preference to )must) is primarily for empliasis C#here it is ideally suited to the pragmatic expression of surprise or astonislunentD" C1. 1LD He )$ GOT TO be <o%in!= C1. /0D He 5>$T be <o%in!=6 Thirdly, as Ruir* et al/ o!serve, there are native spea*ers #lio simply do not recogni'e the distinction !et#een the )internai) or )seif o!ligation expressed !y )must), and )o!ligation !y externai forces) expressed !y )have got to). ,inally, )have got to) replaces )must) #hen past tense or nonfinite forms are re>uired !y the context. )Have got to) thus complements the use of )must) and may serve as a more emphatic or impersonal alternative according to the pragmatic context. vis uO is regularly used to express futurity, especially #here conscious planning .or organi'ation of the future event is implied" C1. /1D 4ertain epartments ARE TO be isban e an reinte!rate ; C1. //D There #$ TO be full investi!ation into the sour&e of the lea%s( The past tense fonns).#as to) and )#ere to) are used to refer to future eyent+.from die standpoint of the past"TlF/1D ,ittle i they!!i#o))^fise!)-S".folto)/ C1. /BD They +ERE TO be&ome &lase allies( Jn account of its temporal uses,Stii,is modal idiom happily accepts the interpolation of a tinie adver!ial" C1. /3D They +ERE2 $OO0?#0 THE E0D?>,T#5A TE, 32 TO be&ome firm allies( PsutoT8Uused@n preference to )#il@) $ die closest approximation there is in English to a )neutral) future $ #here is implied reference to the act that the state pf affairs in >uestion has !een arranged prior to die moment of spea*ing. ,or this reason it #ould sound peculiar to utter" C1. /0D @The sun is to rise tomorro'( In order contexts, )is to) approaches the meaning of #ha9 is reasona!le or po+si!le as typically expressed !y )can)" C1. /FD #fail to un erstan ho' this sort of problem #$ TO be avoi e in the future( )Ks to) is also used in contexts #here command+ or or in+tructioiis are !eing relayed" C1. /GD 3ou ARE TO remain insi e until further noti&e(2 4asically. this idiom has tuture$time orientation !ut, according to context, inayScarry #ith it overtones of)compulsioii), )arrangement), )destiny) and so on. It cleariy sliares much in conimoil #ith )#il.) #here the modal is used to

1 l8F G t cr # 19905:6) !(%er7c% thal (( ' 19) % & !rc t") cal !l8Amer ca& Iha& Hr l %l %)eech' / 4H* r@' -'' Grcc&(a*m' S'' IBeech' G'' S7art7 @' S' A'' Co#,rehensive 0###ar of the linglish 12tinguage, l'!&$!&5 L!&gma&' 198:' )' 226'
10F Ie$ ct a future event or to eonvey the spea*er)s insistence that a particular ct !* he initiated. It contrasts #itli the modal in that it conveys more Jm# $e&ce on die part of the spea*er and more clearly asserts his authority.

I I& addition to these four multi$#ord idioms, Ruir* et al

list additional, less !onunoii idioms, alternatives to )#ould rather) and )had !etter) #hich could TC included in this category and #hich #e illustrate !elo# for the

sa*e of aompleteness" C1. /LD E +O>,D $OO0ERyou assume responsibility; C1. 10D .??? sure they +O>,D A/>$T8 A$ $OO0 stay at home; C1. 11D +E HAD 9E$T for!et 'hat happene (
1 . 1' M!$al3A$7er( 4!ll!cat !&%' This is a complex area to #hich it is nipossi!le to do full @ustice in the limited space availa!le for discussion here. vlodal$adver! collocations represent more or less esta!lished se>uences in the anguage, and therefore demonstrate varying degrees of idiomaticity. That is, sonie com!inations are more fre>uent dian others and are more readily iredicta!le. Oertain com!inations, ho#ever, are truly idiomatic, the issociation !et#eeii modal ver! head and adver! satellite !eing invaria!le. VVV central modals" )can), )could), )may), might). )shall), )should), )#ill). #ould). and )must) are su!@ect to modification !y an appropriate adver!.

