See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/258223141

The ways of expressing epistemic (extrinsic) modality in spoken English

Thesis · August 2011

CITATION READS

1 303

1 author:

Iveta Gustová
University of West Bohemia
1 PUBLICATION   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Iveta Gustová on 06 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Západočeská univerzita v Plzni
Fakulta pedagogická

Bakalářská práce

ZPŮSOBY VYJÁDŘE$Í JISTOT$Í MODALITY V

A$GLICKÉM MLUVE$ÉM PROJEVU

Iveta Gustová

Plzeň 2011
 University of West Bohemia
Faculty of Education

Undergraduate Thesis

THE WAYS OF EXPRESSI$G EPISTEMIC

(EXTRI$SIC) MODALITY I$ SPOKE$ E$GLISH
Iveta Gustová

Plzeň 2011
 STATEMET OF ORIGIALITY

Prohlašuji, že jsem práci vypracovala samostatně s použitím uvedené literatury a zdrojů

informací.

V Plzni dne 29. června 2011 …………………………….

Iveta Gustová

i
 ACKOWLEDGMETS

My thanks belong firstly to my supervisor PhDr. Jarmila Petrlíková, Ph.D. for her
patience and valuable advice, secondly to my partner Lukáš for his constant support and belief
in my success.

ii
 ABSTRACT

Gustová, Iveta. University of West Bohemia. June, 2011. The ways of expressing epistemic
(extrinsic) modality in spoken English. Supervisor: PhDr. Jarmila Petrlíková, Ph.D.

The undergraduate thesis deals with the ways of expressing epistemic (extrinsic) modality in
spoken English. In the light of knowledge gained from individual reference books it offers
different views on modality in general and subsequently focuses only on epistemic modality.
There are two main ways how can speakers express their commitment to the truth or
likelihood of a proposition and these are grammatical (modal verbs) and lexical (adverb
phrase, finite clause). Each branch further examines individual means of realisation, so called
‘epistemic markers’. The second part of the thesis analyses 181 excerpts taken from the film
Pride & Prejudice directed by Joe Wright in 2005. The following results of the analysis show,
that epistemic modality is relatively frequent phenomenon in spoken language (15% of
sequences) considering its limited means of realization. The second research question proved
that epistemic stance is usually expressed in lexical way (77%) thanks to its syntactic
mobility. Finally it was detected that the most frequent expression are ‘I think’ (21 cases),
‘must’ (14 cases) ‘I hope’ (11 cases), ‘perhaps’ (11 cases) and ‘I believe’ (9 cases), most of
them being lexical. Generally, there is a tendency to express higher degree of certainty rather
than lower.

iii
 TABLE OF CO
TE
TS

STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY ....................................................................................... i

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..................................................................................................... ii

ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................... iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................... iv

1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1

2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................... 2

2.1 Written vs. Spoken English ......................................................................................... 2

2.2 Modality in General ..................................................................................................... 2

2.3 Types of Modality ....................................................................................................... 3

2.4 Epistemic Modality...................................................................................................... 4

2.4.1 Semantic definition. .............................................................................................. 5

2.4.2 Ways of expressing epistemic modality. .............................................................. 6

2.4.3 Grammatical ways of expressing epistemic modality. ......................................... 7

2.4.3.1 Central modals. .............................................................................................. 7

2.4.3.2 Marginal modals. ......................................................................................... 11

2.4.3.3 Modal idioms. ............................................................................................... 12

2.4.3.4 Semi-auxiliaries. ........................................................................................... 12

2.4.4 Lexical ways of expressing epistemic modality (stance adverbials). ................. 13

2.4.4.1 Adverb phrase. ............................................................................................. 13

2.4.4.2 Finite clause. ................................................................................................ 14

2.5 Speech Acts and Pragmatics ...................................................................................... 15

iv
3 ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................... 16

3.1 The Method of the Research ...................................................................................... 16

3.2 The Analysis of Individual Excerpts ......................................................................... 17

3.3 Results of the Analysis .............................................................................................. 35

4 CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH ........................................................... 38

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... vi

SUMMARY IN CZECH .................................................................................................... viii

v
 1 ITRODUCTIO

This thesis deals with ‘The ways of expressing epistemic (extrinsic) modality in
spoken English’. The topic was chosen from the field of linguistics mainly because of the
author’s interest in English grammar and linguistics in general. Also most students decide
rather for common literature issues, which have been repeated over and over, than
exploring linguistic phenomena and making new conclusions. That leads to general
unfamiliarity with less frequent phenomena (e.g. epistemic modality). Lastly, epistemic
modality was chosen for having a close relationship with the category of modal verbs that
is by itself very interesting.

