MOOD MODALITY MODAL VERBS. A distinction should be made between mood and modality. Modatity is a semantic/pragmatic concept while ‘mood is a grammatical category. The primary function of ‘mood’ is to express modality and refers to specific Tinguistic forms or paradigms of forms, typically in verb inflection (Palmer 2001:4; HuddlestonedePullum 2005:172), as in the contrast between indicative (realis mood) , subjunctive, imperative, infinitive lirrealiy need). As far as English is concerned historical change has more or less eliminated mood markers from the inflectional system (the only remnant is 1°/3" person singular were), the mood system being rather analytic _ ging rather analytic Ahan inflectional (Huddlestone&Pullum 2005:172). ‘Modal concepts andsattitudes can be expressed in English by: (a) mood/inflectional markers : factual (indicative), non-factual (subjunctive, infinitive form, imperative form) (b) lexical modals: — ( ectives: able, bound, certain, compulsory, imperative, likely, necessary, possible, probable, supposed, ete. (ii) nouns; allegation, assumption, certainty, likelihood, necessity, possibility, probability (iii) “Verbs: assume, believe, declare, fear, hope, imagine, insist, permit, presume, require, suspect, think, et Ay (iv)adverbs; allegedly, certainly, possibly, probably; presumably, undoubtedly, (c) true modal auxiliaries: can, may must, shall, will, could, might, should, would, ought to, need, dare. (d) semi-modal verbs: have (got) to.) so = AC ay, / Roughly, modality is centrally concerned with the speaker 's/subject's altitude towards the actuality actualization of the situation expressed by the non-Tinite part Of the clause (the proposition “p’) (H&P :200ETTY. 2 2 jinctive syntactic and morphological properties of Modal Verbs 2.1. Modal verbs form a special class of auxiliary verbs, given their particular morpho-syntactic properties which distinguish them not only from lexical verbs but also from other auxiliaries such as aspectual be and have. (Avram, 1999). ~, (A) The NICE Constructions - Negation, Inversion(Code afd Emphasis - distinguish between modal verbs and lexical verbs, placing modals within the class of aspectufil au (i) Negation can attach to the modal without do-support: (1) Movil! not work { (ii) Subject-auxiliary inversion is obligatory in questions and in tags, without do-support: (2) Will it rain? (3) She can walk, can't she? (iii) Modals can appear in the ‘code’ construction Without do-supparts, (4) Susan can help them and J can foo /and so can 1. (iv) Emphatic polarity is possible without do-support. (5) 1 WILL be there. Besides the NICE properties, modal auxiliaries share the following properties with the aspectual auxiliaries be and have: (vy) Stranding: (6) He can’t come, but J can. 13(vi) Precede adverb/quantifier: (7) They will probably/all eome (vii) _ Reduced forms: (8) (viii) Combinatorial and order restrictions; have, be and modals excludes above); there are also rigid restrictions on the sequence of auxiliaries; this indi fixed po: she"! come later/ She won't come later ion with do (see IIL (9) She may have arrived/*She have may arrived she may be coming soon/*She is may coming soon She has been reading/*She is having read guish between modal verbs and the aspectual auxiliaries be and have: (2pPreveries that di (i) Modals showgo person-number agreement: (10) ¥sietansdoir (ii) Modals cannot co-ogeur: (11) *She must can help you vs. She must be able to help you (iii) Modals lack nop-finite forms, consequently are excluded from constructions that require one. From a syntactic Dn View modal verbs occur only in finite clauses: (12) to have ~ had — had - having tobe —-was — been — being (*to) can ~ could- *could ~ *canning *1 regret not canning swim vs. | regret not being able to swim *T have could swim since childhood vs. I have heen able to swim since childhood. “Pd like to can swim vs. I'd like fo be able 10 swim (iv) Modals can only select aubare infinitive as complement (except ought): (13) They may come/be coming/have come” (v) The present /past distinction ; only some modal verbs exhibit a present/past alternation (which is semantically neutralized in many contexts):can/could/shall/should, will/would, may/might: (14) She could already swim when she was seven. vs. She could have told me the truth. ‘ypes of Modality Modal verbs are ambiguous along at least two dimension€(he raat modal meanings and (@ the epistemic modal meanings. The root modal meanings subsume )deaniic modality and dynamic moda ity. It refers to concepts like obligation, permission, willingness, abit Deontie modality Teeoncemed with the possibility or necessity of acts performed by morally responsible agents|(qbligation permission). ‘Dynamic’ modalities are Concerned with properties and dispositions (such as abilit) and willingness) of persons referred to in the clause, specially by the subject NP. The boundary dynamic and deontic modality is fften fuzzy, hence they are grouped together under the headin *rot' modality Yr agent-oriented modality, Compare: ee » Spat rad Saat! (15) (She can stay as long as she likes (deontie|- permission) ii) She can easily beat everyone else in the c}ub (dynamic- ability) (ii) 1 can speak French (ambiguous) (Hey 2005:178) — oo. O 4 {“Epistemic’ is derived from the Greek for ‘knowledge’ and roughly deals with the the possibility or necessity of an inference drawn from available evidence as to the truth (factuality) of past or present si Epistemic modalities are speaker-oriented. ‘The sentences below are examples of root and epistemic uses of the modals must and may: (20) (i) You must do as you are told (root necessity) \ * you are required/obliged to do as you are told” . (i) She MUSTHAVETITEMAVTEM (epistemic necessity) “it is a necessary assumption thaf she has already left” (iii) John must be in class today (ambiguous) (21) (i) Youmay go ifyou wish (root possibility) = you are allowed to go if you wish’ He may have left (epistemic possibility) ~‘it is a possible assumption that he has left’ He may sleep downstairs (ambiguous) (H&P:178) 7 As the examples show, both epistemic