MODAL

VERBS

He wrote it himself.
He must have wri<en it himself.

 unmodalized sentence: speaker commi<ed to

the factuality of the proposiEon
modalized: speakers commitment is qualied,
proposiEon is inferred
unmodalized sentence: stronger claim
knowledge by deducEon is weaker than
knowledge by direct experience

 semanEc vs. pragmaEc strength

pragmaEc weakening: You must have more
cake.
pragmaEc strengthening:
BOSS TO EMPLOYEE: You may leave.

 epistemic: speakers aNtude to the truth-

value, factual status of the proposiEon
(proposiEonal modality)
root: non-actualized, potenEal events (event
modality)
(Palmer)

epistemic < Gk. knowledge

evidence of the speaker
belief-sets of the speaker
the speakers mental representaEon of reality
inferenEal processes
meta-representaEon of reality
qualicaEons concerning the speakers
knowledge: inference, assumpEon, speculaEon,
deducEon

 may: one possible conclusion, speculaEve

must: evidence, deducEon, the only possible
conclusion
will: general knowledge, assumpEon

John may/must/will be in his oce.
might/would

 deonEc < Gk. binding

deonEc modality: condiEoning factors are
external to individual
external deonEc source
dynamic modality: internal factors, properEes
and disposiEons of individual

He can go now.
permission: deonEc source
He can run a mile in 5 minutes.
dynamic, ability
He can escape.
dynamic: circumstances
She can speak French. - ambiguous

 boundary deonEc/dynamic: fuzzy

The most we can expect is a slight cut in tax.
(ambiguous: no idenEable deonEc source)

 modal harmony:

Strange as it may seem
whatever you may say
must surely
should probably
may possibly

vs. non-harmonic:
It may surely have been = surely it is possible

 root epistemic disEncEon:

syntacEc (Picallo 1990): epistemic modals are
inserted at sentence level while root modals
appear under VP
in the lexicon (Ross 1969, Jackendo 1971):
root and epistemic modals are disEnct lexical
items: root modals are transiEve predicates
control verbs, epistemic: intransiEve raising
verbs
contextual: semanEc pragmaEc component
(Papafragou 2000, Kratzer 1991)

 unitary semanEc approach: common core

interpretaEons: context-dependent
modal expressions = proposiEonal operators
which quanEfy over a set of possible worlds,
idenEed by the proposiEon (the VP)
express dierent types of commitment to the
truth of the p: the speakers aNtude
< contextual and pragmaEc info

a. All Maori children must learn the names of their

ancestors.
b. The ancestors of the Maoris must have arrived from
TahiE.
c. If you must sneeze, at least use your handkerchief
d. The people said: Rakaipaka must be our chief.
(Kratzer 1977)
the modal base:
a. tribal duEes
b. general knowledge
c. personal disposiEon (disposiEonal must;)
d. the good of the tribe
modal relaEon: must = logical consequence

modal bases:

CAN: poten1al, possibility

As a former champion, John can lii heavy weights.

physical

As a simple guest, John can dress casually.

social

As a University employee, John can get health benets.

As a human being, John can have conscious mental states.

legal
biological

 modal operators express dierent types of

commitment to the truth of the proposiEon
modal operator: context of evaluaEon
modal base: inferred from the context
modal expressions: system-neutral,
underspecied with respect to content
Sentence: modal operator + modal base +
proposiEon (VP)

ambiguity : two dierent modal domains

available for one and the same sentence

I cant leave my husband penniless.
Of course you can, the law allows you to!

ambiguity : two dierent modal domains

available for one and the same sentence
I cant leave my husband penniless.
Of course you can, the law allows you to!
modal base 1: moral prole
modal base 2: legal regulaEons
modal relaEon: (lack of) possibility

It cant be coincidence.
As a ma<er of fact, it surely could. Its not like
saying: it cant be a unicorn.

core meaning:
necessity: must, need, have to, have got to,
should, ought to
possibility: can, may

Epistemic necessity and possibility

must: logical deducEon: there is no other
possibility
may: one possibility of many: strong implicaEon
that p is not true
He must be all alone.
He may be all alone.