Besides theoretical information about modality and its epistemic branch, there are
several research questions, which are to be answered in the Conclusion chapter. At first,
the research should display whether epistemic markers are rather rare phenomenon in
spoken English or quite frequent in usage. Secondly, it is necessary to disprove the
assumption that modal verbs are the most common tool of expressing epistemic modality.
The last question should determine the most frequent epistemic markers in spoken
discourse and its classification to either grammatical or lexical category.

The thesis itself consists of four main chapters and these are: ‘Introduction’,
‘Theoretical Background’, ‘Analysis’ and ‘Conclusions and Further Research’. The first
presents the reasons for choosing this particular topic and introduces the research
questions. ‘Theoretical Background’ involves five subchapters which at first deal with the
difference between written and spoken English, then with modality in general and further
with epistemic modality and its ways of expression as found in reference books. ‘Analysis’
is the most important chapter. It contains the actual analysis of the examples excerpted
from the original linguistic material, in this case from the film Pride & Prejudice (Wright,
2005). The total amount of excerpts is 181. Finally, there is a ‘Conclusions and Further
Research’ chapter. On the basis of the results from the analysis, it answers the research
questions given in the Introduction and offers possible directions of further research.

1
 2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUD

2.1 Written vs. Spoken English

Because the topic of the thesis is to be analysed from the field of spoken language,
few words should be said to explain the basic differences between written and spoken
English and language in general. According to Leech and Svartvik (1975), the English of
speech differs in many ways. In common speech there is usually no time to organise our
thoughts and revise them afterwards. The message that the recipient gets is being shaped
during the dialogue or monologue. That is why “we use in speech words and phrases like
‘well’, ‘you see’ and ‘kind of’ which add little information, but tell us something of the
speaker’s attitude to his audience and to what he is saying” (p. 23). The authors also speak
of “hesitation fillers” like ‘er’ and ‘um’ or mixing up grammatical constructions.
Generally, the grammar of spoken discourse is simpler and does not have such strict rules
as of written register. The conversation can hardly be divided into individual sentences and
this is where intonation plays a great part. Spoken English is usually informal (colloquial)
if not used in official public speech (pp. 23 - 24).

This was cleared out in order to avoid misunderstanding, since all the excerpts
analysed in chapter 3.2 were found in spoken language and may thus contain grammatical
inconsistencies.

2.2 Modality in General

Modality in general is defined similarly in many reference books. For example
Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech and Svartvik (1985) claim, that “at its most general, modality
may be defined as the manner in which the meaning of a clause is qualified so as to reflect
the speaker’s judgment of the likelihood of the proposition it expresses being true” (p.
219). However, the authors deal with the term modality mainly in connection with the
category of modal auxiliary verbs and the topic is not considered in wider view.

Similarly Huddleston (1984) introduces modality briefly as a broad term for the
kind of meaning characteristically expressed by the modals. On the other hand he gives a
good distinction between mood as a category of grammar and modality as a category of
meaning. He says: “The distinction is analogous to that between tense and time and it
would be useful if we had similar pair of terms for talking about aspect” (pp. 165 - 166).

2
Mood refers to a grammatical category of the verb which has a modal function and is
expressed inflectionally (distinct sets of verbal paradigms). Modality is a semantic
category belonging to elements of meaning that language expresses (Bybee, & Fleischman,
1995).

Neither Palmer (2001) gives a general definition but also associates modality with
categories of tense and aspect, because all three are “concerned with the event or situation
that is reported by the utterance (…). Tense is concerned with the time of the event, while
aspect is concerned with the nature of the event. Modality is concerned with the status of
the proposition that describes the event” (p. 1).

2.3 Types of Modality

One can find many different opinions dealing with how to divide modality into
subcategories. Most authors whose books contain wider view on English grammar present
rather simple distinction, but this thesis focuses also on authors dealing exclusively with
modality and considers more or less minor opinions from journal articles. The following
paragraphs investigate throughout reference sources and offer several solutions.

Huddleston (1984) sees two central branches in modal logic and these are
possibility and necessity. Both of these notions have two kinds – epistemic and deontic.
The difference is visible from the following Table 1:

Epistemic Deontic

Possibility A: You may be under a B: You may take as many

misapprehension. as you like.

ecessity C: You must be out of your D: You must work harder.

mind.

Table 1: Examples of epistemic and deontic modality according to Huddleston (1984, p. 166).

Epistemic modality in A and C applies to the proposition that you are under a
misapprehension (A) or that you are out of your mind (C) and the issue is whether or not
the proposition is true (p. 167). By contrast, deontic modality in B and D has the character
of an action and the issue is whether something is going to be done (p. 168).