The adver!s #hich typically com!ine #ith the modals are a limited set of tenis #hich also have as their semantic function the expression of modality Wr the associated notion of degree. ?otionally, these are referred to in the iterature as )modal adver!s), )adver!s of mood* or )modal ad@uncts). The nost cominon adver! cdllocates include" )certainly), )definitely), )surely;. conceiva!ly), )perhaps), )possi!ly), )pro!a!ly), )inevita!ly), and necessarily). Additionally, there are a fe# itenis such as )actually), )really). fran*iy;, )honestly) #hich, in coni!ination #ith a modal !ecome lexically edundant and operate as )emphasi'ers), reinforcing the truth feature of the entence in #hich they occur. Ayntactically, modal adver!s Cas #e shall call theniD may operate #ithin the "lause, at the level of the ver! phrase, or outside the clause, at sentence evel"; C1. 1/D $he 4A0T BO$$#B,3 be reo&he ut horne2 CIt is in no #ay xDssi!le to reach her at homeD& C1. 11D BO$$#B,32 she 4A0T be rea&he&l at lome( CIt is possi!le drat it isn)t possi!le to her at homeD. In C1. 11D the
K* r@ el al' op( &il(2 )' 1C2' K* r@ ct al (198:) re#er l! %e&te&ce a$7er(% a% =$ %D*&cl%= a&$ 7er( )hra%e a$7er(% a% %*(D*&ct%='

10G adver! elea9ly lies outside die scope of the ad@oining clause, #hereas in C1. 1/D it !eeonies an integrated element #ithin the ver! phrase" it cannot !e shifted to another position in the sentence #ithout this ch-nging its syntactic status and thus affecting the meaning. ,or instan9e" C1. 1BD $he BO$$#B,3 4A0)T be rea&he at hCrtie2 could !e glossed in the same #ay as C1. 11D !ut not C1. 1/D. Here, the adver! operates as an intensifier on the ad@acent negated modal, #hich it modifies directly& the modal$adver! com!ination operates as a single entity. JiPy. #here the modal coni!ines #ith a =$advef! is it stric9ly appropriate to accord modal$adver! com!inations idiomatic status. It should !e noted, ho#ever, that sentence adver!$modal co$occurrence is my u@iconmion, and the pragmatic effect is to enhance the spea*er)s authority !y ena!ling him to conihient, as it #ere, on the ad@oining clause" C1. 13D $>RE,32 there 5>$T be a rnista%e; C1. 10D DRA0E,32 # +O>,D0)Tfeel happy about a &fiil of ruine beiri! allo'e to see the film; C1. 1FD 0AT>RA,,3( 6 4O>,D not help ta%in! the opportunity to as% 'hat her husban 4O>,D BO$$#B,3 ma%e of a 'orthless !oo FforFnothin! li%e rne; C 1. 1GD He ha a 'ay 'ith 'or s an +O>,D #0E-#TAB,3 !o far in the &ompany( Aentence adver!s are ideal for their thematic role, even though they may !e interpolated in clause structure as exemplified in C1. 1GD, !ut on account of their syntactic status, their relative peripherality, they do not exhi!it modal synergism to the sanie degree as those adver!s #hich operate at ver! piuase level. That said. and despite their relative peripherality, sentence adver!s Cdis@unctsD are su!@ect to selec9ionai restrictions at the extremes of the modal spectrum" C1. 1LD BO$$#B,32 she 5#GHT have left; C1. B0D *BO$$#B,32 she 5>$T have left( CI. B1D DED#0#TE,32 the &ar 5>$T be in the !a ra!e; )BO$$#B,32 the &ar 5>$T be in the !a ra!e( Jnly in concessive use, or conceiva!ly #here the interpretation is deontic, can there appear to !e an incongruity !et#een the contrasting modalities expressed !y auxiliary and its adver! satellite" C1. B1D 4ERTA#0,32 they 5#GHT be there C)!ut someho# I dou!t it)D& C1. BBD @BO$$#B,32 the &ar 5 >$T A)shoul )8 be in the !ara!e for a servi&e but # 'ant to use it no'l It is. ho#ever, #ith ver! phrase$adver!s CRuir* et al)s su!@unctsD that the modals most fre>uently com!ine. This area reinains the focus of. the present section and #e shall refer to the category of adver!s involved as su!@uncts. Ayntactically, su!@uncts occur at medial position, or a variant of medial position, according to the complexity of the ver! phrase" C1. B3D As a lifeF