and root interpreted modals show a two-fold dis between some + | kind of necessity (c.g. must_should. ought to, have to, need) and some kind of possibility. (e.g. may.can). | Recording to H&P (175) the core modal concepts of AeGRSSMY and possibility concem the strength of \ commit: ent (prototypically the speaker's commitment) to the factuality (epistemic) or actualization (root) of \ the situation: necessity involves a strong commitment, possibility a weak ons. | Deontic necessity, ie. obligation (which may range from strong to weak) is expressed by must, should , ought \oma orca rave fo, need is restricted to non-affirmative contexts, while deontic possibility i.e. permission, is expressed [by may or can, fapressed by may’ and can. In its epistemic use, can, just like need, is restricted to non-affirmative contexts. pistemic necessity is expressed by must, need, have to, should, ought to, while epistemic possibility is 3.1 Root Spistemic Contrasts. We can identify grammatical features that distinguish between root and epistemic readings of modal cerbs. (Sesapatienofite suit Root readings-of modal verbs, unlike epistemic readings of modal verbs impose electional restrictions on the subject. Utterantes with expletive or inanimate subjects are, in general, ‘anomalous with root modals, (irrespective of wheiheg they denote necessity or possibility), while epistemic modals do not MMpOSE any Festriction whatsoever: SS ee (22), Ai) It may be raining (It is possible.../*... is allowed) Gi The political uncertainty may lead to early elections (It is possible.../*... is allowed) (23) \ (i) There must be a demonstration today (it is certain.../*..is required) y das (ii) The political uncertainty must lead to early elections (it is certain.../*.is required) Qe perties of the Verbal Complement * Viewpoint aspect: Epistemic interpretations allow thg presence of perfect andyprogsesvinmcsspect in the complement. Rgot reading: pretations exclude these forms. The following examples only allow the epistemic se me it Me peat Que nae ak vakeree (29) (@ He must have been very tired/She may have left Gi) John must be joking/She may be sleeping R oerA consequence of the aspectual restriction is thaLepistemic readings have present and past orientation i.e. the speaker evaluates propositions about past (29a) or present (29b) * Lexical aspect: Jndividual-level states (i. inherent properties of individuals: have green eyes, be a native speaker, believe, know, etc) in the complement of the modal fay epistemic reading, ngla root reading of the modal verbs; root readings broadly involve stage-level predicates (processes, events of stage-level states). These predicates refer to situations that can be brought about by an individual (30) He must have green eyes like his mother (it is certain that....*it is required that...) They may be native speakers of Dutch (it is possible that... *it is allowed that...) People in this part of the world may believe in strange gods. He must know the answer. (31) You must behave yourself (it is required that..‘it is certain that) You may go now (it is allowed that... *it is possible) tne Constraints When an epistemic and a root modal co-occur the epjsiemic precedes the root; the Spistemic > root constraint belongs to Universal Grammar (i.c. it is valid cross-linguistically) In English, the co- ‘occurrence of two modal verbs is syntactically constrained but we_may_use semi-modals and other modal constructions —_ : G4) epistemic > root weer They may have to go et He ought to,be able tdo it He might be allowed to go there There are no co-occurrence restrictions if the modal expressions are both root or both epistemic. 35) (i) ro0t> root ‘You must be able to prove your innocence i) Epistemic > epistemic Necessarily, the solution to this problem may be false - ~ gatives. Kpistemic modals, unlike root modals, eat wentenc inyes-no | \ era ferrogatives: (36) May the race start? “Is there permission for the race to start?” “#1s it possible that the race starts?” (37) Should John leave? “Is it required that John leave?” “Js it predictable that John will leave?” jegation. With modal verbs the negative element ‘not” may refer either to modal (external negation) or to the Predicate (internal negation). The paraphrases are illumina 1639) You may [not be given this opportunity again] (epistemic) may [not ] “It is possible that you will not be given” SE You [may not ] enter (root) not [may] “You are not allowed to enter’ (extemal negation \ (40) You mustn’t eat it all must [noi] (root) qu is necessary [that you not eat it all] internal negation You needn’t eat it all nof/need] (root) “Itis not necessary [for you to eat it all]"~ external negation (41) Alfred shouldn't eat nuts (root) should {dt} “Itis advisable [for Alfred not to eat nuts”|- internal negation Bob shouldn't be late (epistemic) should [not] “It is predictable [that Bob will nor be late]’- internal negation (42) Mary ought not to leave (root) ought [not] “Ivis required [that Mary does nor leave}’- internal negation ‘There oughtn’t to be a problem finding the way. (epistemic) ought{not] “it is predictable [that there will not be a problem] - internal negation The relevant distinction is that between necessity modals and possibility modals With necessity modals “not calc (we speak of internal fegation); with possTDTiTy— ‘ —— saat eral predisae ves s_ ‘nos -wegates the modal itself (we speak of external negation). Cowes we @ May, a possibility modal, where the relevant distinction is that between epistemic and root reading. e.g. You may not leave = You are not allowed to leave; not [may] P He may not be coming tomorrow=It is possible that he is not coming; may [not P] (ii) the necessity modal need which should be considered a negative polarity item so it will always appear under negation. The positions for modals relative to NEG is given below PRE-NEG necessity: shall, should,must, will, would, ought to, be to, have to ‘Modal [Not]” Possibility: epistemic reading only: may.might POST-NEG _ possibility: can could, dare (only root) Not [Modal] root reading only: may, might need