3
 When talking about modals, terms extrinsic and intrinsic modality are used in Quirk
et al. (1985). These terms do, in fact, mark epistemic and deontic modality respectively.
The authors’ distinction is based on semantic meaning of the modal verbs which may be
divided into two types:

(a) “Those such as permission, obligation, and volition which involve some kind of
intrinsic human control over events, and

(b) Those such as possibility, necessity, and prediction, which do not primarily
involve human control of events, but do typically involve human judgement of what is or is
not likely to happen” (p. 219).

Quirk et al. (1985) are aware of varying terminology between individual authors.
“In place of intrinsic and extrinsic modality, other terminologies, such as modulation and
modality, or root and epistemic modality, are widespread. (...) Another term widely used
for the modality of obligation and permission is deontic” (p. 220). Biber et al. (1999)
follow the same terminology as Quirk et al. (1985).

Even philosophical and logic views should be taken into consideration when talking
about modality. Von Wright (1951) distinguishes among alethic, epistemic, deontic and
existential modality (pp. 1 - 2). “Alethic modality (Greek: alethia = truth), sometimes
called logical modality, concerns what is possible or necessary in the widest sense” (von
Fintel, 2006). Examples of this modality do not frequently occur in everyday language.
Epistemic (Greek: episteme = knowledge) and deontic (Greek: deon = duty) modality were
already mentioned. Existential modality is the concern of logicians, though Palmer (1990)
argues about the sentence ‘Lions can be dangerous.’ as an example of existential modality.

Only for reason of completeness, von Fintel (2006) also briefly presents bouletic
(boulomaic) modality which “concerns what is possible or necessary, given a person’s
desires.” Finally, circumstantial modality (sometimes dynamic), “concerns what is possible
or necessary, given a particular set of circumstances” (p. 2).

That was for the background and wider orientation in the issue of modality.

2.4 Epistemic Modality

The following chapters 2.4.1 to 2.4.4 will further deal only with epistemic
modality. Firstly, in the section 2.4.1, epistemic modality will be presented in the light of

4
semantic definitions found in the reference books, the agreeing and disagreeing opinions
and discussions. Secondly, in chapters 2.4.2 to 2.4.4, one can find various ways of
expressing epistemic modality in natural language, concerning both grammatical and
lexical manifestations. This distinction will be essential for the actual analysis of individual
excerpts found in spoken discourse.

2.4.1 Semantic definition.

Epistemic modality (together with deontic) is “central from the point of view of
natural language and is also grammaticized in the system of English” (Kärkkäinen, 2003,
p. 17). She stated that definitions of epistemic modality conflict partially. Some authors’
definitions are related to belief and knowledge others involve ‘truth’ in them. “Epistemic
modality has to do with the possibility or necessity of the truth of propositions, and is thus
involved with knowledge and belief” (Lyons, 1977, p. 793). Similarly Huddleston (1984,
p. 167) argues that “epistemic modality is concerned with the truth status of the proposition
in the light of what the speaker knows. Epistemic modality is orientated towards the
speaker – it is subjective.”
Palmer (1986) sees epistemic modality “as indication by the speaker of his (lack of)
commitment to the truth of the proposition expressed” and “as the degree of commitment
by the speaker to what he says” (p. 51).
The matter of ‘degree’ appears also in Bybee and Fleischman (1995) who say that
“commitment to the truth of a proposition is often a matter of degree” (p. 4). Dušková et al.
(1988) claim that “besides the actual content of the proposition, the speaker can express the
degree of conviction (certainty) of the real relevance of the proposition, i.e. whether the
content of the message seems to the recipient certain, possible or impossible (different
degree of probability)” (p. 185).

Leech and Svartvik (1975) speak of ‘scale of likelihood’: “Instead of thinking of

truth and falsehood in black-and-white terms, we can think in terms of a scale of
likelihood; the extremes of the scale are impossibility and certainty (or logical necessity)”
(p. 128). Likewise Biber et al. (1999) use the term extrinsic modality (cf. 2.3) and define it
as “referring to the logical status of events or states, usually relating to assessments of
likelihood: possibility, necessity, or prediction” (p. 485).

5
 As was already suggested, epistemic modality can be divided into several types. For
example Quirk et al. (1985) distinguishes possibility (usually expressed by modal ‘may’),
necessity (expressed by modal ‘must’) and prediction (expressed by modal ‘will’).
Kärkkäinen (2003) summarizes that “the types of epistemic modalities most commonly
distinguished by many of the above scholars are possibility, probability and (inferred)
certainty, whether they make reference to truth in their initial definition of epistemic
modality or not” (p. 18).
See Table 2 for the clear depiction of modals and their types of epistemic modality
(in bold) taken and edited according to Quirk et al. (1985).

Table 2: Meanings of the modals - edited according to Quirk et al. (1985, p. 221).

