Modal Verbs

12 Key excerpts on "Modal Verbs"

• 

  eBook - ePub

  Children's Language

  Volume 11: Interactional Contributions To Language Development

  • Keith E. Nelson, Ayhan Aksu-Ko‡, Carolyn E. Johnson, Ayhan Aksu-Koc(Authors)
  • 2005(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  A Developmental Perspective on Modal Verb Use by French-Speaking Children

  CLAUDINE DAY Université de Paris 5, France

  Language researchers have long studied the representative function of language, that is, its use to describe the facts and phenomena of the world. Many valuable analyses investigating the formal aspects of linguistic systems show that phonological, morphological, and syntactic regularities are inadequate for clarifying the complexity of language activity. Recent developments in functional approaches to language and progress in interactionist or pragmatic research have put new emphasis on communicative function. Language use, then, may be considered as a form of social conduct, and the meaning of linguistic expressions as built within the interpersonal dimension. This is a dynamic process achieved by the joint constructive activity of those taking part in communicative interaction. Advances in linguistic theory have made possible not only an account of the plurifunctionality of linguistic terms but also of their polysemy and the ambiguities thus generated. This is an opportune entry into the study of meaning.

  An important notional category which lies at the interface of meaning and use is modality. In addition to referential and predicative operations, using language involves modalization, which consists of imposing a modal value on the sentence. Like some other aspects of language, modality is difficult to define because its expression involves ambiguity. Nevertheless, different definitions converge on a set of core properties characterizing this category. First, modality involves the qualification of predications either as pure and simple facts, or as suppositions, wishes, suspicions, and so forth. Modality is then expressed by the indicative mood implying certainty or by the conditional mood indicating uncertainty or contingency. Second, expression of modality involves a kind of commitment by the speaker to the truth or obligation entailed in a sentence. This is expressed by sentences with grammatical structures such as the declarative, the interrogative, or the imperative, which inform the addressee about the illocutionary force of the modal utterance. And, finally, modality is involved in the expression of statements, wishes, questions, commands, protests, and so forth, which characterize relationships between speakers. That is, modality refers to the pragmatic dimension as well.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Die slavischen Sprachen / The Slavic Languages. Halbband 1

  • Sebastian Kempgen, Peter Kosta, Tilman Berger, Karl Gutschmidt, Sebastian Kempgen, Peter Kosta, Tilman Berger, Karl Gutschmidt(Authors)
  • 2009(Publication Date)
  • De Gruyter Mouton

    (Publisher)

  We are dealing with a cross-linguistic а lly attested, but not necessarily universal, category. It is shown that modals differ from fully lexical expressions of modality both in semantics and morpho-syntax. Slavonic modals are heterogeneous and form different types of morpho-syntactic constructions. The mo-dal constructions vary in respect to the syntactic encoding of the privileged syntactic argument, the assignation of the agreement marking to the modal and/or the main verb and the marking of tense and mood either on the modal or the main verb. This chapter will present a definition and a description of Slavonic modals based on Grammaticaliza-tion Theory (for the main tenets of this theory, see Lehmann 2002). 1. Modals in Germanic and Slavonic Grammaticography The term ‘modal’ is well established in Germanic linguistics and quite common in General linguistics. In every handbook of English, Danish or German grammar one finds special chapters about ‘modals’ or ‘Modal Verbs’; e.g. the English modals are can / 34. Modals (Modalauxiliare) 469 could, may/might, must, shall /should, will /would , and marginally, ought to, need, used to and dare (Quirk et al. 1985, 137) . The English core modals have some syntactic features setting them apart from regular verbs, the so-called NICE properties; i. e. Negation: modals allow negation contraction ( mustn’t vs *hopen’t ), Inversion without do-periphrasis ( Can we go? vs *Hope we to go? ), Code ( John can swim, so can Bill ) and without Emphasis ( *Yes, I DÒ can come. vs Yes, I DÒ hope to come. ) (Quirk et al. 1985, 137). The class of German modals comprises können, dürfen, möchten /mögen, müssen, sollen, wollen, and at the periphery nicht brauchen, haben, sein and gehören (cf. Zifonun et al. 1997, 1252 1282). The German modals are mainly characterised by two features: they govern an infinitival verb without zu ; (1) German Klaus will morgen kommen. vs ‘Klaus wants to come tomorrow.’ (1’) Klaus beabsichtigt morgen zu kommen.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  The Grammar of Autobiography

