Modality

in linguistics, a conceptual category expressing the purposefulness of speech, the relationship of a

speaker to the content of his utterance, and the relationship of the content of the utterance to reality.

Modality may signify affirmation, command, desire, permission, truth, and unreality. It is expressed by
various grammatical and lexical means: modal verbs (“may,” “should”; German sollen, konnen,
wollen), other modal words (“perhaps,” “likely”), and intonational means. Different languages express
the various meanings of modality in different ways.

Jespersen (1924, 318) explains the concept of clauses, such as he has to go, you should go, you may
go if you like, and the like into several types of modes. According to Jespersen (1924, 318), mode is a
concept that is related to certain attitudes that exist in the mind of the speaker towards the contents of
the sentence.

Collins (2009, 1) According to him, modality is a semantic notion that includes possibilities, needs,
abilities, imperatives, permits, and conjectures (hypotheses).

In addition to using modal verbs, English expresses modalities through adverbs (maybe, maybe,
maybe), adjectives (possible, necessary), verbs (believe, hope, know), conditional sentences (if ...
then ...) (Portner 2009, 4– 8)

Two examples of modality:

28a It’s your duty to visit your ailing parents.

28b You ought to visit your ailing parents.

These sentences are almost paraphrases. Both of them have a proposition

‘you visit your ailing parents’ and they make equivalent statements

about that proposition: your duty=what you ought to do.

Two more examples of modality:

29a Jessica is possibly at home now.

29b Jessica may be at home now.

Here, too, there are nearly synonymous sentences containing the same

proposition and making equivalent statements about the proposition:

a possibility=what may be.

Modality can be expressed in nouns like duty, obligation, probability, likelihood; in adjectives like
necessary, possible, likely, in adverbs such as obviously, probably, perhaps; but for description of how
modality is expressed in English we need to concentrate on modal verbs—verbs like ought and may.
Semantically, the following are modal verbs:

can could may might will would must should

ought need have to have got to

Native speakers of English learn these verbs so early in life that they are unaware of having learned
them. As Joos (1964:147–8) points out, a child of four may ask the meaning of duty but is not likely to

ask about the meaning of must. The child knows what must means, but neither a child nor an adult is
capable of explaining the meaning.

The types of modalities that can be grouped into the following:

1. Epistemic

Epistemic is a type of modality that expresses the level of commitment of the speaker to the truth that is
expressed (Palmer, 1981: 153). For example:

You can drive this car.

Who can use the sentence to express the following:

It is possible for you to drive this car.

You have permission to drive this car.

Epistemic capital can also be used to express deontic interpretations, as in the following example
(Saeed, 2000: 127):

You can tell me that you will come.

In this example, issuing said something that is used to imply what was not done, thus making the
sentence above authority reprimand.

2. Deontics

Deontics shows the attitude of speakers of social factors such as obligations (obligations),
responsibilities (responsibilities), and permits (Saeed, 2000: 126). For example:

Do things that must be done:

• You must take back these books.

• You must take these books back

• You need to take back these books.

• You must take back these books.

Or express what can be done:

• You can leave it there.

• You can leave it there.

• You might leave it there.

So it can be agreed that the status and level of formality of the speaker relationship can influence the
selection of the use of modalities. If for example the speaker says "You can go now," then the speaker
is in a higher position than the person spoken to.

3. Dynamic

Unlike deontics and epistemics, dynamic modalities do not meet the speakers. Dynamics do not discuss
the opinions of speakers, and speakers also do not affect interaction. For example in the sentence: Juan
can play the guitar. In that sentence, the speaker gives rise to the factual or actual about the subject of
the sentence. So, can support the ability to play Juan. Cannot agree on the speaker's beliefs. This is
what distinguishes dynamic modality from modality and epistemic (Williams,
http://www.geocities.com/margowilliams2002/modals).

4. Alethik

Cann (1993: 270-271) suggests a type of modality called alethik (from the Greek aletheia which means
truth). Cann uses the logical basis of necessity and possibility, which is related to the truth (truth) or
untruth (falsity) of a logical system. We can say that the formula is really true (or false) logical (or
alethis), if the logistic system used ensures that the capital formula must be true (or false). Conversely,
formulas that may be true (or false) are formulas that cannot be interpreted as always true (or false) by
logic. For example in the following sentence:

1. Every proposition must be true or false, but not both.

2. Bertie might know that the Morning Star is an Evening Star.

3. Every proposition must be true or false, but not both.

4. Bertie might know the Morning Star is an Evening Star.

5. Alfred is a bachelor, therefore he must get married.

So it can be explained, modality is related to the degree of certainty of the proposition. Modality is also
related to conditional sentences (Saeed, 2000: 128), for example in the following sentence:

If I'm rich, I'll live in a hotter place.

If you have to go to Paris, stay near the river.