2.4.2 Ways of expressing epistemic modality.

Many authors emphasise mainly the modal meanings of the English modal verbs,
but Kärkkäinen (2003) states: “Epistemic modality can be expressed by a variety of
linguistic forms, such as epistemic phrases, adverbs, adjectives, nouns, lexical verbs and

6
participial forms“ (p. 20). She also mentions other opinions of for example Perkins (1983)
who discusses the modal character of the linguistic categories of tense, if-clauses, and
questions.
Most of these ways were taken into consideration and the resulting division was
firstly into grammatical and lexical.

2.4.3 Grammatical ways of expressing epistemic modality.

The most discussed grammatical expressions of epistemic modality between
linguists are modal auxiliaries, commonly known as modal verbs or just modals. Dušková
et al. (1988) list ‘can’, ‘could’, ‘may’, ‘might’, ‘will’, ‘would’, ‘must’, ‘should’ and ‘ought
to’ as modals expressing epistemic modality. She explicitly excludes ‘shall’, ‘need’ and
‘dare’ (p. 186). Whereas Quirk et al. (1985) allow the usage of ‘shall’ in rare cases,
especially in formal style.

The category of modal verbs will be separated into four subchapters: central
modals, marginal modals, modal idioms and semi-auxiliaries according to Quirk et al.
(1985, p. 137).

2.4.3.1 Central modals.

Central modals have several specific features that set them aside from lexical verbs.
According to Dušková et al. (1988) the negation of modals is formed by simply adding the
negative particle ‘not’ or reduced -n’t. For instance: ‘must not’, ‘mustn’t’. Secondly, the
interrogatives are formed by inversion without the auxiliary ‘do’. For example: Can you
sing? Modal verbs also stand for the whole predication similarly to auxiliary verbs: Your
room should be cleaned. – No, it shouldn’t. Central modals are followed by bare infinitive
without ‘to’: He can be late. Huddleston (1984) points out, that one of the most specific
features is that modals do not enter into person-number agreement with the subject, i.e. do
not take ‘–s’ in third person singular: John may be at home (p.164). Modals cannot appear
in imperative sentences because the main function of imperative is identical with the
logical necessity or obligation (Dušková et al., 1988). They also add, that modals have only
definite forms and usually two – present and preterite (can/could, may/might...) which
function as conditionals. Infinitive and other forms are expressed by suppletive

7
(periphrastic) forms (can – be able to, may – be allowed to, must – have to, be obliged to
etc.). Modals also do not create passive forms. From the semantic point of view, modal
verbs have only vague semantic meaning; the predication has to be formed together with
lexical verbs. And this is their main function – to modificate the lexical meaning of the
predication. Biber et al. (1999) name nine central modals that are used to express modality:
‘can’, ‘could’, ‘may’, ‘might’, ‘shall’, ‘should’, ‘will’, ‘would’, ‘must’.
The reader should consider the upper paragraph as an introduction to modal verbs.
The next paragraphs will describe only the epistemic meaning of individual modals.

Can / could.
The epistemic ‘can’ expresses possibility or to be more specific, it expresses the
possibility of the idea – theoretical (Leech & Svartvik, 1975). It is illustrated on the
example: The railways can be improved. It says that “in theory the railways are
improvable, i.e. that they are not perfect” (Leech & Svartvik, 1975). Quirk et al. (1985)
claim that “in this sense ‘can’ is generally paraphrasable by ‘it is possible’ followed by an
infinitive clause” (p. 222). So the example above can be transformed into: It is possible for
the railways to be improved. In its negative form ‘cannot’ or less formal ‘can’t’ utter
impossibility (Leech & Svartvik, 1975) and negative certainty (Dušková et al., 1988).
Example: He can’t be at home! (= It is impossible that he is at home.). “Epistemic ‘cannot’
is the opposite of epistemic ‘must’” (Dušková et al., 1988). ‘Can’ is commonly used in
questions: Can he be at home? (= Is it possible that he is at home?). The past tense is
expressed by adding past infinitive of the lexical verb to the present form of ‘can/cannot’.
It is usually used as an opposite of positive ‘must’: He must have been at home. → He
can’t have been at home.

‘Could’ has the same meaning like ‘can’ but expresses hypothetical possibility or so
called “tentative possibility, i.e. to talk of something which is possible, but unlikely”
(Leech & Svartvik, 1975). For instance: Peter could be sleeping on the couch tonight. (= It
is just possible that Peter is sleeping on the couch tonight.)