10L m!frien 2 6 $#5B,3 4A0T spea% too hi!hly ofhim; C1. B0D +e REA,,3 t>$T&at&h up 'ith the &orrespon en&e; C1. BFD E HO0E$T,3 4O>,D0)T unember 'here #) put the boo%; C1. BGD The <e'els 5A li 3+E,, have been ist; C1. BLD A <ury 4ERTA60,3 +O>,D 0 T let him off( Oertain suh@uncts "iid to favour i\ If certain positions, #hich may !e either pre$ or post$auxiliary. ienerally, the adver! conies in pre$auxiliary DQ position #hen the modal occurs . its negated torni, as can !e seen from examples C1. B3D, C1. BFD and C1. LD 111 a!ove. Exceptions include the coni!ination of )can)t) or )eouldn)t) #ith Wossi!ly) or )conceiva!ly)" C1. 30D IC They 4A00OT BO$$#B,3stay here; C1. 1D $he 4O>,D0)T 4O04E#-AB,3 have for!otten the fi #es= As aD #e iscussed a!ove, transposing the adver!s in these environnients radically Ia ters the meaning. )Oertainly), l )definitely), )surely) are happy in either er Dsition, although are more emphatie #hen in pre$auxiliary position" C1. 3/D G hey 5>$T $>RE,3 have realiHe the an !er they 'ere in; C1. 31D They IDD >RE,3 5>$T have realiHe the an!er they 'ere in( )=ossi!ly), onceiva!ly), ;inevita!ly), )necessarily), )o!viously), )of course) favour post$ixiliary position. %hilst modal$adver! com!inations may have deontic or epistemic eanings" C1. 3BD He 5A3+E,, have for!otten the papers CepistemicD, and ivi . 33D 4O>,D # />$T ma%e one or t'o observations2 here@ CdeonticD. it is Jl e epistemic interpretations #hich most readily lend tliemselves to aii @scription and #here patterns or trends in eo$oceurrence can most easily !e eni scerned. It should @ust !e noted here that in deontic contexts the presence & c an adver!ial collocate generally reduces the directness of the utterance, tht ndering it more poli9e" C1. 30D BERHAB$ 'e $HO>,D loo% at the matter ess Iain tomorro'( C1. 3FD 4O>,D # />$T ma%e one or t'o observations at J i is point@ C1. 3FD +O>,D you E#0D, 3,oo% into the matter@ =ragmatically, tru ,ch

overt niar*ing of tentativenessEpoliteness is almost o!ligatory if the re t terauces are not other#ise to !e regarded as terse or discourteous. X* ccording to context, deontic com!inations are typically used to perform of i >uests. offers, suggestions, or invitations. me The strength of collocational attraction, ho#ever, is most evident #here the truc odal$adver! coni!ination is used to express epistemic modality !ecause in il e .glish there is a natural association !et#een the epistemic modals and those K#a&i ver!s #hich also express varying degrees of possi!ility or li*elihood. The ain iteins involved have already !een cited a!ove. It is feasi!le to esta!lish paradigm of spea*er assessineiits #hich convey the relative strength or
l!r