He must have thought of what the Silencer might
say when he came to give evidence and he took a
gamble on the truth.

 can , need: non-armaEve

But they cant be real.
Even if he does, he need not get his reward.

 epistemic must, may: internal negaEon

mustnt : usu. interpreted deonEcally

a. ?He mustnt have done it deliberately
= it is necessary that he did not
b. Danny must not have heard the news.
= I think he has not heard the news.
c. He may not have done it = possible that he did not

can, need external negaEon

d. You cant have known him = not possible that...
e. He need not get his reward = not necessary that..

MUST

subjec1ve: pragmaEc weakening: the only explanaEon
I can think of
modal semanEcally entails proposiEon, another
explanaEon incompaEble with speakers set of beliefs

*He must have overslept but maybe he had problems
with his car.

objec1ve: only possibility there is
If Ed is older than Jo and I am older than Ed, I must be
older than Jo.

MAY
subjecEve: put forward the proposiEon as
possibility

We may be out of fuel.
= one possibility of many; strong implicature that
the speaker does not know whether p is true

objecEve: public knowledge, not speakers
knowledge
He may have misled Parliament: theres going to be
an inquiry.

 special case of pragmaEc strengthening:

concessive may
cancel implicature that p is not true
may = presupposed
speaker accepts p as true in order to contrast two
situaEons
No ma<er what dierences they may have had, she
will remember only that he is the man she loves.

 must, need: past reference epistemic

He must have told her. ( )
He must tell her tomorrow. ( )
It must surely rain tomorrow. ( )

may: freely future
You may do be<er next Eme.
We may have a problem.

epistemic can: not possible with future
They cant nish unEl tomorrow. (deonEc/dynamic)

 interrogaEon: limited context with epistemics: one does not

normally quesEon ones own set of beliefs => rhetorical
quesEons
a. Might John be a liar?
b. Must John be a liar?
condiEonals same restricEons:
c. ?If John must have a high IQ, then his teachers should treat
him carefully.
d. ?If that blonde may be Jacks wife, we should keep quiet
about the secretary.
vs. deonEc:
e. If John must leave, then I will go too.
f. If money may rule, then there is no jusEce.

Epistemic NEED = interrogaEve and negaEve

counterpart of logical necessity MUST

a. He neednt be guilty.
b. Need the quarrel with Cuba ever have
happened, and can it be put into reverse?
c. GeNng married is an awfully complicated
business. Actually it neednt be.

He neednt have told her.

1. epistemic
2. deonEc

He neednt have told her.

1. epistemic: it isnt necessarily the case that he
told her
2. deonEc: it was not necessary for him to tell
her

Epistemic HAVE GOT TO - AmE very common

Youve got to be kidding me!
cf. BrE You must be joking!

BrE: theoreEcal necessity, very strong
Someone must/has (got) to be telling lies.

suspicion accusaEon

DeonEc necessity and possibility

deonEc necessity = strong obligaEon: MUST
deonEc possibility = permission: MAY CAN

a. The chief must cast out all failures.
-> modal base: the rules of the tribe-
deonEc source
b. You must bring him to me.
-> deonEc source: speaker

 negaEon
You mustnt a<end the lectures. internal
= it is necessary that you do not
You may not/cant a<end. external
= you are not permi<ed to

PragmaEc factors:
*You may have more cake.
*You may not take any noEce of him .

pragmaEc weakening: emphaEc advice,
invitaEon: hearer = beneciary

You must have more cake.
You mustnt be too disappointed.

 deonEc modality: typically subjecEve

You may join us with pleasure. (my pleasure)
pragmaEc weakening only in subjecEve cases:
objecEve deonEc:
We must/have to make an appointment.

preferred

We may borrow up to six books.

 deonEc: future
past/present: general requirements

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

usituaEon-type:
individual-level states force epistemic reading
a. He must have green eyes like his mother.
b. They may be naEve speakers of Dutch.
state predicates coerced into achievement or acEvity
reading: root reading becomes available:
c. I must be the best chess player there is.
d. You must be honest.
e. You must believe in God or theyll burn you at the
stake.
f. The new professor must be a naEve speaker of
Finnish.
g. Is he my father? I must know.