May / might.
The best way to demonstrate the epistemic meaning of ‘may’ is to compare it with
the epistemic ‘can’ above. ‘May’ also expresses possibility but in this case the possibility

8
of the fact – factual (Leech & Svartvik, 1975). Thus the exemplar sentence will be: The
railways may be improved. There could be already some plans for improvement of the
railways. This kind of possibility is stronger than the theoretical one (Leech & Svartvik,
1975). Quirk et al. (1985) paraphrases ‘may’ as “’it is possible’ followed by a that-clause
or ‘perhaps/possibly’ (p. 223). The exemplar sentence becomes: It is possible that the
railways will be improved. The negation is formed normally with ‘may not’ and in this
case the modal verb keeps its meaning of epistemic possibility: He may not be at home. (=
It is possible that he is not at home.). “Epistemic ‘may’ is used only in declarative clauses,
questions are formed with ‘can’ (could, might): Can it be true?” (Dušková et al., 1988).
Past tense usually expresses present possibility of something that happened in the past:
Peter may have lied. (= It is possible that Peter lied.) (Leech & Svartvik, 1975).
‘Might’, similarly to ‘could’, “can be used as somewhat more tentative alternative
to ‘may’ and indeed is often preferred to ‘may’ as a modal of epistemic possibility” (Quirk
et al., 1985). Even though ‘might’ carries the same meaning as ‘may’, the degree of
probability is in the case of ‘might’ lower (Dušková et al., 1988). Apart from ‘may’, it
commonly appears in interrogative sentences: Might it be wrong?

Must.
‘Must’ in its epistemic sense “implies that the speaker judges the proposition
expressed by the clause to be necessarily true, or to have a high likelihood of being true”
(Quirk et al., 1985). The meaning of ‘must’ is logical necessity or certainty. For example:
Peter must be ill. The speaker observed that Peter has been coughing and sneezing all day
long, blowing his nose and drinking some tea. “Therefore the speaker has drawn a
conclusion from things already known or observed” (Quirk et al., 1985). The paraphrastic
form of the sentence can be for instance: It is necessarily the case that Peter is ill. or It is
highly probable that Peter is ill. Both Leech and Svartvik (1975) and Quirk et al. (1985)
claim, that epistemic ‘must’ is not normally used in interrogative or negative clauses. As
already quoted above, “epistemic ‘cannot’ is the opposite of epistemic ‘must’” (Dušková et
al., 1988). To use the same example: Peter can’t be ill, he went swimming in the afternoon.
Nevertheless, Dušková et al. (1988) argues that epistemic ‘must’ appears in questions. For
instance: What must he think? (p. 195). When speaking about past tense, epistemic ‘must’
together with past infinitive express certainty about the past. In sentences like: John must

9
have missed the train. (= It is almost certain that John missed the train.) (Leech & Svartvik,
1975).

Should.
This modal verb “can be regarded as weaker equivalent of ‘must’” (Leech &
Svartvik, 1975). The meaning of ‘should’ expresses probability. Quirk et al. (1985)
characterize the meaning as noncommitted necessity or tentative inference. “The speaker
does not know if his statement is true, but tentatively concludes that it is true, on the basis
of whatever he knows” (Quirk et al., 1985). Illustrative example: Michael should be at his
apartment by now. It can be paraphrased in several ways, for instance: Michael is probably
at his apartment, but I’m not certain. It is very likely that Michael is at his apartment.
Dušková et al. (1988) includes further comparison of ‘must’ and ‘should’. When referring
to the future it is only possible to use ‘should’: They should know the answer tomorrow.
The second difference results from the cause/consequence inversion. This is permitted only
in case of ‘must’: She is an experienced teacher, she must/should know how to deal with a
naughty child. → She knows how to deal with a naughty child, she must be an experienced
teacher (p. 196). Negation is naturally expressed by ‘shouldn’t’: There shouldn’t be any
problems. Questions with ‘should’ are rather rare: Should there be any problems in getting
to the station by car?

Will / would.
Epistemic ‘will’ stands for the idea of probability which has the present predictive
sense. That will be the postman. [on hearing the doorbell ring] As illustrated in the given
example, the speaker judges according to the time and situation, that the person standing
behind the door is the postman (Dušková et al., 1988). “The usage of ‘will’ is similar in
meaning to ‘must’ in its logical necessity” (Quirk et al., 1985). John must be in the garage.
(= the lights are on) → John will be in the garage. (= From previous knowledge why the
lights were on, we infer that John is in the garage.) Apart from ‘must’, ‘will’ can make
predictions about the future: John will have arrived by tomorrow. (Leech & Svartvik,
1975). The meaning of ‘will’ can be paraphrased as ‘it is very likely that...’ (Quirk et al.,
1985). ‘Will’ refers to the past with help of past infinitive. Such expressions appear mostly

10
in both written and spoken formal discourse. For instance: You will have heard about it, of
course. (Dušková et al., 1988).
“’Would’ as means of epistemic modality marks probable events (deduction of the
speaker). In compare to epistemic ‘will’ is the degree of likelihood lower” (Dušková et al.,
1988). Compare: Who is the man standing over there? – That will be Mark. (= no doubt)
→ That would be Mark. (= I expect). The past tense is also possible: It would have been
around 5 pm when I arrived home.

