1

INTRO TO MODALITY AND MOOD;

MODAL VERBS






1. Modality and Mood
Mood is a category of GRAMMAR;
Mood is a means of expressing modal meanings;

Modality = a category of meaning; it expresses the speakers attitude towards the situation that the sentence refers to;

Modality is centrally concerned with the speakers/ subjects attitude towards the factuality or actualization of the situation
expressed by the non-finite part of the clause (the proposition p)

Sentences can be:
1. Unmodalized: John is clever. presented as a fact;
- unmarked from the point of view of modality => claims about the real world; full commitment of the speaker regarding
the truth of the situation;
2. Speakers knowledge: John must be clever if he knows how to solve this problem.
= an evaluation of the information content of the sentence;
The Speaker is not directly presenting the situation John be clever as a fact, but expressing a (strong) belief based on
evidence;
- Present-oriented;
3. Speakers attitude towards future actualization: You must tell John about the meeting.
= attempt to change the world according to the speakers standards;
- Future-oriented;

The grammatical category of Mood is one way of expressing the general notion of Modality.
The FINITE moods in English INDICATIVE/ SUBJUNCTIVE/ IMPERATIVE;
The Indicative presents situations as facts (example in 1. above);
The Subjunctive the mood of thought; it is not directly concerned with the truth of situations in the real world;

(1) a. He demands that he be told everything. SYNTHETIC SUBJUNCTIVE
b. He demands that he should be told everything. ANALYTIC SUBJUNCTIVE
c. #He demands that he is told everything. INDICATIVE

- directive meaning According to his demands, he MUST be told everything; the source of the
directive interpretation is not the subjunctive form, but the matrix verb demand;
- The situation that he be told everything is not represented as a fact, but as a possible future
fulfillment of a demand;

The Imperative: Tell me everything!

Also, NON-FINITE moods (e.g. the Infinitive) are modalized (He demands to be told everything);

In Romanian Condiional-Optativ, Conjunctiv:

(2) a. Ar fi spus totul.
b. Vrea s i se spun totul.

2. The linguistic expression of modality
Besides the MOOD SYSTEM:
a) Lexical modals
These are means of expressing modality different from auxiliary verbs (like may and must);
2

Adjectives: possible, necessary, likely, probable, bound, supposed;
Adverbs: perhaps, necessarily, probably, certainly, surely;
Verbs: permit, require;
Nouns: possibility, necessity, permission;

b) Past Tense
Used to express REMOTE POSSIBILITY:
Present: If you do that again, you will be fired (open possibility)
Past: If you did that again, you would be fired (remote possibility)

c) Other verb inflection
The subjunctive form of be (were): If you were taller,...
In non-finite constructions: the infinitive (non-actuality) vs. the gerundial-participial construction (actuality):
(3) a. Hes the one to do the job. a. Hes the one doing the job.
b. I want to talk to her. b. I enjoy talking to her.

a. --> the one who should do the job;
b. --> the talking is merely potential;

d) Clause type
The declarative clause (without lexical modals etc.) factual statement (modally unmarked);
The imperative clause modalized; the speaker wants the actualization of some future situation;
The interrogative clause modalized (the speaker envisages mutually exclusive possibilities);

e) Subordination
Main declarative clauses speakers commitment to the truth of the proposition;
Subordination this commitment is often lost;
He is ill vs. They think he is ill.
They think he is ill vs. They know he is ill (illness presented as a fact by the speaker as well).
In English certain verbs select the subjunctive with should: They insist that you should come.
- other verbs are dual selectors: Its strange that he is/ should be so quiet. (factual vs. emotive)

f) Parentheticals
Contain lexical modals like seem, think: He is, it seems, almost bankrupt.


3. The grammatical status of modal verbs
Modal verbs (can, may, could might, must, need etc.) form a distinct morpho-syntactic class; we will say they are a special
class of auxiliaries;
They have properties in common with both auxiliaries (have, be, do) and lexical verbs;

A. PROPERTIES IN COMMON WITH AUXILIARIES:
Unlike lexical verbs, modals do not denote events;
(4) Mary may be washing her car.
The lexical verb wash + arguments denotes a washing event involving Mary (Agent) and her car
(Patient);
Modals select no arguments (they select the short infinitive of the lexical verb) and do not denote an event;
--> in (4), there is only one event, the one introduced by the lexical verb;

Modals indicate the degree of force with which the situation introduced by the lexical verb is asserted
Modals are the Speakers evaluation of the situation introduced by the lexical verb

The role of may: to qualify the event expressed by the proposition: MAY[Mary be washing the car]; the force is WEAK
(Speaker uncertain);
=> Modals are propositional operators;

Like auxiliaries (and unlike lexical verbs), modals have the following properties:
No DO-support in the following constructions:
3

a. Negation:
(5) a. Lexical verb: He does not know.
b. Auxiliary: He is not there.
c. Modal: He cannot come.
c. *He does not can come.

b. Inversion and no Do-support in interrogatives:

(6) a. Lexical verb: Do they like the play?
b. Auxiliary: Has John arrived?
c. modal: Can you help me?
c. *Do you can help me?

c. No DO-support in codes, but stranding:

(7) a. Lexical verb: John came and so did Mary.
b. auxiliary: John has arrived and so has Mary.
c. modal: He must sign the petition and so must you.
c. *He must sign the petition and so do you.

d. Emphatic affirmation without DO-support:

(8) a. Lexical verb: I DID warn you about this.
b. Auxiliary: He WAS sleeping, Im sure of it.
c. Modal: You SHALL have the money by tomorrow.
c. *You DO shall have the money by tomorrow.

