Modals – general presentation

Modality involves the notions of possibility, necessity and impossibility. Possibility, necessity
and impossibility are conceptually grounded in the fact that human beings often think and behave
as though things might be, or might have been other than they actually are (or were). We often
talk about alternative, conceivable, not actual states of affairs.

Expressions of modality

The linguistic manifestation of modality is achieved through modal expressions, such as:

(i) nouns: allegation, proposal, command, instruction, invitation, request, assumption, certainty,
doubt, expectation, etc.

(ii) adjectives: sure, certain, possible, necessary, probable, compulsory, imperative, permissible,
etc.

(iii) adverbs: allegedly, apparently, certainly, conceivably, evidently, likely, necessarily, perhaps,
possibly, presumably, probably, supposedly, surely, etc.

(iv) lexical verbs: assume, believe, fear, feel, guess, hope, imagine, presume, reckon, surmise,
suspect etc.

(v) modal verbs.

I. FORM

Modal verbs proper: can/could; may/might; must; shall/should; will/would; need; dare; ought
to

Lexical modals (modal equivalents): be able to, be allowed to, be permitted to, have to, be
supposed to

*Nota bene! need and dare also have normal lexical verb counterparts: to need / to dare

Modals make up a special class of verbs possessing their own morphological features. They
share features both with auxiliary verbs and with lexical verbs.

1. Morphological features shared with auxiliary verbs:

a) they combine only with the bare (or short) infinitive: I must go now. / *I must to go now.

1
exception: ought to / ought not to (ought’n to)

They can also combine with the following forms of the infinitive:

- progressive infinitive> She should be arriving soon.

- perfect infinitive> She should have arrived by now.

- passive infinitive > She should be informed of our decision

b) they exhibit four major syntactical properties - the NICE properties: unlike lexical verbs,
they don’t require DO support in the following circumstances: Negation / Inversion / Coda /
Emphasis.

i) negation: modal+ NOT/ N’T; no DO support>

You must not/mustn’t swim in that lake! / *You don’t must swim in that lake! (modal)

*He likes not cheese. He doesn’t like cheese. (lexical verb like requires DO support for its
negative form)

He hasn’t swum in the lake. / *He doesn’t have swum in the lake. (auxiliary also excludes DO
support)

ii) subject-verb inversion without DO> Must I come? / *Do I must come home? / Does he like
cheese? / Has he arrived?

iii) can be used in codas (just like auxiliaries, modals may occur "stranded" where a main verb
has been omitted)> He swims everyday and so does she. (auxiliary DO) / He can swim and so
can she. (modal)

Also used is question tags> He ought not to go, ought he? (modal) / He hasn’t left, has he?
(auxiliary have)

iv) emphatic affirmation> I will repay you. (modal) / He does like cheese. (auxiliary DO)

2. Morphological differences from auxiliaries: defective morphology

Modals have defective morphology; they lack specific forms for certain tenses (future, past), as
well as non-finite forms (infinitive, gerund, past and present participle forms). To make up for
these deficiencies, lexical modal equivalents are employed instead:

a) no future form: *He will must go to prison if the jury convicts him. / He will have to go ….
(lexical equivalent)

2
- no past tense form with –ed; the past forms of the modals (e.g. could, might, would etc.) are
seldom used as past tense equivalents (except sometimes in indirect speech)

e.g. He may leave tomorrow. (present time reference) / He might leave tomorrow. (present time
reference) / He said he might leave the next day. (indirect speech with backshifting) / He did it so
that we might survive (subjunctive.)

But some modals do have a past and a present form:

e.g. He can swim very well (present time reference). / He could already swim very well when he
was 5. (past time reference)

b) no non-finite forms: no –ing form> * musting, *canning etc. ; no infinitive form> *to can, *to
must etc.

*I hate musting to tell you this, but I think you should know. / I hate having to tell you this…
(modal equivalent)

c) no –s in the 3rd person sg., therefore no 3rd person agreement with the verb : He must go. /
*He musts go.

d) no co-occurrence (a modal cannot be followed by another modal)> *He will must go. / He will
have to go. (modal equivalent)

3. Exceptions: need and dare

Need and dare are semi-modals = modals which often act like ordinary lexical verbs.

a) Need only behaves like a modal in negatives (or with restrictive expressions such as: only,
hardly, barely) and in questions. It is used as a modal most often in British English.