Shall.
Even though Dušková et al. (1988) excluded ‘shall’ from the field of epistemic
modality, at least two other sources allow its usage in special cases. “The general meaning
of epistemic ‘shall’ is that someone/something is disposed towards something” (Perkins,
1983). Quirk et al. (1985) describe one epistemic use of ‘shall’ with 1st person subject –
prediction. ‘Shall’ here functions as the future use of ‘will’ in formal style. Example:
According to the opinion polls, I shall win quite easily. (pp. 229 – 230).

2.4.3.2 Marginal modals.

According to Biber et al. (1999) there are four marginal modals, namely ‘dare’,
‘need’, ‘used to’, ‘ought to’. From the list only ‘ought to’ has the ability to express
epistemic modality. There are several mutual features with central modals. Firstly, the
same auxiliary negation by adding ‘not’ to the verb (needn’t, oughtn’t to...). Secondly,
interrogative inversion without ‘do’ in yes/no questions. Biber et al. (1999) consider the
occurrence of such constructions extremely rare, especially in American English (p. 484).

Ought to.
Marginal auxiliary ‘ought to’ is less frequent than its synonym ‘should’. It also
expresses potential probability and its meaning is related to that of epistemic ‘must’. For
example: We oughtn’t to have any problems. or Michael ought to be in the garage right
now. Same as ‘should’, ‘ought to’ appears in clauses referring to the future: The job ought
to be finished by Monday. (Quirk et al., 1985).

11
 2.4.3.3 Modal idioms.
This group of usually four members ‘had better’, ‘would rather/sooner’, ‘be to’,
‘have got to’ is listed in Quirk et al. (1985). Only ‘have got to’ and ‘be to’ (in special
cases) are able to express epistemic modality.

Have got to.

”Its epistemic meaning of logical necessity (cf. ‘must’) is rather more emphatic
than ‘must’, and is found chiefly in American English” (Quirk et al., 1985). For instance:
There has got to be some reasonable solution.

Be to.
Dušková et al. (1988) thinks that ‘be to’ can express epistemic possibility in
connection with passive infinitive. The type of modality results from verbal semantics and
context. Example: This novel is to be bought in paperback edition. (= can be bought).

2.4.3.4 Semi-auxiliaries.
Quirk et al. (1985) describe semi-auxiliaries as a set of verb idioms with modal or
aspectual meaning that is introduced by one of the primary verbs ‘have’ or ‘be’ (p. 143).
He lists for example: ‘be bound to’, ‘be likely to’, ‘be supposed to’, ‘be meant to’, ‘have
to’ etc. Such constructions are closer to main verbs than previously mentioned modal
idioms. They have non-finite forms (been likely to, to be bound to...) and can occur
together with other auxiliaries in one clause (I may have to leave early.) (p. 144).

Have to.
Since ‘have to’ is the only semi-auxiliary beginning with ‘have’, the following
paragraph is going to clarify its meaning and occurrence. Quirk et al. (1985) compare its
meaning to the meaning of ‘must’ (logical necessity) and see its occurrence especially in
past constructions where ‘must’ cannot occur. For example: There must be some solution
to the problem. → There had to be dome solution to the problem. ‘Have to’ together with

12
‘have got to’ express sometimes stronger meaning of logical necessity than ‘must’: There
has (got) to be some solution! (p. 145).

2.4.4 Lexical ways of expressing epistemic modality (stance adverbials).

This chapter will consider the ways in which people may be committed or
uncommitted to the truth of something. According to Biber et al. (1999), stance adverbials
have the primary function of commenting on the content or style of a clause or a particular
part of a clause (p. 853). There are several syntactic realizations of stance adverbials. The
first subchapter will deal with adverb phrases with consideration of the degree of truth. The
second subchapter describes finite clauses which are usually comment clauses or
parenthetical clauses (Quirk et al., 1985) carrying a main verb.

2.4.4.1 Adverb phrase.

The main difference, when comparing stance adverbs to the other lexical ways of
expressing epistemic modality, is the absence of any explicit subjective element (I/me)
indicating that it is the personal stance of the speaker (Kärkkäinen, 2003). Both
Kärkkäinen (2003) and Biber et al. (1999) state according to their research, that adverbs
are the most frequent markers of epistemic stance in spoken English. They agreed on six
most frequent adverbs: ‘maybe’, ‘probably’, ‘of course’, ‘perhaps’, ‘certainly’, ‘definitely’.
The success is based on their great syntactic mobility. The speaker can insert them
whenever during the proposition (Kärkkäinen, 2003:46). Here is a list of the epistemic
stance adverbs listed in Quirk et al. (1985), Dušková et al. (1988) Leech and Svartvik
(1975) and Biber et al. (1999).