HAVE GOT TO esp. AmE

MUST, HAVE GOT TO vs. HAVE TO

parEcular occasions habitual, general

a. I must/have got to feed the baby: shes been crying
for half an hour.
b. I have to feed the baby six Emes a day
c. Do I have to/need to show him my ID card every
Eme?
d. Must I/Have I got to show him my ID card now?

 have to, have got to -> actuality

must: future

a. The snow lay four feet deep around the house
and he had to dig a path from the front door to
the road.
b. Chance had placed a great opportunity within
his grasp and he must not let it slip.

a. It means Im permanently broke and Im

having to do lots of work to support you and
your mother unEl I get another commission.
b. If youd seen some of the fortune-hunEng
dead-beats Ive had to keep o with a sEck
since I ripened into womanhood, you would
understand my thinking its a pleasant
change to meet someone like Jerry.

 dynamic necessity; disposiEonal must

Eds a guy who must always be poking his nose into
other peoples business.

hedged performaEve:
There is a confession I must make.
I must admit that
harmonic must needs

ironic use:
Must you make such a dreadful noise?
If you must smoke, use an ashtray.

 deonEc NEED: necessity usu. negaEve

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.

Im very grateful. You neednt be.

I need hardly tell you that ...
I do not think I need read subsecEon 2.
You neednt answer any quesEon.
All you need do is go there and pay the money
I wonder if I need be present.
They need have no fear on that account

a. Must I wait? (open quesEon)

b. Need I wait? (negaEve answer expected)
c. I neednt have gone. -> implies: I went.
d. I didnt need to/didnt have to go. (open)
e. You neednt cut the grass speaker: deonEc source
f. You dont need to cut the grass. - external deonEc
source

HAVE TO/HAVE GOT TO

deonEc/epistemic reading indisEnguishable in
scienEc wriEng
a. Every nite clause has to contain a nite verb.
-> deonEc source: rules of language / epistemic
necessity

not discourse-oriented
b. The verdict must/has to be unanimous. If the
members are unable to reach agreement, the case
must/has to be retried before a new jury .
-> neutral deonEc source

Dynamic possibility
what is reasonable or acceptable:
The most we can/may accept is a slight cut in sales-tax.
what is circumstanEally possible
Water can sEll get in.
ability
I can reach tall places.
existenEal can:
These animals can someEmes be dangerous.
Lilies can be white or red.
may: very formal
The hairs are there all the Eme, although they may not
grow noEceably before puberty. -> internal negaEon:
someEmes they do not grow

 ability
potenEal
a. He can make anything! Mr Willy Wonka can
make marshmallows that taste of violets.
currently actualized
b. Listen! You can hear the machines! And you
can smell the melEng chocolate in the air!

DeonEc SHOULD
subjecEve: what the speaker considers right (morally
right, expedient)
a. Oaths should not be lightly u<ered, especially before
witnesses.
b. You should leave now.
weaker than must: allows for non-actualizaEon:
c. I should/*must stop but Im not going to.
past/present: when the situaEon was/is not actualized
criEcism:
d. You should have done/be doing your homework.
+ ought to: not in indirect direcEves, e.g. instrucEons
e. The column should be lei blank.

Epistemic SHOULD

inference :
a. The next road should be King Street.
deonEc use more basic than epistemic: *epistemic +
perfect :
b. She should have lei.

rare examples of pure epistemic: always + deonEc (the
right thing, place):
c. The key should be in the drawer.
d. They should accept your manuscript.

=> epistemic : favourable situaEons
e. ?They should reject your manuscript.

SHOULD: infer consequence from cause;

evidence = norms, expectaEon
vs. MUST: direct evidence
MUST = proposiEon is veriable in the present
SHOULD = future conrmaEon

a. Hes be<er now: he must/should be able to
return to work.
b. Hes back at work: he must/*should be be<er.
c. There should be another upturn in sales shortly.
d. *There should be another disaster shortly.

 internal negaEon:
a. She should not have done it
-> advisable to not do it
b. A man who wants to keep secrets should not
babble in his sleep.
-> advice to not do

 open interrogaEves:
a. If this house was not permi<ed to stand, why
should not other mansions and towers also
crumble and fall?
b. Should we fear contaminaEon of our values by
accidental eld collisions? Might not scorpion
poliEcs fatally infect our own poor psyches?
c. I remember when I was a kid at school having to
learn a poem of sorts about a fellow who made
a statue of a girl, and what should happen one
morning but that the bally thing suddenly came
to life.