Properties 1a-d identify these modal verbs as auxiliaries rather than lexical verbs;

B. PROPERTIES THAT DISTINGUISH MODAL VERBS FROM AUXILIARIES HAVE, BE, DO:
Like lexical verbs, Modals have substantive content (necessity, possibility, volition etc.);

(9) a. They may have heard the news. = It is possible that they heard the news.
b. John neednt sign a contract. = It is not necessary for John to sign a contract.

=> modals indicate the speakers evaluation of the situation;

Modals are incompatible with non-finite forms:
(10) a. *They are canning (to) do it now.
b. *To can or not to can, that is the question.
c. *They have must(ed) do it for a long time.


4. Modality as a semantic category
Modality is a SEMANTIC NOTION (a category of meaning);

Modality is interpreted at the level of the sentence;

A PROPOSITION is the semantic representation of a sentence (the interpretation of its meaning);
To understand the meaning of a sentence (to have a semantic representation of the sentence) means to know the truth
conditions of the sentence (the conditions under which the sentence is true).

(1) John is sleeping.
- unmodalized sentence; Speaker commited to the factuality of the situation;
- TRUE if the situation John sleep at NOW is verified in the actual world; FALSE otherwise;

(2) John may be sleeping.
- modalized sentence; Speaker not commited to the truth of the situation John sleep at NOW in
4

the real world;
- the modal verb MAY is an operator applying to the proposition expressed by the unmodalized
sentence John is sleeping:
[MAY [John be sleeping]]
- in this particular case, the modalized proposition is TRUE if the Speakers REPRESENTATIONS of
the real world (of the facts) contain at least ONE representation in which John is sleeping (a);
- Speakers knowledge of the facts is INDIRECT (based on deduction) (b, c);

(3) a. John may be sleeping or he may be watching TV.
b. ??I know John is sleeping, so he may be sleeping.
c. The lights are off and John is home, so he may be sleeping.

Conclusion: Modality expresses an ATTITUDE towards a situation

(4) a. John is sleeping.
- describing a state of affairs;
b. John must sleep (to regain his strength).
- moulding the world, attempting to change it;
c. John must be sleeping (because I see the lights are off).
- evaluation of the factuality of the situation;
- unlike MAY above, we have a stronger claim: according to what is known, in all the
Speakers mental representations of reality, John is sleeping;
- also based on deduction: ??I see that John is sleeping, so he must be sleeping.

The core concepts of modality are NECESSITY and POSSIBILITY

MAY expresses POSSIBILITY:

(5) a. John may be sleeping.
- in view of what is known, it is POSSIBLE that the proposition expressed by the sentence
John is sleeping is true;
b. John may sleep (as far as Im concerned).
- in view of my personal wishes, it is POSSIBLE for John to sleep (it is possible for the
proposition John sleep to be verified at a future time).

=> the common feature of MAY is POSSIBILITY, but its interpretation varies according to the context (in view of what is known/
desirable);

MUST expresses NECESSITY:

(6) a. John must be sleeping.
- in view of what is known, it is NECESSARY that the proposition expressed by the sentence
John is sleeping is true;
b. John must sleep (to regain his strength, I need his help later).
- in view of what is desirable to the speaker, it is NECESSARY for John to sleep (it is
necessary for the proposition John sleep to be verified at a future time);

=> the common feature of MUST is NECESSITY, but its interpretation varies according to the context (in view of what is known/
desirable);

Question: What is the common feature in the interpretation of modality in (5a) and (6a)? What is the common feature in the
interpretation of modality in (5b) and (6b)?


5. The semantics of modal verbs
5.1 ROOT and EPISTEMIC modal interpretations
Assumption: each modal has a single core meaning;

5

Modals expressing NECESSITY: must, need, need to, have (got) to, should, ought to
Modals expressing POSSIBILITY: may, can

The difference in interpretation between (a) and (b) is determined by the CONVERSATIONAL BACKGROUND;
Conversation unfolds against a common ground, i.e., the set of propositions taken for granted in a context.
The propositions in the conversational background are taken as implicit premises in the judgments speakers make.

These implicit premises are sometimes explicitly signalled by using phrases of the type: by virtue of what is known, by virtue
of the laws of physics/ biology, in view of what is decreed by law etc.

Therefore, modals have a core meaning (possibility, necessity), but different interpretive values depending on the
contextually chosen CONVERSATIONAL BACKGROUND;

Modal interpretive values (based on types of conversational background):

1. ROOT MODALITY related to the ACTUALIZATION of EVENTS
a. DEONTIC: the Speakers attitude towards the actualization of a situation;
(7) a. She can stay as long as she likes. = DEONTIC POSSIBILITY
b. She must stay until 5. = DEONTIC NECESSITY
c. She neednt stay longer than 5. = ???