1F0 #ea*iiess of the spea*er)s )*iio#ledge). These protoypical & !$aLa$7c ( expressions represent esta!lished se>uences and are intrinsic to L('e%"%tem !# modality in English"1,/ & ght c!&ce 7a(l", m ght )!%% (l", m ght perhaps, ma" )!%% (l", ma" )erha)%, m ght well, ma" well, w ll )r!(a(l", w ll certa &l", w ll *&$!*(te$l", m*%t %*rel", m*%t certa &l", m ght&8t CrareD &ece%%ar l", ma" &!t &ece%%ar l", )r!(a(l" w!*l$&8t, )r!(a(l" w!&8t, e!*l$&8t )!%% (l", e!*l$&8t c!&ce 7a(l", ca&8t )!%% (l"' The status of these com!inations suggests diat the modal auxiliary ver! system in English is undergoing a su!tle process of gradual and continued refinement& some adver! )acolytes) are !ecoming increasingly integrated #ithin the modal ver! phrase. The clearest example of diis process can !e seen in the coni!ination of )could), )might), and )may) #ith )#ell), #here the modality expressed !y die modal is actually transformed radier than reinforced" the modal alone connotes )possi!ility), #idi )#ell) it implies )pro!a!ility). Jne could not #ithout contradiction utter" C1. 3LD The plan 5#GHT?5A 3?4O>,D L +E,, be revitaliHe 2 on the other han 2 it 5#GHT((( L +E,, not( These com!inations represent the most compelling form of modal$adver! synergy and diere can !e no >uestion as to their idiomatic status. )%ell) is not normally classed as a modal adver!& it is uni>uely in the modal environments descri!ed that it performs the modal transfoniiation. In other modal environments, for instance, )#ell) modifies not the auxiliary !ut the main ver!, #hich it emphasi'es" C1. 00D E 4A0 +E,, I >0DER$TA0D that after ten years she feels the nee for a &han!e( )(ust* should also !e mentioued !ecause it only readily accepts niodification !y a group of adver!s that are often referred to as the )evidentials)" )inevita!ly), )evidently), )o!viously), and )clearly) are the most comnion. These adver!s mirror the modal)s epistemic orientation and its use to express the strongest of all epistemic @udgenients, !ased Jii the spea*er)s inference" C1. 01D 4orruption 5>$T #0E-#TAB,3 ero e politi&al le!itirna&y; CI. 0/D Any history of t'entiethF&entury art 5>$T 0E4E$$AR#,3 in&lu e referente to Bi&asso an Dali(

1 Hall $a" (19/05 11C) e%la(l %he% a &!t $ %% m lar %cale !l8m!$al 7er( eJ)re%% !&% & term% !# what he call% the = &ter)er%!&al= #*&ct !& !# m!$al t"' / ll ha% alrea$" (ee& &!te$ that a$7er(% #re9*e&tl" )rece$e the m!$al 7er( whe& the c##ect % *%*all" t! g 7e a$$ l !&al em)ha% %' ll % w!rth &!t &g that
th % %t ll a))l e% & the ca%c !# the m!re e%ta(l %he$ a&$ he&ec $ !mat c c!m( &at !&% %*ch a% =ma"M !r =m ght= N 8well=' a% & 8He OELL MAP (e ha7 &g $ ## c*lt e% ((*l that $!e%&8t mca& he ha% t! (e r*$e)8'