(1) Certainty: admittedly, assuredly, avowedly, certainly, clearly, decidedly, definitely,

evidently, incontestably, incontrovertibly, indeed, indisputably, indubitably, inevitably,
manifestly, necessarily, obviously, of course, patently, plainly, really, surely, unarguably,
unavoidably, undeniably, undoubtedly, unquestionably

13
(2) Doubt or uncertainty: allegedly, arguably, apparently, conceivably, doubtless, likely,
maybe, most likely, perhaps, possibly, presumably, purportedly, quite likely, reportedly,
reputedly, seemingly, supposedly, very likely

(3) Actuality and reality: actually, basically, essentially, factually, formally, fundamentally,
hypothetically, ideally, nominally, officially, ostensibly, outwardly, really, superficially,
technically, theoretically

2.4.4.2 Finite clause.

“These finite clauses usually have a 1st person pronoun subject and no subordinator,
and are used explicitly to mark a proposition as the speaker's opinion, or to convey some
level of personal doubt or certainty. When these expressions are integrated into the clause
structure, they usually occur as a main clause taking a that-complement clause (e.g. I think
that I will buy a new one.). When they are not integrated into the clause structure, they are
finite clause stance adverbials (e.g. I will buy a new one I think.)” (Biber et al., 1999).
Quirk et al. (1985) speak of comment clauses that have the ability to ‘hedge’ (i.e. to
express the speaker’s tentativeness over the truth value of the matrix clause). The lexical
verb has usually the meaning of mental, perception, cognition or it is an utterance verb (she
said, he told me...). They are relatively fixed epistemic formulas but may occur anywhere
within the sentence (Kärkkäinen, 2003). Quirk et al. (1985) offer a list of both ‘hedging’
expression and expressions of speaker’s certainty (p. 1114):

(1) ‘Hedging’ expressions: I believe, I guess, I think, I expect, I feel, I hear, I hope, I
presume, I assume, I understand, I suppose, I consider, I suspect, I’m told, I have read, I
have heard, I have heard tell, I can see, I may assume, I dare say, I venture to say, one
hears, they tell me, they allege, they say, it is said, it is reported, it is claimed, it is
rumoured, it has been claimed, it seems, it appears

(2) Expressions of certainty: I know, I claim, I see, I remember, I agree, I admit, I’m sure,
I’m convinced, I have no doubt, it’s true, it transpires, there’s no doubt, it is clear, it is
certain, I must say, I must admit, I must tell you, I have to say, it is probable, it is likely, it
is apparent

14
2.5 Speech Acts and Pragmatics
Pragmatics is the theory of language use. As was already mentioned, the excerpts
analysed in this thesis were taken from a film, i.e. from the spoken discourse. “We can
distinguish what sentences mean from what speakers mean in using them” (Bach, 2006).
This topic was introduced by Austin (1962), who first used the term ‘illocutionary act’. For
example by saying “I apologize...” the illocutionary act is an apology. These acts can but
do not necessarily need to be performed explicitly, one can also apologize by saying “I’m
sorry...” (Bach, 2006).

This thesis is concerned with epistemic modality and its markers. Kärkkäinen
(2003) tried to apply her research in the field of pragmatics by dividing her excerpts into
several categories. “Speakers code their knowing and the knowledge may be regarded as
more or less reliable by speakers. Thus, it is possible to place epistemic markers on a
continuum form from very reliable to unreliable (p. 52). If the source of knowledge is
unclear or if the speaker only wants to believe something, it is the case of belief. In the
case of induction, the source of knowledge is evidence. With deduction it is hypothesis.
There is also a category which involves speaker’s reasoning, intuition, logic or previous
experience and it refers to a mental construct. “On the other hand, there are some markers
(probably, maybe...) that only indicate reliability and do not code mode of knowing at all”
(p. 53). For better orientation for the reader, an edited table of the categories mentioned
above together with their most common epistemic markers is included.

15
 3 AALYSIS

3.1 The Method of the Research

The research chapter consists of three individual parts. According to the theoretical
background and knowledge drawn from the reference books, this first part presents a ‘scale
of likelihood’ (Table 3) which serves as an axis for modal epistemic markers and their
alternative expressions. However, the extremes (0% and 100%) can never be reached in the
field of epistemic modality.