- the Authority = the Speaker or some other source (e.g. the rules of an institution etc.); in the latter case, the
Speaker is simply reporting an obligation/ permission;

Deontic is derived from the Greek for that which is binding;
Deontic modality is concerned with the possibility or necessity of acts performed by morally responsible agents.

Questions: Deontic modality can be explicitly signalled by expressions such as in view of....; What does deontic modality
amount to in the case of modals expressing necessity (need, must, ought)? What about modals expressing possibility?

b. DYNAMIC: concerned with PROPERTIES and DISPOSITIONS (such as ability and willingness) of persons referred to in
the clause, especially by the subject;
no identifiable deontic source;

(8) a. She can easily beat everyone else in the club. = DYNAMIC POSSIBILITY
b. If you must sneeze, at least use your handkerchief. = DYNAMIC NECESSITY

Conversational backgrounds; given the circumstances, Xs abilities, the laws of nature etc.
Question: What conversational backgrounds are implicit in (8); How would you paraphrase the meanings of the modals?

2. EPISTEMIC MODALITY related to the factuality of EVENTUALITIES (EVENTS or STATES)
Epistemic is derived from the Greek for knowledge;
It deals with the possibility or necessity of an inference drawn from available evidence as to the truth (factuality) of past or
present situations;
Epistemic modalities are speaker-oriented;
Conversational background: In view of what is known;
What is known is not taken in the strong sense, but rather as what the Speaker has evidence for (rational belief);
Epistemic modality involves THE SPEAKERS MENTAL REPRESENTATION OF REALITY and the EVIDENCE he has for that
representation based on inferential processes.
Therefore, epistemic modals are felicitous if the evidence for the assertion is INDIRECT:

(9) Scenario: I go outside and see that it is raining and say:
a. #It may be raining.
b. #It must be raining.

Contexts of indirect evidence:

(10) a. The forecast said weather unstable. Mary wants to go out.
6

I tell her: It may be raining. EPISTEMIC POSSIBILITY
b. Im at home. John comes in and he is soaked. It must be raining. EPISTEMIC NECESSITY

OBSERVATION:
A. The difference between unmodalized sentences and epistemic necessity
An epistemically modalized assertion (11b) is WEAKER in strength than its unmodalized counterpart (11a):

(11) a. San Marino is the country with the highest life expectancy in the world
b. San Marino must be the country with the highest life expectancy in the world.

(11) offers a piece of factual information and the speaker trusts it to be true.
In (17), the speaker possesses compelling evidence about the country with the highest life expectancy in the world but the
possibility that there are pieces of evidence beyond the speakers beliefs is left open. These extra pieces of evidence may
disconfirm the fact that San Marino is the country with the highest life expectancy in the world. That is why sentence (17) is
felt as weaker than (16) in spite of the fact that must conveys epistemic necessity.

B. the distinction between EPISTEMIC POSSIBILITY and EPISTEMIC NECESSITY:
- MAY and CAN express EPISTEMIC POSSIBILITY; This meaning can also be expressed by: possibly, perhaps, maybe;
- MUST, HAVE TO express EPISTEMIC NECESSITY; This meaning can also be expressed by: likely, probably, certainly;
- Should and OUGHT TO also express EPISTEMIC NECESSITY, but are weaker than MUST and HAVE TO; Their meaning can also be
expressed by supposedly, likely, probably;

Scale of likelihood
*Strictly speaking, anything
IMPOSS. POSSIBLE* PROBABLE that is not zero on the scale
I is POSSIBLE, but from a
0% 50% 100% linguistic p.o.v. it is
uninformative for higher
(12) (13) (14) (15) (16) degrees of likelihood



(12) a. He cant be in Paris now.
b. Its impossible that he is in Paris now.

(13) a. He may be in Paris now.
b. Perhaps he is in Paris now.
c. It is possible that he is in Paris now.

(14) a. He should be in Paris now.
b. Its likely that he is in Paris now.
c. He is probably in Paris now.

(15) a. He must be in Paris now.
b. He probably/ certainly is in Paris now.
c. Hes very likely in Paris now.

(16) He is in Paris now.


Questions:
Place He neednt be in Paris now/ He may not be in Paris now on the scale of likelihood. Paraphrase.
What type of modality is expressed in the following sentences? What is the aspectual interpretation of the sentence (eventive/
stative)?

Mary can speak French
John must be in Paris now/ before noon.
You ought to be ashamed.
7

That problem ought to be easy for a genius like you.


Conclusion: modals have core meanings and the conversational background which is established implicitly or explicitly in
each particular context distinguishes between root (deontic or dynamic) and epistemic interpretations;

(17) a. All Maori children must learn the names of their ancestors.
b. The ancestors of the Maoris must have arrived from Tahiti.
c. If you must sneeze, at least use your handkerchief.
d. When Kahukura-mir died, the people of Kahunguru said: Rakaipaka must be our chief.