1F1 lie examination of language corpora thro#s up many instances of modal $er! com!inations. These may not !e fossili'ed in the sei@se that such ases as )aimo 7omini) and )!allpoint pen) are, !ut their tendency to i!ine in a patterned not hapha'ard #ay is perhaps more fre>uent dian dieir ividual occurrences #ould suggest. The modals permit of little iforceinent or su!modification and collocational toes have to !e respected Drding to selec9ionai restrictions and the principles of modal harmony, as mples C1. 1LD to C1. B1D illustrate. Net the rules can !e !ro*en, and letimes to humorous effect. A #ag in die na9ional press recently panned ain)s eomniiuiient to Europe #ith the ehadline" )Nes (r (itterand, #e Wlutely, categorically, possi!ly, may!e, could !e going into Europe)T . 0. A$Dect 7al a&$ N!m &al M!$al EJ)re%% !&%' 4odi categories of lai expression are closely related, !ut exhi!it varying degrees of ersonality or apparent spea*er involvement. 1. A$Dect 7al M!$al EJ)re%% !&%' These expressions involve such lai ad@ectives as )conceiva!le), )possi!le), )pro!a!le), )li*ely), )certain), inite), ;sure), )inevita!le), )necessary) #hich can occur in the frame )lt that... ). These ad@ectives all ta*e die impersonal su!@ect )it), #hich has .ffect of distancing or apparently disassociating the spea*er as the source ipinion from his utterance. Oompare" C/. 01D #t is BO$$#B,E that the Ms 'ill be elaye ; C/. 0/D The trains 5A3 be elaye ( The possi!ility in 01D is referred to as if it existed independently of die spea*er, and is ally asserted almost as if it #ere !ased on the availa!ility of indisputa!le ence. ,or this reason, some commentators suggest that the modaiity in i cases is )o!@ective). 1 Oertainly, the assertion of modaiity in this #ay the impersonal nature of die construction does suggest that a relative ess of )o!@ectification) is under#ay. Net, the utterance remains #ithin the u of the spea*er)s su!@ective epistemic assessment. Indeed, ad@ectival tructions of this type may com!ine #ith odier expressions of modaiity re the effect is to heighten die modaiity expressed" C/. 01D E $>BBO$E Hse are the main i eas2 it is BO$$#B,E that they 5A3 provi e the &lues2 of &ourse( orie 4A0 never be 4ERTA#0( ine ad@ectives. such as )certain) )dou!tful), )sure) also occur in personal tructions, as in T am sure that...) and again tend to co$occur #ith odier .l expressions" C/. 0BD Are you $>RE that he +#,, DED#0#TE,3 ta%e la&% &ase@ C/. 03D E remain DO>BTD>, that the i eal so&iety 4O>,D
#!r eJam)lc' I8er@ &%' 1981'

1F/ ever be realiHe ( There is a third group of ad@ectives #hich exclusively ta*e intiuitival complements" C/. 00D E am +#,,#0G to assume responsibility; C/. 0FD +eare AB,E to offer you a pa&%a!e eal( ,rom a stylistic point of vie#, all these constructions $ !e they personal or impersonal $ suggest elevated discourse and a formal context. This is particularly true in die case of deontic@&x pressions@Mi,f prohi!ition such

as can !e. fpund in pu!lic notices, or orders" C/. 0GD #t is DORB#DDE0 to 'al% on tfie !rass; C/. 0LD #t is BROH#B#TED to lean out of the 'in o' 'hilst the train is in motion; C/. 10D #t is #5BERAT#-E that ne' entrants shoul arrive by NO(NN hours; C/. 11D #t is 4O5B>,$OR3 that a&a emi& !o'ns be 'orn at the De!ree 4eremony( A distinction needs to !e dra#n !et#een the different ad@ectival constructions #hich can !e associated #ith the epistemic and deontic expressions of )possi!ility) and )necessity), as diese notions are expressed !y the modals )can) and )may), and )must). Jnly in these instances is there a direct correlation !et#een the ad@ectival expressions ta*ing a that 3complement and expressing epistemic modality, and diose ta*ing an infinitival complement and expressing deontic modality" C/. 1/D There 4A0 be elays; C/. 11D #t is BO$$#B,E DOR there to be elays( C/. 1BD $he 5A3 have ta%en the boat; C/. 13D #t is BO$$#B,E THAT she has ta%en the boat( C/. 10D +e RE A,, 3 5>$T leave soon; C/. 1FD #t is 0E4E$$AR3 DOR us to leave soon( C/. 1GD Bri&es 5>$T #0E-#TAB,3 !o on risin!; C/. 1LD @#t is 0E4E$$AR3 THATpri&es !o on risin!( Admittedly, die latter example #ould !e extremely rare if accepta!le at all in normal usage. It is mostly restricted to occurrence in formal, logical contexts, discussion of #hich lies outside the scope of die present survey. 1 2' 3. N!m &al M!$al EJ)re%% !&%' These expressions may !e restricted to the occurrence of modal nouns #ithin the frame" )There is a ...toEthat). They are closely related to modal ad@ectival expressions and need only !e discussed in !rief here. Typical items are" )chance), )hope), )possi!ility) appearing in such contexts as" C/. /0D There is a remote 4HA04E that they 'ill survive; C/. /1D +e have tittle HOBE ofseein! them a!ain; C/. //D There is no further BO$$#B#,#T3 of se&urin! a loan; C/. /1D There &an be tittle DO>BT that they 'ill fail( Tlie range of nouns involved mostly derive from
I Eh % c!&%tr*ct !& % &!rmall" re%tr cte$ t! the eJ)re%% !& !# l!g cal !r aleth c m!$al t" a% &5 8It % &ece%%ar" that (achel!r% are *&marr e$ ma&='