Need you be so offensive? / If he wants me to help him, he need only ask. / You needn’t have
bought me flowers! (behaves like a modal)

You need to leave now! / You don’t need to explain it to me. I understand. (behaves like a
lexical verb)

Nota bene! Subtle differences in meaning between modal use of need and lexical use of need will
be discussed in a later lesson.

b) Dare is both a lexical verb and a semi-modal verb.

i) lexical verb: ‘to challenge somebody, to persuade smb to do smth’

I dare  you to jump from the roof. (requires long infinitive)

ii) semi-modal verb =‘to be brave enough or rude enough to do something’

3
 - behaving like an ordinary verb:

He didn’t dare (to) say what he really thought. (either long or short infinitive)

Don’t you dare tell her what I said! / I didn’t dare look at him. (in spoken English, the forms of
the ordinary verb are often used with an infinitive without to)

- behaving like a modal verb: more infrequent; typically used in British English; used only
in non-affirmative sentences:

Negative sentences: He daren’t go there. / He dare not go there. / No one dare go there. (modal
verb)

Question: Dare anyone go there? / Daren’t he go there?  (modal verb)

• common phrases with the modal verb:

a) I dare say = 'I suppose it's true' / 'I expect it's true'

I dare say you're off to Greece for your holiday again.

b) How dare you...? = showing that the speaker feels offended:

How dare you talk to me in that tone of voice!

Typical error: *How dare you to talk to me ...?

II. NEGATION> external negation vs. internal negation

1) Negation can function differently with the various modals. Remember that modals are always
followed by another (lexical) verb, which serves as the internal argument of the modal: must (go)

When negation is added to this sequence of verbs, the negative operator can attach logically
either to the modal or to the lexical verb.

a) MODAL (LEXICAL V) + NOT = MODAL (NOT / LEXICAL V)

e.g. He must pay his debts. (obligation to pay) / He mustn’t pay his debts. (obligation not to pay)

The modal has retained the meaning of obligation. Negation has attached to the lexical verb
which makes up the internal argument of the modal predicate. When negation attaches to the
lexical verb, negation is said to be internal. In other words, negation has local scope, as it only
negates the infinitive.

b) MODAL (LEXICAL V) + NOT = (MODAL / NOT) LEXICAL V

4
e.g. You have to pay his debts. (obligation to pay) / You don’t have to pay his debts. (no
obligation to pay) = It is not true that he has the obligation to pay his debts.

Negation has attached to the modal, not to the internal argument, with the resulting meaning of
absence of obligation. When negation attaches to the modal, it is said to be external negation.
External negation has scope over the whole sentence.

2) Some modals may lend themselves to either of these interpretations, depending on their
meaning:

e.g. May I go out? (permission) No, you may not (go out). (absence of permission = prohibition)

[modal V / not] (lexical V) = external negation→ the notion expressed by the modal itself is
negated

e.g. It may not rain tomorrow either. We may have to keep waiting for the rain. (possibility;
likelihood as assessed by the speaker) → it is possible that it will not rain

[modal V] ( not / lexical V) = internal negation → negation of the argument verb.

3) Nota bene! Pay attention to the following pairs of asymmetric opposites:

It can’t be him. (impossibility = negative certainty) =/= It must be him. (positive certainty)

You must come (obligation) =/= You don’t have to/need not come. (absence of
obligation/necessity)

You mustn’t come (prohibition) =/= You may/can come. (permission)

III. VALUES OF THE MODALS> DEONTIC, EPISTEMIC, ROOT/DYNAMIC

1. Modals always have the same core meaning but, depending on the context, they acquire
various interpretations or values.

The three standard values of the modals are known as root/dynamic, deontic and epistemic. Each
value is associated with a certain syntactic pattern. We will take can to illustrate each value.