  A Developmental Account

  • Jean Quigley(Author)
  • 2000(Publication Date)
  • Taylor & Francis

    (Publisher)

  Brazil’s (1995) discussion of the modals in terms of a linear grammar (i.e., a purpose-driven grammar rather than a sentence-oriented one) suits our purposes very well. The meanings of words and expressions do not derive from a set of relations that exist permanently in the semantic system of which the word is part. Instead, the relations among items is a function of the way speakers use and understand them as having a “this-not-something-else” value that is valid for the particular here-and-now circumstances of their communication. The available set of choices open to a speaker at any given point makes up the “existential paradigm” (p. 249).

  Within this framework, Brazil (1995) sets out the following criteria as the distinguishing features of the modal auxiliaries (pp. 113–115).

  1. They select for time reference, relating probability time to utterance time rather than event or condition time (can/could, may/might, will/would, shall/should) and polarity (can/can’t, may/may not, will/won’t, shall/shan’t), an aspect that will prove crucial in this analysis.
  2. They select for sense, although the possible existential alternatives for a modal belong to a very restricted class, comprising mainly of other modals.
  3. Because their potential for selection is always related to the probability of some event or condition, they are communicatively deficient: progress toward target state is always via a non-fmite verbal element (V1). There is no occasion when it is appropriate to say “She can” without following it with a V1, for example, take.
  4. The V1 that follows them has base form (i.e., infinitive). Using a modal verb commits the speaker to producing a verbal element and also one with prospective implications, something that does not apply in a general way to other kinds of verb. The base form of V1 is used whenever independent choice is precluded in this way: “the verb must get what it wants” (Pinker, 1994, p. 121).

  Brazil (1995) also discussed specific ways in which we use the modal auxiliaries. For example, the exploitation of differentiated time reference choice to make something more acceptable socially, many instances of which are contained in this corpora (Would it be possible? If you could give me a lift) or the use of shall and will for future with prominence (I will never forget that, really.). The main point we ought to take from his analysis is that “used speech exploits the here-and-now values of the linguistic items that speakers make use of” (p. 33), therefore, after Halliday (1973), that the nature of the grammar is, at least partly, due to the nature of the task. This method of analysis rules out an “after-the-event approach” that assumes that the object for analysis already exists in its entirety, just as events and stories do not exist fully formed prior to their telling. Rather, discourse is something that happens now, piece by piece, in time, with the language being assembled as the speaker goes along. Instead of the static concept of constituent structure, Brazil (1995) made use of the dynamic notion of a sequence of states. The focus is on the way people use words to create oppositions: “it is this temporary here-and-now opposition that provides the word with the value that the speaker intends and the listener understands the communicative value of any item is negotiated between participants as the discourse unfolds the this-not-that relationship” (p. 35). This sort of analysis has its earliest roots in speech act theory and pragmatics with its notions of illocutionary force and indirectness. Ultimately however, a standard speech act view proves inadequate “because it ignores the observation of language in use and therefore ignores the pervasive indeterminacy of much language” (Stubbs, 1985, p. 2). Stubbs pointed out that historically, speech act theory has been very ambivalent in its attitude toward naturally occurring language in use. Despite Austin’s (1962) formulation of the task at hand as the collection of explicit performative verbs as a guide to illocutionary force, Searle’s (1969, 1979) version led Lyons (1981) to suggest that the term language act would be more appropriate than speech act in order to emphasize the abstract decontextualized view of language as proposed by Searle (Lyons, 1981, p. 172 cited by Stubbs, 1985, p. 5).26