(17) a. In view of what their tribal duties are, all Maori children must learn the names of their ancestors
b. In view of what is known, the ancestors of the Maoris must have arrived from Tahiti
c. If in view of what your dispositions are - you must sneeze, at least use your handkerchief
d. In view of what is good for us, Rakaipaka must be our chief

OBS.: We said MUST is a stronger NECESSITY MODAL than SHOULD and OUGHT TO;
That is because SHOULD and OUGHT TO are only compatible with NORMATIVE conversational backgrounds which express
ideal states of affairs;
In terms of the Speakers expectations, they are less likely to be actualized in the real world;

POSSIBILITY MODALS are also compatible with various conversational backgrounds:

(18) a. As a former champion, John can lift heavy weights PHYSICAL
b. As a simple guest, John can dress casually SOCIAL
c. As a University employee, John can get health benefits LEGAL
d. As a human being, John can have conscious mental states BIOLOGICAl

5.2 Grammatical features - ROOT vs. EPISTEMIC
A. Properties of the Subject
Unlike epistemic readings, ROOT readings impose selectional restrictions on the subject:

(19) a. The weather may be fine. (It is possible/* is allowed)
b. The weather must be great. (It is necessary.../ *...is required)

Explanation: Root modals involve required or permissible actions performed by AGENTS;
Epistemic modals evaluate the factuality of situations (of any type, including non-agentive ones)

For root modals, the presence of an Agent may be implicit:

(20) Instruction: The TV must be at least 1m away from any heat source.
Interpretation: You must (are required to) place the TV... (EVENTIVE, AGENTIVE)

(21) There must be law and order in the country.
= It is required of [IMPLICIT AGENT] that...

B. Properties of the verbal complement
Viewpoint aspect: Epistemic interpretations allow the presence of PERFECT and PROGRESSIVE aspect in the
complement. Root interpretations exclude these forms. The following examples only allow the epistemic reading:

(22) a. He must have been very tired./ She may have left.
b. John must be joking./ She may be sleeping.

Consequence: Root readings can only be future-oriented (from a given temporal reference point He said I might
phone you)
Epistemic readings have present and past orientation, i.e. the speaker evaluates propositions about
past (22a) or present (22b) situations.

8

Lexical aspect: INDIVIDUALLEVEL STATES (i.e. inherent properties of individuals: have green eyes, be a native speaker,
believe, know, etc) force an EPISTEMIC READING, not a root reading of the modal verbs;
ROOT READINGS INVOLVE STAGE-LEVEL PREDICATES (activities, events or stage-level states).These predicates refer to
situations that can be brought about by an individual:

(23) a. He must have green eyes like his mother (it is certain that.*it is required that)
b. They may be native speakers of Dutch (it is possible that*it is allowed that)

(24) a. You must behave yourself (it is required that..*it is certain that)
b. You may go now (it is allowed that*it is possible)

Question: Look at the sentences below. Is a root interpretation possible? Why?
(25) a. I must be the best chess player there is.
b. You must be honest. Do you understand?

OBS.: temporal orientation and situation type:
o If the verb is stative (and the modal is thus EPISTEMIC), the eventuality time of the lexical verb may be
understood as SIMULTANEOUS with the time of modal evaluation;
o The eventuality may also be understood as future-shifted:
(26) Jeremy must/should be in class today. (simultaneous or future-shifted)

o Eventive verbs are only future-shifted:
(27) Jeremy must/should leave today. (only future-shifted, ambiguous)

o Progressive Vs occur only with epistemic modality and can only be simultaneous with the time of the modal:
(28) Jeremy must/should be lying on the beach by now. (simultaneous)

Root readings favour a future-shifted interpretation, except CAN/ COULD expressing ABILITY, which is GENERIC;

C. Ordering constraints
Epistemic modals are interpreted higher than Root modals when the two co-occur (EPISTEMIC > ROOT);
(29) They may have to go soon.

D. Interrogatives, Conditionals
Epistemic modals, unlike root modals, cannot appear sentence-initially in yes-no interrogatives:

(30) May the race start?
Is there permission for the race to start?
*Is it possible that the race starts?

Question: Discuss the interpretation of Might John be a liar?

Epistemic modals cannot appear in conditionals:

(31) a. ?If John must have a high IQ, then his teachers should treat him carefully
b. ?If that blonde may be Jacks wife, we should keep quiet about the secretary
c. If John must leave, then I will go
d. If money may rule, then there is no justice

Questions: (31a) have a high IQ is what situation type? Why is the sentence marked ? i.e. semantically anomalous?
(31b) same questions
(31c, d) What situation types? Why not anomalous?






9

6. Necessity and Possibility: must, may and can;
Must necessity interpreted against various conversational backgrounds;
Obs.: no past/ future form;

May, can possibility interpreted against various conversational backgrounds;
Obs.: Past forms might/ could do not carry a past tense feature in all contexts;

6.1 Epistemic necessity and possibility
MUST:
knowledge-oriented necessity is interpreted as conclusion based on a logical process of deduction from facts known
to the speaker (which may or may not be specified);
knowledge arrived at by inference or reasoning rather than by direct experience;

the knowledge arrived at indirectly by inference/deduction is felt to be different from knowledge acquired by direct
experience; hence the sense of logically inferred can be weakened to logically assumed or even a guess:

(32) (a) You must be Johns brother.
(b) You must be tired/thirsty

Epistemic must can also be used to express pure logical necessity with no element of speaker-involvement as in the
examples in (69 i,ii).