 low-degree modality: subordinate clauses (mandaEve, emoEonal,

condiEonal)

a. ...with the proviso that the company should not be broken up
b. He was so astonished that anyone should care
c. He wanted it more than life itself that she should love him.
d. It was important to Abraham that this scheme should fail.
e. How striking that both should disappear.
f. That she should now make this separaEon was almost an
admission of defeat.
g. The protest had been suspended, lest an outbreak of violence
should mar the happy day.
h. Should they refuse the oer of his only sons hand in marriage, it
was enErely likely that the old mans protecEon would be
withdrawn.
i. If, at any Eme thereaier, you should run out of supplies

Epistemic WILL
a. They will have made the decision last week.
not normally 1st person (cf. voliEon)
strength of modality: strong : entails factuality
c. *They will have made the decision although its possible
that they have not.

avoided in contexts where it can be interpreted as future
d. This must be the best restaurant.
e. This will be the best restaurant (predicEon).

future conrmaEon, vs. must: conclusion
f. You were mad to tell her. You must/*will have known it
would upset her.

 objec1ve will:
Ed is Toms father and Tom is Bills father, so Ed
will be Bills grandfather.

Dynamic WILL
voliEon:
She wont sign./ ?She will. / Shes going to.
I WILL solve the problem.
condiEonal:
Ill wash if you will dry.
extension to inanimates:
The computer wont start.
propensity:
He will lie in bed all day.
Oil will oat on water.

Deon1c WILL
You will bring the prisoners to me.

DeonEc SHALL
a. The commi<ee shall meet at least four Emes
per year.
b. You shall have your money back
c. Shall I close the window?

DeonEc HAD BETTER

a. You had be<er telephone her.
does not countenance non-actualizaEon:
semanEcally strong
b. *You had be<er tell her but dont if youd rather
not.
pragmaEcally weaker than MUST
internal negaEon:
c. He had be<er not tell her = it is advisable that he
should not

DARE
dynamic - subject-referent disposiEon: have
the courage
external negaEon

I darent tell her.

Preterite COULD, MIGHT, WOULD, SHOULD

dynamic modality: formal
a. When my father was a<ached to a cavalry
regiment at Brighton, my parents might a<end an
occasional concert
b. The compleEon of the canal increased the ease
with which the coal might be sent to Nord.

 restricEon on COULD in armaEve contexts:

a. I lei early but couldnt get a seat
b. *I lei early and could get a seat
-> actualizaEon of a single situaEon viewed
perfecEvely; actualized ability:
c. I can/could hear something ra<ling /*ra<le.
-> imperfecEve needed

WOULD
voli1on:
a. I had no money but he wouldnt lend me any. /*and he
would lend me some.
propensity: allows reference to a single actualizaEon:
b. He would call round just when I was the busiest.
cf. will:
c. He will have his li<le joke habitual

future-in-the-past : requires actualizaEon
d. His sons would turn against him , he could already see it in
their eyes.
e. He pinched him just in Eme, hard enough to make him
forget what he was going to /*would say.

 politeness; deonEc:
a. Could you pass the salt?
b. Would you tell them were here. (voliEon)
hedged performaEve:
a. I would not advocate it.
b. I would imagine
c. If I might make a suggesEon
d. I can promise you.

 redoubled qualicaEon: epistemic:

a. Certainly it would appear that ...
b. it would seem that
c. Whisky would seem to be what he lled the
radiator with.
d. Is it conceivable that you might travel with
two hairdryers?

a. You were mad to drive so fast: you might / could have

been killed.
b. "Jimmy Crocker is a WORM! Jimmy spilled his cocktail. It
might have been the voice of Conscience.
c. You might /could have put it more nicely.
d. Yeah, well, we might just have to do that, he said in a dark
threatening voice.
e. His demeanour seemed to me that of a man who might
quite easily throw bread about at lunch.
f. Angela might have been hewn from the living rock.
g. I might have known he was a friend of yours!" he said,
bi<erly.

The scope of the perfect

She must have saved him. (internal perfect)
She could have saved him if shed tried (external perfect)
External perfects:
deonEc: He neednt /ought to/should/ might/could
have told her.
possibility: We could/might have have been in Africa.
remote apodosis: If he hadnt lied she would/might
have forgiven him.