Example: CAN = ‘there are no obstacles’ = possibility (core meaning)

i) DEONTIC USE:

Siblings can’t get married. / You can park there only until 17.00. → possibility from the
standpoint of social and institutional laws = permission

5
- modals used with deontic value introduce the notions of OBLIGATION, NECESSITY,
WEAK OBLIGATION, DUTY, PERMISSION

-syntactic pattern:

- modals with deontic value cannot occur with the progressive aspect or perfect infinitive form:

*Can I be going outside? / *Can they have parked there?

- they impose certain selectional restrictions on the subject :

*This apple may fall from the tree. (permission) / This orange must roll now (obligation) / This
table should break under such a load. (weak obligation)

ii) EPISTEMIC USE (Greek episteme = knowledge):

Can it be true that you will help me? / There can only be one outcome of this affair. / He can’t be
the murderer. → possibility from the standpoint of the laws of reason = possibility

- modals used with epistemic value introduce the notions of POSSIBILITY, WEAK
PROBABILITY, PROBABILITY, CERTAINTY as perceived by the speaker.

-syntactic pattern:

- no selectional restrictions imposed on the subject; the subject receives its theta-role exclusively
from the lexical verb.

e.g. This apple may fall from the tree any time now (possibility). / This orange must roll now
(certainty). / This table should break under such a load (probability).

- no past tense counterparts, because they the modal used in its epistemic sense is always present.
Epistemic modals show how the speaker evaluates a situation. The evaluation and the act of
speaking are always simultaneous and always take place at ST, hence the temporal value of the
modal itself can only be present. However, the situation which the modal evaluates can be going
on at speech time, or prior to ST; it can also be a situation which began before ST and is still
going on at ST.

e.g. He can’t have committed the murder vs. He couldn’t have committed the murder (both have
past time reference) / He may have committed the murder vs. He might have committed the
murder. (same) / It could be mine, but I don’t think so. (present time reference)

- epistemic modals can occur with the progressive infinitive (indicating that the situation under
evaluation is ongoing at ST) and perfect infinitive (situation prior to ST):

He can’t have committed the murder. He was here with me. / He can’t be plotting against the
king. He’s a loyal subject / He may have been suffering in silence, who knows?

6
Compare: He may be singing now (epistemic use). vs. He may sing now (deontic use:
permission).

But state verbs do not require the progressive infinitive to denote present time reference:

He must be the murderer. No one else is capable of such an act. (state verb; epistemic meaning
with present time reference)

iii) ROOT/DYNAMIC USE:

He can play the piano. / The shark can grow new teeth throughout its lifetime. → possibility
from the standpoint of natural laws = ability

- modals used with root/dynamic value introduce notions of ABILITY (can) and VOLITION
(will).

- syntactic pattern:

- root/dynamic modals also impose selectional restrictions on the subject, as the subject must be
[+ANIMATE]. The subject receives its theta-role from the modal verb + lexical verb complex.

-they have a past tense counterpart: will/would; can/could

e.g. He will not answer the phone. / He would not answer the phone when I called yesterday.

- progressive and perfective infinitive are excluded:

*He can be reading Latin. / *He can have read Latin when he was 12.

Nota bene! 1) English modals are often ambiguous between epistemic, deontic and root/dynamic readings.

e. g. They can speak Chinese. / They may leave as soon as the bus arrives. / The doctor can examine John.

Nota bene! 2) Ability can and volitional will were the last of the modals to be reanalysed as modals in the English
language. The modal content of ability can is very weak and some researchers do not regard it as a modals at all. By
contrast with the deontic and epistemic uses, ability can does not express modality imposed by the speaker. Rather,
it describes the world as it is - an existing state of affairs, a property of the subject of the sentence. The speaker does
not attempt to cause a change in the present state of affairs (as is the case with deontic can), neither does he evaluate
it according to his subjective point of view (epistemic can).

Bibliography:

1) Avram, Larisa. English Syntax. The Structure of Root Clauses. Bucuresti: Oscar Print, 2003,
pp. 113-124.

2) Stefanescu Ioana. Lectures in English Morphology. Bucuresti: EUB, 1978, pp. 265-270.