(33) (a) If it is a bird, it must have wings.
(b) He is a bachelor, so he must be unmarried.

MAY epistemic possibility
CAN used with the meaning of epistemic possibility only in non-assertive contexts (He cant be home/ Can he be home
at this hour?); in assertive context, tends to receive a ROOT interpretation (either deontic or dynamic);

Scope of negation:
epistemic must and may internal; need and can external;

(34) a. ?He mustnt have done it deliberately. [Internal Neg: Nec NOT-p]
b. he cant have done it deliberately. [External Neg: NOT-Poss p]
c. He neednt have done it deliberately. [External Neg: NOT-Nec p]
d. He may not have done it deliberately. [Internal Neg: Poss NOT-p]

tendency to interpret negative necessity (mustnt and neednt) deontically;

Subjective vs. objective
Must and may tend to be used subjectively (judgment of the speaker), but:

MUST
(35) a. A: What has happened to Ed? B: He must have overslept. - subjective,
b. If Im older than Ed and Ed is older than Jo, I must be older than Jo objective

subjective must in a.: pragmatic weakening, a confident inference (this is the only explanation I can think of),
weaker than the simple assertion He has overslept;
in b.: semantic necessity; stronger, more categorical;

However: in all cases Nec-p ENTAILS p (#He must have overslept, though it might alternatively be that he has had
problems with his car);

MAY
(36) a. He may have left it downstairs. Ill just go and see. [subjective]
b. He may have misled Parliament. Theres going to be an inquiry. [objective]

I dont know implicature and concessive may;
10

May usually triggers an implicature (pragmatically inferred info) that the speaker doesnt know that the sentence is
true;
The implicature can be cancelled (pragmatic strengthening):

(37) It may be expensive, but its worth every penny. [concessive may]

Time of the situation
With epistemic must, the modal time is always present, while the main predication usually refers to states or
processes/events in the present:

(38) Judging from the noise , the children must be playing upstairs.

Must has no past form, but sentences with epistemic must may refer to situations that occurred in the past, since we
can make judgements, at now, about past situations.
In such cases, the perfect infinitive (have-en) is used.
Perfect have, just like negation, belongs semantically in the complement; in such cases we speak of internal perfect,
i.e. the time reference of the modal is unaffected (i.e. present), while the time reference of the verbal complement is
past:

(39) a. She must have arrived late last night.
I confidently believe/I am sure that she came last night

With FUTURE time tendency to interpret deontically;

(40) a. He must have told her yesterday. [PAST and EPISTEMIC]
b. He must tell her tomorrow. [FUTURE and DEONTIC]
c. It must surely rain soon. [No Agency + surely => FUTURE and EPISTEMIC]

May is used freely as a FUTURE EPISTEMIC:

(41) a. He may come back tomorrow.
b. He may do better next time.

Epistemic can is barely possible with FUTURE orientation:

(42) He cant finish until tomorrow. [deontic or epistemic]
- a question of factors preventing the actualization;

6.2 Deontic necessity and possibility
A. Deontic necessity = strong obligation (must);

(43) You must be back by noon.

Conditions (tendency the deontic source is the speaker):
o the modal restrictor involves a set of regulatory propositions which the speaker is entitled to enforce;
o the speaker has authority over the hearer
o the hearer is in a position to bring about the situation described.

Generally, the imposition of an obligation by the speaker involves animate subjects, typically human, who are capable
of performing the action.

(44) (a) The president must formally approve the new Government before it can undertake its duties.
(b) The accused must remain silent throughout the trial.
(c) In opening a game of chess, the players must move a pawn.

- regulatory domains of different types, hence the sources of obligation are different:
expresses necessity with respect to the Constitution,
(b) - necessity with respect to judicial rules,
11

(c) a necessity with respect to the rules of chess.

=> the deontic source is not assumed to be the speaker but rather rules, regulations, law or even custom.

Pragmatic weakening: contextually, to express emphatic advice, invitation, suggestion, in contexts where the
hearer/addressee is the beneficiary of the action described; the state of affairs described by the proposition is
desirable to the hearer and beneficial to him..

(45) a. I absolutely must walk home with you.
b. You must see this movie.
c. You must come round and see us.

B. Deontic possibility = permission (may, can - informal);

Scope of negation
Deontic must, like epistemic must, takes Internal Negation (Oblig not to V);
Deontic may, unlike epistemic may, takes External Negation; for an interpretation as internal negation, special
prosodic marking is necessary;

(46) You mustnt attend the lectures. [Internal negation: Nec not-P]
(47) You may not/ cant attend the lectures. [External negation: not-Poss p]
(48) Special intonation:
You MAY/ CAN ... not attend the lectures. [Internal negation: Poss not-p]

Subjective vs. objective
Prototypical deontic modality is subjective, with the speaker as deontic source, the one who imposes the obligation or
grants permission.

(49) You must clean up this mess at once.
(50) You may/ can have one more turn.

But the deontic source may also be external to the speaker (although the tendency is to use have (got) to or need
rather than must for objective deontic necessity)

(51) We must make an appointment if we want to see the Dean.
(52) We may/ can borrow up to six books at a time.

