246
MODALS AND MODALITY IN ENGLISH
Z.O’.Fattullayeva -SamSIFL Master’s degree student
Abstract:
Modality is a semantic concept dealing with necessity and possibility of the knowledge of
the world. It is basically divided into two types, viz. epistemic modality and deontic modality. Various
grammatical categories are possibly used to show modality. However, modal verbs are one of the most
important means related to the modality. Modal verbs are flexible in showing modality. This article discusses
basic knowledge of modality including definition, classification (epistemic and deontic) and relationship
between modality and modal verbs
Key words:
obligations, regulations, epistemic modality, deontic modality, epistemic interpretations,
evidentiality, judgement modality
Modality is generally related to the necessity, possibility, obligation, permissibility, feasibility and
certainty etc. As for the classification of modality, there are several proposals. However, many scholars agree
that there are generally two major types: epistemic modality and deontic modality. To begin with, let’s
briefly go over various perspectives on the classification of modality. Jesperson (1924) divided modality into
twenty subcategories which involved “certain attitudes of the mind of the speaker towards the content of the
sentence” (1924, p. 313). This kind of classification has a significant influence to the modern research on
modality and its classification though it has too many subcategories with many overlapping. The second
classification was made by Rescher He divided the whole modality system into eight subcategories and his
classification also includes two most important categories of modality that we still use nowadays, viz.
epistemic modality and deontic modality. One of the classifications widely accepted by many scholars was
made by Von Wright (1951). He divided the modality into four categories. He called modality modes at that
time. His classification also included two of the most important items that had been mentioned in the
previous two classifications. Von Wright’s classification is as follows. Four modes by Von Wright (1951) 1)
The alethic modes or modes of truth. 2) The epistemic modes or modes of knowing. 3) The deontic modes or
modes of obligation. 4) The existential modes or modes of existence. From these classifications, we can see
that epistemic modality and deontic modality are the two most important categories in modality, though the
criteria of the classification are different. Based on these classifications, scholars generally divide modality
into two major types: epistemic modality and deontic modality. A. Epistemic Modality "Epistemic
interpretations have to do with knowledge and understanding". It concerns the necessity and possibility of a
proposition when there is clear-cut evidence. Therefore, epistemic modality is derived from the fact that can
be true from reality. It connotes how much certainty or evidence a speaker has for the proposition expressed
by his or her utterance. (1) There’s no answer, Mary must have gone. Epistemic modality is different from
logical modality which always can be true in any case. Epistemic modality is further divided into two
subcategories, viz. epistemic necessity and epistemic possibility. Epistemic necessity cannot always be true
though it comes from real knowledge of the world. Epistemic possibility, on the contrary, isn’t based on the
knowledge of the real world. It only provides one of the possibilities according to the speaker’s assumption.
For example, (2) Epistemic necessity: The dinosaurs must have died out suddenly. (Kearns, 2000) (3)
Epistemic possibility: It is possible that there is intelligent life in deep space. (Kearns, 2000) Epistemic
modality is also divided into evidentiality and judgement modality according to Chung and Timberlake
(1985) and Bybee (1985) etc. Evidentiality is an epistemic modality that connotes the speaker’s assessment
of the evidence for his or her statement. Judgment modality is an epistemic modality that connotes the
speaker’s strength of inference or degree of confidence in the reality of the proposition expressed by his or
her utterance. According to Jesperson (1924), epistemic modality is further divided into aproductive,
necessitate, assertive, presumptive, dubitative, potential, conditional hypothetical and concessional modality
etc. Generally speaking, non-human subjects are used in epistemic sentences. B. Deontic Modality Deontic
modality is a modality that connotes the speaker’s degree of requirement, desire or commitment to the
proposition. It relates to “constraints grounded in society: duty, morality, laws, rules etc.” and deontic
proposition often concerns obligations or permissions, hope or requirements etc. (Griffiths, 2006) Deontic
modality chiefly depends on modal verbs such as, can, must, have to, ought to, could have done etc. to
express the meanings. Deontic modality is also divided into deontic necessity and deontic possibility.
Deontic necessity concerns obligations and regulations that must be followed by the people, whereas deontic
possibility concerns permissible proposition. (4) Deontic necessity: You must abide by the rules of the
school. (5) Deontic possibility: You may go home. There are also some other ways of classifying deontic
modality by the scholars. For example, deontic modality can be divided into commissive modality, directive
modality and volitive modality according to Chung and Timberlake (1985) and Palmer (1986). Commissive
247
modality is a deontic modality that connotes the speaker’s expressed commitment, as a promise or threat, to
bring about the proposition expressed by the utterance. Directive modality is also one of a deontic modality
that connotes the speaker’s degree of requirement of conformity to the proposition expressed by an utterance.