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Modal and Focus Particles in Sign Languages

  • Annika Herrmann(Author)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • De Gruyter Mouton

    (Publisher)

  5.1.1. Modality Modality is defined as a semantic category that conveys the attitude of a speaker towards the validity of the content of a proposition. Apart from mor-phological forms of mood (indicative, conjunctive, and imperative), modality also relates to sentence types such as declaratives, interrogatives, and impera- Modality and modal meaning 79 tives. Modality may be expressed through various means that interrelate with contextual information: (a) morphological means such as verbal inflection (mood); (b) lexical means such as sentential adverbs (e.g. hopefully, maybe) and Modal Verbs (e.g. can, must, may); (c) syntactic means like the German infinitival constructions with sein (to be) and haben (to have) (cf. Bußmann 1990: 490-491). Dietrich (1992: 23) defines modality as a category specifying the man-ner of an event or state described by a sentence, and the speaker’s attitude towards the utterance expressed by this sentence. Research on modality tra-ditionally distinguishes between two forms of modality. On the one hand, there is ‘deontic modality’, referring to obligations, recommendations, per-missions, and intentions, and thereby to the speaker’s attitude towards the necessity or possibility of an act or event. On the other hand, there is ‘epis-temic modality’, referring to the speaker’s judgment about the probability and truth of a proposition (knowledge and belief). Similarly, Portner (2005) dis-tinguishes between epistemic and deontic meaning and notes that epistemic meaning concerns what is known, whereas deontic meaning concerns pos-sibility and necessity. He defines modality from a possible worlds semantic point of view and says that “modality refers to language whose meaning de-pends on alternate possible worlds” (cf. Portner 2005: 154). The identification of which worlds are relevant is essential for the understanding of the modal meaning of a sentence.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Meaning and the English Verb

  • Geoffrey N. Leech(Author)
  • 2014(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  Chapter 5 The Primary Modal Auxiliaries

  114 six auxiliaries, Primary and (Secondary) Past. CAN : 115 A ‘possibility’, B ‘ability’, C ‘permission’. MAY : 116 A ‘possibility’, B ‘permission’, C quasi-subjunctive uses. MUST : 117 A ‘obligation’, B ‘requirement’, C ‘logical necessity’. HAVE TO : 118 A ‘obligation’, B ‘requirement’, C ‘logical necessity’. RELATIONS BETWEEN CAN , MAY , MUST AND HAVE TO : 119 permission, possibility, obligation, requirement and necessity; 120 inverseness; 121 may and can (= ‘possibility’); 122 may and can (= ‘permission’); 123 must and have to (= ‘obligation’ or ‘requirement’); 124 must and have to (= ‘logical necessity’). ROOT AND EPISTEMIC MODALITY : 125. WILL : 126 A ‘prediction/predictability’, B ‘intention’, C ‘willingness’, D ‘insistence’. SHALL : 127 A ‘prediction’, B ‘intention’, C ‘other volitional meanings’, D ‘rules and regulations’.

  114

  Many pages, chapters, books have been written about the modal auxiliary verbs in English. One thing that can make it difficult to account for the use of these words (called ‘modal auxiliaries’ or ‘modals’ for short) is that their meaning has both a logical (semantic) and a practical (pragmatic) element. We can talk about them in terms of such logical notions as ‘permission’ and ‘necessity’ but, this done, we still have to consider ways in which these notions become remoulded by the social and psychological influences of everyday communication between human beings: factors such as motivation, condescension, politeness, tact and irony. Condescension, for example, in the right context makes the can of You can go now (which in logical terms means no more than ‘permission’) into something approaching a command (see §115 C b