Questions: 1. What type of modality can must with a Ist person subject express? Provide examples.
2. What type of deontic possibility is expressed in You may join us with pleasure?

OBS.: Pragmatic weakening of deontic necessity is only possible with subjective interpretations:

(53) You must have one of these cakes.

Type of situation
Prototypically, deontic modality refers to the future actualization of a situation (I can oblige you or permit you to do
something in the future, but I cannot oblige or permit you to have done something in the past);
=> Generally, the modal time is present while the time of the situation/eventuality is future;
- for past/ future obligation, the past/ future forms of have to are used;

However: generic, objective deontic modality:

(54) Candidates must have completed at least two years of undergraduate study.

Also, must can be used in reported speech where the context is past or with internal monologue. Consider the
following examples borrowed from different sources (e.g.Jespersen, 1931, part iv:7; Coates 1983:40):

(55) (a) I told him he must either apologize or go away immediately.
12

(b) One thing was certain: the Government must make a distinct move of some kind


6.3 Dynamic necessity and possibility
A. Dynamic possibility
Covers a wide range of uses:

(a) What is reasonable or acceptable:

(56) The most we can expect is a slight cut in the sales tax.
(57) You can always say youre too busy.

(b) What is circumstantially possible:

(58) It can easily be shown that this argument is fallacious.

- actualization is possible because it is not prevented by factual or physical circumstances;
- may is infrequent in this use (present in formal, scientific style) and tends to be interpreted epistemically;

(c) What is sometimes the case (the existential use):

(59) Poinsettias can be red or yellow.
= generic (some poinsettias are red, others are yellow)

- Singular subject - characteristic behavior: He can be very helpful.
- may also tends to be used in formal style with this interpretation (Poinsettias may be... BUT NOT He may be very
helpful);

(d) Ability

(60) She can run the marathon in under three hours. [POTENTIAL]
(61) I can hear something rattling. [ACTUALIZED]

- may is excluded;
- refers to the internal properties of the subject;
The actualized use: with verbs of perception and cognition;
The potential use refers to the internal dispositions of individuals;

Question: compare (60) with She runs the marathon in under three hours.

B. Dynamic necessity

(62) Eds a guy who must always be poking his nose into other peoples business.
- a matter of someones properties/ dispositions: the necessity arises from some internal need rather than being
imposed by some deontic source (He cant help poking...);

This use can be pragmatically exploited in sarcastic questions conveying different speech (i.e. non-literal) acts such as
indirect directives. The subject is you and must is invariably stressed; must could easily be replaced by will in the
sense of insistence Leech 1971):

(63) `Must you make that dreadful noise? (for heavens sake stop it)

Circumstantial:

(64) Now that she has lost her job, she must live extremely frugally.
(Attention epistemic also possible; disambiguation she must be living)
- circumstantial necessity (comparable to circumstantial possibility (b) above); not a matter of obligation imposed
by a deontic source, but simply force of circumstances;
13

7 Should and ought
Should is usually interchangeable with ought:

(65) a. You should/ ought to tell your mother. [DEONTIC]
b. The next road on the left should/ ought to be King Street. [EPISTEMIC]
c. He should/ ought to do better this time. [AMBIGUOUS]
...but I dont suppose he will = ???
...judging by the amount of training hes done = ???

The deontic use
Most frequently SUBJECTIVE (what the speaker thinks is morally right/ good for the subject);
Weaker than must it allows non-actualization:

(66) I should/ #must stop now but Im not going to.

With perfect/ progressive marking, the situation was/ is not actualized => should/ ought to convey criticism:

(67) a. He shouldnt have gone to bed so late.
b. You ought to be doing your homework now instead of watching television.

Difference between should and ought to only should is normally used to issue indirect commands:

(68) The right-hand column should be left blank. = Leave the right-hand column blank.

The deontic use is more basic than the epistemic use (e.g. should/ ought + perfect infinitives are normally interpreted
more naturally as deontic rather than epistemic):

(69) She should/ ought to have left yesterday.
= It was right for her to leave (but she didnt)
it is right for her to have left/ it is probable that she has left
=> EXTERNAL PERFECT interpretation, deontic

The epistemic use
For most epistemic readings, there is usually also a deontic flavor:

(70) A: Where is the key? B. It should be in the desk drawer.
= Youll probably find it there (EPISTEMIC)
BUT ALSO: If it isnt there, then it isnt in the right place.

The Subjunctive:
Should (but not ought to) can occur as a marker of the Subjunctive, in which case it has little discernible modal
meaning of its own:

(71) a. It is essential/ desirable that he should be told.
b. We invited her husband too, lest he should feel left out.
c. Its surprising that he should have been so late.
d. If you should experience any difficulty, let me know.

Questions: Which are the sources of modal interpretation in the sentences above? In which of the cases is should
interpreted deontically?


8 Will
8.1 Epistemic use (including futurity)

A. Non-future value and modal strength:
With past and present situations:
(72) a. They will have made their decision last week.
14

b. [Knock on the door] That will be the plumber.
a,b : a CONFIDENT PREDICTION

Will is a strong modal; it entails the factuality of the situation (like must);

(73) # They will have made the decision last week, though its possible that they have postponed it until the next
meeting.