Directive modality is further divided into deliberative mood, imperative mood, jussive mood, obligatory
mood, permissive mood, precative mood, prohibitive mood according to Palmer (1986), and Quirk,
Greenbaum, Leech, and Svartvik (1985). The third type of deontic modality is volitive modality. It is a
deontic modality that expresses the speaker’s attitude of hope, wish, or fear concerning the proposition
expressed by the utterance. It is also further divided into imperative mood and optative mood according to
Pei and Gaynor (1954) and Palmer (1986). This kind of classification is very much alike the different
categories of the speech acts which are related to the certain illocutionary acts in pragmatics. Jesperson
(1924) classifies deontic modality into jussive, compulsive, obligative, advisory, precative, hortative,
permissive, promissive, optative (realizable), desiderative (unrealizable) and intentional etc. In general,
human subjects are used in deontic sentences. IV.
Modal verbs are the main carriers of modality. Though we can use inflection of the verbs, viz. mood
to show modality, it is not enough. Therefore, it is necessary to apply some other means of modal
expressions and that is modal verb. Modal verbs are also regarded as helping verbs or auxiliary verbs. A.
Classification of English Modal Verbs Quirk et al. (1985) classify the modal verbs into can/could,
may/might, shall/should, will/would, must, be used to, ought to, need and dare etc. Palmer (1986) remarks
that modal verbs are can/could, may/might, shall/should, will/would, must, ought, dare and need etc. Modal
verbs help the main verb in the sentence to add more information on the different levels of necessity and
possibility. Modal verbs that are related to the obligation, requirement or no choice etc. are must, need, have
(got) to. Should and ought to are generally related to the recommendation to the hearer. Can and its past form
could (without relationship with tense) are connected with possibility. Options, choices and permissions are
to be expressed via modal verbs may and might. It was found that modals were used in about 15 per cent of
clauses that could have them.” (1999). Some of the modal verbs used often are will, would, can, could, may,
might, shall, should, must and ought to etc. In addition, there are also some other means, (viz., semimodals)
to show modality. For instance, have to, need to, be able to etc. In the following parts, some of the basic
modals are to be discussed first. Modal verbs are the basic means or main carriers to show modality. Many of
the modal verbs have both epistemic and deontic use of modality. Generally speaking, epistemic modality
deals with possibility, necessity, predictability. Modal verbs like must/ have to, should/ought to, will/shall,
would/should, may/might, can/could/be able to etc. are often used for these modality. Deontic modality deals
with obligation, volition and permission and modal verbs such as must/have to, will/shall, may/can etc. are
often used. Modal verbs have different grades in their strength of possibilities. For example, must is
generally considered as a mark of strong modality. It delivers strong certainty to the proposition by the
speaker. In contrast, may, can or might, could are often related to the possibilities with less certainty than
must or have to. Generally speaking, modal verbs are different in showing strength of possibilities. Though
most of the modal verbs such as, might, may, could, should, ought to, would, will, must show epistemic
possibility, they are different in the strength of possibilities as follows. Epistemic modality derives from the
fact that can be true from reality. Sometimes it connotes certainty or evidence a speaker has for the
proposition. Epistemic modality is divided into epistemic necessity and epistemic possibility. Modal verbs
can/could; may/might; will/would; shall are often used for epistemic possibility, and must; should/ought to
are used for epistemic necessity. 1. Epistemic Possibility: (1) Can/Could: Use of can/could is related to the
abilities, possibilities (epistemic modality) and permission (deontic modality). Scholars have different
perspectives on the classification of can when it is related to the ability. Some scholars argue that can is non-
epistemic, while others suggest that can is epistemic. Coates (1983) remarks that can is deontic when it refers
to the ability. Coates (1983) regards ability as the core meaning, extending towards possibility as primitive
and establish a cline of ability-oriented meanings as one moves towards the periphery. Some scholars also
argue that “ability” meaning of can belongs to dynamic modality and it cannot be replaced by may when it
refers to the ability. However, many scholars agree that can is possibly replaced by be able to or be capable
of etc. and dynamic modality actually belongs to the epistemic modality (Griffiths, 2006). Therefore, ability
meaning of can is considered to be a kind of possibility. When it shows possibilities, can is often used in
negative or interrogative sentences. According to the statistics (Lancaster Corpus, cf. Coates, 1983), among
three major meanings of can, possibility occupies the highest rate. Could may be used as the past tense of
can. However, in many cases, it has no relationship with past tense, but politeness or some other indirect
speech which have pragmatic considerations. Could (possibility) is much more related to the remoteness in
time and reality. (6) Can you help me tomorrow? (ability) (Griffiths, 2006) ? May you help me tomorrow?