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  A Grammar of Shaowu

  A Sinitic Language of Northwestern Fujian

  • Sing Sing Ngai(Author)
  • 2021(Publication Date)
  • De Gruyter Mouton

    (Publisher)

  https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501512483-020 Chapter 17 Modality, modal auxiliaries and their syntax Modality is an illocutionary force that expresses a speaker’s general intent or degree of commitment as to whether the proposition expressed is possible, true, obligatory, desirable or real (see, e.g., Lyons 1977: 452, Palmer 1979: 5–14, 1986: 8–18). Modality and mood (e.g., indicative, imperative or subjunctive mood) are often discussed together and sometimes overlap in usage in linguistic literature (Palmer 1986: 187–191). While there is no consensus as how to define modality and what should constitute the set of modal categories, linguists generally agree that: (i) modality is a semantic sub-domain; (ii) it is more loosely structured and probably at a higher level of abstraction than tense and aspect; (iii) it involves ‘qualifications of states of affairs’. (Nuyts 2005) Modality is traditionally divided into three types: deontic, epistemic and dynamic (Palmer 1986: 7–10). Deontic modality is ‘concerned with the necessity or possi-bility of acts performed by morally responsible agents’ (Lyons 1977: 823), while epistemic modality is ‘concerned with matters of knowledge and belief ’ (Lyons 1977: 793), referring to the speaker’s belief or opinion about the truth or valid-ity of the proposition. Dynamic modality is characterised as an ascription of a capacity or ability of an agent, which can also involve judgement on the part of the speaker. Bybee et al. (1994: 177–181) divide modality into four types: agent-oriented, speaker-oriented, epistemic and subordinating. According to them, epistemic modality encompasses possibility, probability and inferred certainty, while sub-ordinating modality refers to the use of modality in subordinate clauses (e.g., subjunctive).

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Historical Development of Auxiliaries

  • Martin Harris, Paolo Ramat, Martin Harris, Paolo Ramat(Authors)
  • 2011(Publication Date)
  • De Gruyter Mouton

    (Publisher)

  The study of the distribution patterns of the variants — when collected from texts representing different periods, media and styles — should help us observe the development. 6 In my own study I aim to describe the use of the modals CAN, MAY, COULD, and MIGHT 7 and to account for the factors influencing the choice of the variant in a given context. A diachronic perspective will be provided by what we already know about the pre- and post-seventeenth century development of the modals and by the changes to be observed between the language of the first-generation settlers and their descen-dants. The study of the modals in this period is particularly interest- 148 Merja Kytö ing, as the system of modals met its last major restructuring process in the very early Modern English period. 8 Classification of the texts on the basis of a number of extra-linguistic criteria will help us observe the factors which supposedly influence the variation. In my study such factors include the nature of the communicative situation (which can be private or public), the speaker's or writer's relationship to the audience (close or distant), the educational background of the language user and the purpose for which the text has been produced (subject-matter and stylistic requirements). On the basis of these factors the texts have been defined as representative of formal or informal uses of language of either non-speech-based or speech-based origin. 9 3. The criteria of classification The models presented for the purpose of analyzing modals have so far been mostly monosemantic — the modal is assumed to have one basic meaning — or polysemantic — the modal is assumed to have a number of independent or related meanings — or both. The last-mentioned possibility seems most rewarding from the point of view of a variational study on historical principles: independent categories of meaning can be distinguished without denying the existence of semantic indeterminacy so characteristic of the modals.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  A Historical Syntax of English

  • Bettelou Los(Author)
  • 2015(Publication Date)
  • Edinburgh University Press

    (Publisher)