Still, like must, will is weaker than the plain assertion They made the decision last week. (which is presented as sth.
the speaker knows, rather than sth. The speaker is confident is true);

The examples above SUBJECTIVE modality;
Like must, will may also convey objective modality (=> stronger);

(74) Ed is Toms father and Tom is Bills father, so Ed will be Bills grandfather.

B. will vs. must
With non-futurate uses, epistemic will can usually be replaced by epistemic must;

Slight difference: will is a matter of assumption or expectation, very often with a suggestion of future confirmation;

(75) Ed is late. He must have overslept.
Must expresses a conclusion based on known facts; no focus on future confirmation;
(76) I cant tell you what the word means, but it will be in the dictionary.
=> You will find it in the dictionary.

The future value

(77) a. He will be two tomorrow.
b. It will be a long time before we have a summer like this.

o a.: will is a simple marker of futurity, with little modal meaning;
o b: prediction --> certain turns of events may prevent the outcome;

8.2 Dynamic will

A. VOLITION
(78) a. Jill wont sign the form. [unwillingness, refusal]
b. I will be back before six. [intention]

BUT:

(79) a. I intend / am willing / want to be back before six, but may not be able to manage it.
b. #I will be back before six, but may not be able to manage it.

With inanimate objects: a metaphorical extension of volitional will:

(79) The car wont start.

B. PROPENSITY
(80) a. He will lie in bed all day, reading trashy novels.
= a characteristic/ habitual behavior of an animate
b. Oil will float on water.
= a characteristic property of an inanimate

Usually emotive component (speakers disapproval/ resignation);


15

8.3 Deontic will
(81) You will report back for duty on Friday morning.

9. Past forms could, might, would and should
9.1 Past time

A. Might: in literary and formal style (rare):
(82) a. When my father was attached to a cavalry regiment at Brighton before we moved to Stonehurst, my
parents might attend an occasional concert at the Pavillion.
b. The completion of the canal increased the ease with which the Mons coal might be sent to Nord.
= DYNAMIC MIGHT

B. Could:
(83) a. In those days we could borrow as many books as we wished. [deontic permission]
b. The most we could expect was a slight cut in sales tax [dynamic what is reasonable/
acceptable]
c. Water could still get in. [dynamic circumstantial
possibility]
d. He could be very tactless at times. [dynamic existential]
e. She could run the marathon in under three hours. [dynamic potential ability]
f. I could hear something rattling. [dynamic actualized ability]

Restriction: could is not used in the AFFIRMATIVE when it expresses a single actualized perfective situation (OBS.: in
f. ing => imperfective):

(84) a. I left early and still couldnt get a seat.
b. #I left early and could get a good seat.
b. I left early and was able to get a good seat.

C. Would:
With dynamic modality and futurity:

(85) I had no money on me but he wouldnt lend me any. [dynamic - volition]

OBS.: only negative (unlike will):

(86) a. ??I had no money on me but fortunately Ed would lend me some.
b. I have no money on me but fortunately Ed will lend me some.
= is willing to

(87) Whenever he heard her coming he would quickly put out his pipe. [dynamic - propensity]
(88) Only a few months later, their love would change to hate. [futurity]


9.2 Backshifted modals

(89) a. I can/ may/ will/ shall see her shortly. b. I knew I could/ might/ would/ should see her shortly.

OBS.: the remoteness value of modals with a past form is lost when these are backshifted:

(90) a. I can/ could/ may/ might win if I really tried. b. He said I could/ might win if I really tried.

The past form of the modals in (a) does not carry a past time meaning, but the meaning of MODAL REMOTENESS (in
this case, lower degree of possibility than the present forms can and may);
The distinction can vs. could/ may vs. might in terms of modal remoteness is lost in backshifted reported speech in (b)
(only the past forms can be used, and the past time meaning is active);


16



9.3 Modal remoteness
Three subcases
A. Remote conditionals and the complement of wish

Remote conditionals (b):
(91) a. If he pays the fare, I can/ may/ will/ shall take a taxi.
b. If he paid the fare, I could/ might/ would/ should take a taxi.

Wish requires past forms of modals:

(92) a. Im glad/ I hope you can/ will join us.
b. I wish you could/ would join us.

B. The tentative use
Epistemic will/ would and may/ might
(93) a. Hell be about sixty.
b. Hed be about sixty.

o (a, b) taken as answers to the question How old is he? => (b) not interpreted as Hed be about sixty if he
were alive;
o In this case, (b) expresses less certainty than (a);

(94) a. You may be right.
b. You might be right.

o Epistemic possibility: lower degree for might;
Question: Is it possible to substitute can/ could with the meaning of epistemic possibility in (a,b)?