(7)
He can’t finish his task. (possibility) Can you do it for me? (possibility) (8) Could you give me some
248
help? (politeness) Could you open the door? (indirect speech) (9) When John was young, he could read
English. (remoteness in time) If I were you, I could do it in this way. (remoteness in reality) (2) May/Might:
May/might is related to possibility. However, might has lower strength than may in the degree of possibility.
Both may and might are used as epistemic modality to show possibility. Might is often used to show either
mere possibility of present situation or politeness. Might is generally weaker than may in the possibility. (10)
He may be home. (possibility) He might be home. (mere possibility) Might you be free to help me
tomorrow? (politeness) (Griffiths, 2006, p. 111) I thought that he might come to school. (mere possibility)
(3) Will/Would: Will and would are often concerned with prediction. Therefore, they are much related to the
future. Would is often related politeness as well. If it is used as the past tense of will, it means past prediction
or past futurity. Will/would also is used as deontic modality. (11) He will be here at 5. (prediction-futurity) I
will come this afternoon. (prediction-futurity) Would you help me? (politeness) I thought he would be here at
5. (past futurity) (4) Shall: Shall can also show prediction as will. However, it is restricted in the use of first
person subject. However, in modern English, particularly, in American English, will is used even in the
structures with first person subject to show prediction in the future. In the interrogative sentences, shall is
used as obligational meaning, viz. deontic modality rather than epistemic modality. (12) I shall/will be happy
if he comes. (prediction) I shall finish the work if others help me. (prediction) 2. Epistemic Necessity: (1)
Must: Must often deals with epistemic necessity. In addition, must is also used as deontic modality to show
obligation. It is hard to differentiate these two modalities. Therefore, scholars argue that context is very
important to distinguish epistemic and deontic modality of must. Must often emphasizes subjectivity rather
than objectivity. Have to which has the similar meaning with must can’t be replaced by must in showing
epistemic modality. Have to is only used as deontic modality. (13) The ground is wet. It must have rained.
(necessity) (14) He must be studying in the classroom, because he always does so.(epistemic necessity) He
must be studying in the classroom, because he has on other places to go. (deontic) Negated must is often
replaced by can’t when it shows epistemic necessity. Must and can are different modals. However, when
they are negated, the meaning becomes identical because the two sentences are convertible based on the
relative scope relationship. (15) You must not provide the receipt. You can’t provide the receipt. You must
not provide the receipt.
It is necessarily not that you provide the receipt.
necessarily not P You can’t
provide the receipt.
It is not possible that you provide the receipt.
Not possibly P necessarily not P
(proposition)
not possibly P (proposition) You must not provide the receipt.
You can’t provide the
receipt. (2) Should/Ought to3 : Should is used as a necessity modal like must. However, it isn’t as strong as
must. Generally speaking, should and ought to are interchangeable. Palmer (1979) argues that “it is not at all
clear that English makes any distinction between should and ought to”. However, some scholars insist that
there is difference between should and ought to. One of the representatives who suggests that should and
ought to are different is Coates (1983). Should and ought to are weaker in force compared with must and the
result will not actually be carried out. (16) They really should be home by now. (necessity) They really ought
to be home by now. (necessity) D. Modal Verbs and Deontic Modality Deontic modality is concerned with
requirement, desire, commitment, obligations, permissions, hope or requirements etc. (Griffiths, 2006)
Deontic modality chiefly depends on modal verbs such as must, have to, ought to, may, can, etc. to express
the meanings. Deontic modality often shows the meaning of obligation, volition and permission etc. 1.
Deontic Possibility: (1) May; Can: May and can are often used to show possibility. However, they are also
used as deontic modality. In this case, they are more concerned with permission rather than possibility. Can
is more informal than may. Therefore, it is more frequently used in the conversation. In contrast, may is used
formally. In some cases, can is disallowed to replace may. Past form of may, might is argued to be stronger
in the power of permission than may, and it often transfers to requirement. (17) You may go home.
(permission) May I come in? (permission) (18) You can go home. (permission) You can leave now.
(permission) I will wander along to your loo if I may. 3 Some scholars suggest that ought to is a semimodal
verb (Fintel, 2006). This article considers it as a modal verb. *I will wander along to your loo if I can. You
might take off your dirty shoes. (permission
requirement) 2. Deontic Necessity: (1) Must/Have to4 :
When must/have to is used as deontic meanings, it means necessity and obligation. When must refers to the
futurity, it becomes deontic rather than epistemic by showing obligations or duty. Compared with must, have
to is more objective. Have to is only used for objective obligation. (19) You must finish all the tasks.