  • The modals were part of a larger class of preterite-present verbs that had fewer inflections to start with. The loss of the second person sin-gular inflection -(e)st (for thou ) in the sixteenth century removed the only remaining finite inflection. • Two developments were important watersheds for the development of modal auxiliaries: (1) lexical verbs ceased to take bare infinitives as their complement in Middle English, which meant that bare infinitives were increasingly associated with modals rather than with lexical verbs; (2) the rise of do -support, indicating that V-to-I move-ment was lost with lexical verbs. These two developments set modal auxiliaries apart as a special category. Exercises 1. M EANINGS OF Modal Verbs . Look up can, may, must and need in the OED . What are their original meanings? Construct from the mean-ings given in the OED how their meanings may have bleached into their present epistemic and deontic meanings. Give an example of each meaning, and note the argument structure of each example. 2. D EFECTIVE PARADIGMS . We saw in the previous chapter (section 3.4.1) that Ælfric’s Latin Grammar can be very informative about Old English. Consider the following passage in which Ælfric discusses the conjugation of the Latin verb licere ‘be allowed’. What do his Old English translations tell us about the Old English verb mot ‘may’? (i) a. licet mihi bibere: mot ic drincan MOT -1 SG I drink- INF b. mihi licuit: ic moste I MOT -past c. si nobis liceret: gyf we moston if we MOT - PAST -1 PL VERBAL CATEGORIES : THE RISE OF THE MODAL AUXILIARIES 119 d. infinitivvm licere: beon alyfed be allow- PAST . PART (from OE aliefan ‘allow’) <ÆGram 207.1> (Warner 1993: 146) 3. I NFLECTION . PDE speech errors: compare the actual utterance with the intended utterance and analyse what has gone wrong.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Mastering English

  An Advanced Grammar for Non-native and Native Speakers

  • Carl Bache, Niels Davidsen-Nielsen(Authors)
  • 2010(Publication Date)
  • De Gruyter Mouton

    (Publisher)

  The expression of modality by modal auxiliaries can be illustrated by epistemic examples like the following: (5) She may/can't/must be right. Here the finite verb forms signal a qualification whereby the speaker operates with alternatives to the actual world. And here the source of the modality is the speaker of the utterance: Ί consider it possible/imposs-ible/necessary that she is right'. As Hoye (1997) observes, modality is often expressed by highly regular collocations of Modal Verbs and certain adverbs: (6) They can't possibly be playing tennis. (7) It may well be a back-formation. (8) It must certainly result in a termination of the project. Though the modal verb and the adverb in such combinations express the same kind of modality (e.g. epistemic modality), their combination is not a matter of pleonastic reiteration of the same modal meaning but rather a stylistically powerful, synergetic means of expression. However, it is not always the case that modal auxiliaries are used for the expression of modality. This can be illustrated by the next examples: (9) Linford can run 100 yards in nine seconds. (10) He can touch the ceiling. Here CAN is used in factual statements about ability. As it does not signal a qualification of an utterance whereby the speaker operates with alternatives to the actual world, examples like these are nonmodal. As pointed out by Palmer, CAN in the sense of ability can be omitted from the strict typological classification of modality, although it is of interest that Modal Verbs have these meanings (1986: 103). Notice also that CAN is here 326 Verbals oriented not towards the speaker of the utterance (as in (5)) but towards the referent of the subject form: the source of ability is the person referred to by Linford in (9) and by He in (10). In an important study on English modals by Klinge (1993), it has been shown that the distinction between epistemic and deontic modality, i.e.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Modality in Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics

  • Werner Abraham(Author)
  • 2020(Publication Date)
  • Cambridge University Press

    (Publisher)

  We adopt here the notion of modality in the narrow sense (which includes Modal Verbs and modal particles). In contrast to modality, mood is a functional category pertaining to the level of the proposition, whereas mod- ality is illocutionary in nature. Again, the feature of [+distance] is being reinterpreted. This time, the speaker splits into the utterer (the local person; PROP-SUBJ – see §1.1) and the evaluator of the proposition (illocutionary person – ILLOC-SUBJ). In other words, modality establishes a viewpoint from outside of the proposition. This amounts to a metalinguistic viewpoint being established. Modality can be defined as a key opening the door to meta- language. Metalinguistic abilities are found in the human species only. Considering that modality is the final stage of the ATMM-complex and looking at the ATMM-architecture as a bundle of techniques to resolve the natural viewpoint or origo, the very metalinguistic abilities have to be defined as a language-driven human faculty. This is equivalent to saying that meta- language is characteristic of humans only. If it were just some general cognitive capacity, it should be expected to emerge in some other animal as well. However, it does not, not even in domesticated dogs or higher primates. Modality, or illocutionary force, is a domain that has not been well sub- categorized to date when it comes to functional details. The hypothesis probed here is that the illocutionary domain of the sentence is functionally as diverse as are the functional categories at the propositional level. What is characteristic of modality in the Germanic languages is implementation by Modal Verbs and modal particles. Modal Verbs and modal particles are not universal when we look at them from a formal point of view.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Modality in Contemporary English