Dynamic modality:

(95) a. It may/ can be described as an act of provocation.
b. It might/ could be described as an act of provocation.

o Dynamic use (what is reasonable or acceptable);

(96) a. Can you pass the salt, please?
b. Could you pass the salt, please?

o Question about ability (the dynamic use) conventionally interpreted as request;
o (b) is more polite;

Deontic modality:
(97) a. Can/ may I have a little more sugar?
b. Could/ might I have a little more sugar?

o The deontic use (permission);
o (b) a more polite request;

C. Special use of might and could:

(98) a. You were mad to drive so fast: you could/ might have been killed.
b. We could/ might be in Africa. (knowingly uttered in France).
c. You could/ might have cleaned up instead of letting it to me to do.

o In (a), circumstantial possibility existed, but it was not actualized (you werent killed);
o (b) circumstantial possibility (state) its as though we were in Africa;
17

o (c) reproach you didnt clean up but should have;

10. Modal auxiliaries and the scope of the perfect
Syntactically fixed order: MODAL > NOT > HAVE (_EN) > BE (_ING) > V;
e.g.: may sleep; may not have slept, may not have been sleeping;

BUT: NEGATION can be interpreted as applying to the modal itself => external (not-Modal V) or as applying to the lexical
verb => internal (Modal not-V);

(99) a. You may not sleep. [deontic external = NOT allowed to sleep)
b. He may not be sleeping. [epistemic internal = possible that he is NOT sleeping]

The perfect auxiliary (HAVE_EN) can also be interpreted in two ways: externally/ internally;

(100) a. John might have won the game.
b. [PRESENT [MIGHT [PERF [John win the game]]]]
b. [PRESENT [PERFECT [MIGHT [John win the game]]]]

Obs.: PRESENT feature might does not carry a past time meaning on its own in either interpretation (in b, it is the
perfect auxiliary which is responsible for the backshift; observe: He might win the game no past time meaning);

Two notions:

1. THE MODAL PERSPECTIVE: the temporal point from which the evaluation is made (for the epistemic use)/ the permission is
granted/ the obligation is issued (for the deontic use);

(101) a. He said I could watch TV. - past modal perspective
b. You will have to refuse if he asks you. - future modal perspective
c. They must have left the lights on. - present modal perspective

2. THE MODAL ORIENTATION: the temporal location of the situation expressed by the unmodalized proposition with respect to
the modal perspective;

e.g.
(i) He said I could watch TV. -- PAST MODAL PERSPECTIVE, the permission was granted in the past;
the actualization of the situation expressed by the unmodalized proposition [I watch TV] is AFTER the time of the
modal perspective => FUTURE ORIENTATION;
He gave me permission to watch TV (at a later time);


MP p (I watch TV) NOW

(ii) You may leave. -- PRESENT MODAL PERSPECTIVE;
the actualization of the proposition [You leave] future => FUTURE ORIENTATION;

NOW

MP p (You leave)

(iii) They must have left the lights on. --> PRESENT MODAL PERSPECTIVE (a present evaluation of the factuality of p); the
situation which is evaluated is past (may or may not have taken place in the real world);
=> BACKSHIFTED ORIENTATION ([MUST [HAVE [ They leave the lights on]]]);
= I think NOW that it is PROBABLE that they LEFT/ HAVE LEFT the lights on.

NOW

p (They leave the lights on) MP

18

Question: What is the modal orientation in You will have to refuse?

(100) a. John might have won the game.
b. [PRESENT [MIGHT [PERF [John win the game]]]]
b. [PRESENT [PERFECT [MIGHT [John win the game]]]]

The interpretation (b):
might does not convey a past tense meaning, but modal remoteness; the difference between (b) and John may have
won the game is that in (b) the speaker envisages the possibility of the event having taken place as more remote (less
certain);
=> PRESENT MODAL PERSPECTIVE (at now, the speaker evaluates the factuality of the situation)

INTERNAL PERFECT: the perfect auxiliary applies to the lexical verb (win) => backshift (the eventuality of Johns
winning or not winning the game is already settled, the speaker just isnt sure how;
=> BACKSHIFTED ORIENTATION;

Same visual representation as in (iii) above;

The interpretation (b):
EXTERNAL PERFECT: PAST MODAL PERSPECTIVE due to the application of the perfect auxiliary;
FUTURE MODAL ORIENTATION: at the time of the modal perspective (past), there was a possible future actualization
of the situation [John win the game];

o Scenario: John played a game of chess; the game started at 2 oclock and finished at 3 oclock; at 2:30, John
did not pay attention and made a wrong move, which prevented him from winning; (b) may be used to
express that:

At 2:29, it was still possible that (at around 3 oclock) John would win the game.
[Modal persp.] ---------------> [Time of the situation]
FUTURE ORIENT.

More examples:
EXTERNAL PERFECT:
(102) He neednt/ ought to/ should/ might/ could have told her. [deontic]
It WAS [not necessary]/ [advisable]/ [allowed] that he tell her.
=> PAST MODAL PERSPECTIVE; FUTURE ORIENTATION;

INTERNAL PERFECT:

(103) a. Candidates must have completed at least two years of undergraduate study. [deontic]
b. He may/ cant have told her. [epistemic]

Questions: discuss the correlation between modal value and internal vs. external perfect:

(104) He neednt have told her...
a. someone else may have
b. no one forced him to

(105) They should have arrived...
a. by now, Ill go and check
b. a long time ago

What are the Romanian translations for (a) and (b)?