(obligation) You must receive a good supply of both sunshine and moisture to be healthy. (obligation) (20)
You must be in London next week. (obligation) You must work hard. (subjective obligation) You have to
work hard. (objective obligation) (2) Will/Shall: Will is used as deontic modality when it is related to the
volition. Volition includes intention and willingness. This volition is much related to the futurity. Will is
often used in the interrogative sentences with second person subject when it shows willingness. Past form
would is also possible in this case. However, the willingness will transfer to the slight obligations to the
249
listeners. When the subject is the first person, volitional or intentional shall shows speaker’s undertaking to
pursue a course of action and may be treated deontically. In questions, shall shows obligational meaning.
(21) My chauffeur will help you. (willingness) Will/would you like to help me? (willingness
slight
obligation) (22) I shall do it myself. (volition) (I intend to do it myself.) (23) Shall we replace the carpets?
(obligation) (Let’s replace the carpets.) (3) Should/Ought (to): Should is the past form of shall. Should and
ought to are almost the same when they are used as deontic modality. Coates (1983) argues that, "It is
possible that OUGHT occurs more frequently in speech than in written language because of its potentiality
for stress. That is, if a speaker wants to emphasize the modality expressed by OUGHT and SHOULD, he will
tend to choose OUGHT rather than SHOULD. This distinction is lost, however, in written language". (p. 70)
Both should and ought (to) focus on subjectivity rather than objectivity. Though should and ought to show
obligation similar to must, they are not interchangeable. Compared with must/have to, should and ought to
are much weaker in showing deontic modality. What’s more, the result will not actually be carried out, when
should and ought to are used. (24) * I must finish the work, but I don’t want to. (contradictory) I
should/ought to finish the work, but I don’t want to. (deontic) (25) * I had to finish the work, but I didn’t.
(contradictory) I should/ought to finish the work, but I didn’t. (deontic) E. Semimodals In addition to the
modals discussed above, there are some more words which are considered as semimodals. Semimodals have
both features of main verbs and modal verbs. Quirk et al. (1972) call these words semi-auxiliaries, Chapin
(1973) calls them quasi-modals and Palmer (1974) calls them quasi-auxiliaries. These semimodal verbs are
need, be able to, dare and had better etc. Semimodals have the meanings similar to modals. It is reported that
there are about twenty semimodal verbs in English (Quirk et al, 1972). Some of the major semimodals
commonly concerned are need, be able to, dare, had better, would rather and be going to etc. and these are
closely related to the epistemic and deontic modality respectively. F. Flexibility and Ambiguity of Modal
Verbs Modal verbs can be used flexibly in showing either epistemic modality or deontic modality. In the
following part, the article focuses on some of the core modal verbs used for epistemic modality and deontic
modality. As a matter of fact, many of the modal verbs can be used for both epistemic modality and deontic
modality. Firstly, we will see must, have to and will. Must is a modal verb with strong possibility derived
from the factual proposition. However, it can be related to the obligations as well. (26) a. He must be a
student because he wears school uniform. (Epistemic) b. He must finish all the work till 5 o’clock PM.
(Deontic) (27) This has to be a joke. (Griffiths, 2006) a. Epistemic modality: This must be a joke, because
nodiv believes it. (Possibility) b. Deontic modality: This must be a joke. Sometimes, words like please can
be considered as one of the markers to distinguish the epistemic from deontic modality. Because the word
please itself shows polite requirement, sentences including please generally belong to deontic modality.
When it is used in the epistemic modality, it functions as the converter to change epistemic modality into
deontic modality. In the following example (28), the sentence sounds like someone with a vested interest in
this proposition praying that its truth will be confirmed or accepted. (28) Warmer summers must please be a
sign of global warming. (Epistemic → Deontic) (Griffiths, 2006) V. Research on modality is closely related
to the possible world. Modality shows necessity and possibility of the world. This article focuses on some
major aspects of modality such as, epistemic modality and deontic modality, usage of basic modal verbs,
some semimodals that are frequently used and ambiguity of modals in meanings etc. Modality deals with
necessity and possibility. These two are the core concepts of modality. Many scholars classified modality
according to their own standard. However, epistemic and deontic modality are the two forms existing in all
the classification types. That implies epistemic and deontic modalities are most frequently used. Modal verbs
are the main carriers to show modality. This article analyzes major types of modality and semimodal
verbs/semi-auxiliaries such as need, dare, be able to etc. Modality is a very important semantic concept that
attracts many scholars’ interests. A number of studies on modality have been conducted. In addition to the
modal verbs, some other syntactic forms such as adverbs, nouns, verbs, adjectives also can represent
modality.
References
1.Palmer F.R.(1990) Modality and the English modals. London, New York; Longman .Group Ltd.
2.Palmer F.R.(1998) Mood and Modality. New York: Cambridge University Press.
3.
Whitehall, H (1956) Structural Essentials of English. New York: Cambridge University Press
4.
Internet resources. Wikipedia.