  • Roberta Facchinetti, Frank Palmer, Manfred Krug, Roberta Facchinetti, Frank Palmer, Manfred Krug(Authors)
  • 2012(Publication Date)
  • De Gruyter Mouton

    (Publisher)

  In the first two there is simply the uninflected form of the verb, which is also used for the infinitive and imperative. All that need be said is that this uninflected form has a number of different functions, but it is the same form throughout and not a completely different form like the subjunctives of other languages. In the next two examples there is simply a modal verb ( may and should) whose function should be explained in terms of the English modal system, not in terms of mood. In the final example, were is a form unchanged for number and person, like other past tense forms such as knew (and it is the use of was elsewhere that is irregular). Modern English has a modal system, but no mood. It seems that Modal Verbs cannot be identified quite so easily in other European languages, though one purely syntactic feature (to do with word order) has been suggested for French (Kayne 1975: 1-27) and a different one for German (Hammer 1983: 224). In addition the Modal Verbs of German are marked morphologically. It seems that the potentially Modal Verbs of Spanish or Italian cannot be identified by any generally agreed formal marking (Spanish PODER and DEBER, Italian POTERE and DOVERE). However, they appear to share with the English Modal Verbs two features that are discussed in this paper - (i) they can express all three kinds of modality - epistemic, deontic and dynamic), (ii) they can be interpreted in terms of possibility and necessity. Even so, there are still problems, e.g., with the status of other forms such as French il faut and the reflexive il se peut, Spanish TEN ER QUE and hay que and Italian bisogna. Moreover, it may well be the case that mood is already on its way out in some of these languages. The subjunctive is used far less frequently in spoken German and French than as prescribed by the grammar books, and although it may be alive and well in the languages of Spain, that does not seem to be entirely true of Italian.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Johnson's and Webster's Verbal Examples

  • Kusujiro Miyoshi(Author)
  • 2008(Publication Date)
  • De Gruyter

    (Publisher)

  Certainly, he occasionally supplied citations, but in most cases this was done based on his own view of the usage of modal auxiliaries, and he did not deduce the usage of the words from the citations. As for Webster, he was especially dependent on invented examples. As confirmed at the beginning of this section, Section 8.1.1, modal auxiliaries are function words which denote moods. For the treatment of the words, Johnson was essentially a grammarian, paying attention to tense, mood and person quite frequently, and was not a man of letters except for a few rare 188 cases. As for Webster, he especially made use of his knowledge as a grammarian; he usually referred to tense, mood and person in more detail than Johnson. 8.2 Verbal Examples Supplied for the Treatment of Primary Verbs 8.2.1 The Characteristics of Primary Verbs and the Procedure of the Analysis There are verbs which function both as principal verbs and as auxiliaries. They are be, do and have which modern grammarians call primary verbs. Concerning the semantic characteristics of these verbs as auxiliaries, Randolph Quirk et al. have given the following definition, which I will accept in this section: Semantically, the primary verbs as auxiliaries share an association with the basic grammatical verb categories of tense, aspect, and voice. In this they are broadly distinguished from the Modal Verbs, which are associated mainly with the expression of modal meanings such as possibility, obligation, and volition. (Quirk et al. 1985:129) Specifically, as auxiliaries, be helps to build the progressive form and the passive voice, have the perfect tense, and do the negative and interrogative sentences, as well as functions as a sign of emphasis. In addition to such varied characteristics, their inflections are closely associated with number and person of their subjects. Both Johnson and Webster treated such words in their dictionaries.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book