1F1 ir ver!al counterparts. ?ominal expressions are even more impersonal u their ad@ectival counterparts and represent die most )o!@ectified) state of dality !ut diey remain essentially su!@ective. These expressions also i!ine #ith other modal expressions" C/. /BD 4ERTA#0,32 #A$$>5E that Fe is a real 4HA04E2 if only a slim one2 that he 4O>,D rna%e it by htfall( . 0. M!$al LeJ cal Qer(%' There are several categories of ver! #hich can considered here, ver!s #hich express such notions as )asserting), duating), )re>uesting), )suggesting),$)exercising authority), and so forth. ny of diese ver!s could !e treated as )performative) ver!s in diat diey r to an action #hich is performed !y virtue of die sentence in #hich they ur !eing uttered" C1. 01D E DORB#D you to leave= C1. 0/D 3ou are />#RED to stan in Her presen&e( Ho#ever, there are many other ver!s ch can not !e treated in this #ay !ecause diey refer more to a mental & or predisposition than to the initiation of a specific act" C1. 01D E /E-E he 5A3 +E,, be the man 'e 'ant= C1. 0BD E TH#0E she ~I BA B,3 5>$T have for!otten( Aince deontic modaiity may !e associated i die initiation of a particular action, performative modal ver!s are "rently deontic" C1. 03D E #0$#$T that you bePuiet= C1. 00D +e #0-#TE you ine 'ith us this evenin!( C1. 0FD E hereby 0O5#0ATE you lea er of the ip( Oonversely, non$perforniative modal lexical ver!s express epistemic lality" C1. 0GD One 5>$T$>R5#$E2 BRE$>5AB,32 thathe)s !onestar%2 n! rna = C1. 0LD They $>$BE4TED that she +O>,D BROBAB,3resi!n( in, it is not uncommon for this type of modal expression to com!ine #idi r categories as !odi C1. 0GD and C1. 0LD illustrate. 0. M!$al EJ)re%% !&% & 4!&%)ect *%' This !rief survey of modal essions is indicative of die rich variety of means the spea*er has at his osal to express his opinion or @udgement, or to !ring a!out a particular Xn. The investigation has !een a tentative exploration radier diat an .ustive statement of this complex area of grammar. There are various mat ic constraints #hich #ill eventually decide die spea*er) s choice of ession. The decision to opt for an ad@ectival expression radier that a al lexical ver! or a modal auxiliary #ill !e founded in the spea*er)s @ption of this authority, die nature of the evidence availa!le to him $ever the particular constraining factors are at die moment of utterance. e modal auxiliaries are the most grammaticali'ed exponents of modaiity iiglish& in that diey lac* the lexical #eight of odier modal expressions,

1FB