Table 3: Scale of likelihood

100 % Modal verb Alternative expression

90 % Certainty - have (got) to certainly, surely

Logical necessity - must necessarily

80 % Predictive probability - will, shall

70 % Potential probability - should, ought to probably, likely

Deductive probability - would

60 % Factual possibility - may perhaps, maybe

50 % Theoretical possibility - can, be to possibly

40 % Hypothetical possibility - could it is just possible

30 % Tentative possibility - might it is just possible

20 % Improbability - shouldn’t, oughtn’t it is uncertain

Negative certainty it is improbable

10 % Impossibility - cannot (can’t) it is impossible

0%

16
There is an exception which cannot be placed anywhere on the scale of likelihood and
these are so called ‘hedging expressions’ (cf. 2.4.4.2). Such expressions mark speaker’s
belief (I believe, I expect), opinion (in my opinion, I think), assumption (I presume, I
suppose), appearance of something (it seems, it looks) and actuality/reality (really,
actually).

The second part of Chapter 3 focuses on the individual excerpts. These were all
taken from the film Pride & Prejudice (Wright, 2005). They were written down
chronologically with help of the English subtitles. The total count of the excerpts carrying
epistemic markers is 180. Each epistemic marker was further analysed in following aspects
respectively:

a) Grammatical / lexical way of expressing epistemic modality

b) Means of realisation (modal verb - MV, adverb phrase - AP, finite clause - FC)

c) Degree of probability in % (excluding ‘hedging expressions’)

The originality of the excerpts is guaranteed by given exact timing reference, so that the
reader can easily follow this research when watching the film.

The last subchapter draws data from the analysis and demonstrates them in several
graphs. The results will serve as the main source material for the final conclusion.

3.2 The Analysis of Individual Excerpts

(1) 00:02:59 As you wish to tell me, my dear, I doubt I have any choice in the
matter.
a) lexical b) FC c) 30 %

(2) 00:03:20 - Who’s single?

- Mr Bingley, apparently. Kitty!
a) lexical b) AP c) 70 %

17
(3) 00:03:24 How can that possibly affect them?
a) grammatical + lexical b) MV + AP c) 50 %

(4) 00:04:09 - Is he handsome?

- He is sure to be handsome.
a) lexical b) FC c) 90 %

(5) 00:04:19 - So will he come to the ball tomorrow, Papa?

- I believe so.
a) lexical b) FC c) hedging expression

(6) 00:05:31 I think one of my toes just came off.

a) lexical b) FC c) hedging expression

(7, 8) 00:06:31 - He looks miserable, poor soul.

- Miserable he may (7) be, but poor he most certainly (8) is not.
a7) grammatical b7) MV c7) 60 %
a8) lexical b8) AP c8) 90 %

(9) 00:08:15 The library at ;etherfield, I've heard, is one of the finest in the
country.
a) lexical b) FC c) hedging expression

(10, 11, 12) 00:08:20 - I’m not a good reader. I prefer being out of doors.
Oh, I mean, I can read, of course (10). And I'm not
suggesting you can't (11) read out of doors.
- I wish I read more, but there seem (12) to be so many other
things to do.
a10) lexical b10) AP c10) 90 %
a11) grammatical b11) MV c11) 10 %
a12) lexical b12) FC c12) hedging expression

(13) 00:09:39 I didn't know you were coming to see me. What's the matter?
a) lexical b) FC c) 20 %

18
(14) 00:11:50 - My daughter Jane is a splendid dancer, is she not?
- She is indeed.
a) lexical b) AP c) 90 %

(15) 00:12:06 - Of course, it's my Jane who's considered the beauty of the county.
- Mama, please!
a) lexical b) AP c) 90 %

(16) 00:12:15 I was sure he would make her an offer.

a) lexical b) FC c) 90 %

(17) 00:12:25 I thought poetry was the food of love.

a) lexical b) FC c) hedging expression

(18) 00:13:16 Do you really believe he liked me, Lizzie?

a) lexical b) AP c) actuality/reality

(19) 00:13:38 I’d more easily forgive his vanity had he not wounded mine.
But no matter. I doubt we shall ever speak again.
a) lexical b) FC c) 30 %

(20) 00:14:37 When you die, Mr Bennet, which may in fact be very soon, they will
be left without a roof over their head nor a penny to their name.
a) grammatical b) MV c) 60 %

(21) 00:15:17 - Mama, the carriage for Jane?

- Certainly not. She'll go on horseback.
a) lexical b) AP c) 20 %

(22) 00:15:53 Though I don't think, Mama, you can take credit for making it rain.
a) lexical b) FC c) hedging expression

19
(23) 00:17:31 - My goodness, did you see her hem? Six inches deep in mud.
- She looked positively mediaeval.
a) lexical b) AP c) 90 %

(24) 00:17:43 I don't know who is more pleased at your being here, Mama or
Mr Bingley.
a) lexical b) FC c) 20 %

(25) 00:17:58 It’s a pleasure. I mean, it's not a pleasure that she's ill.
Of course not.
a) lexical b) AP c) 90 %

(26) 00:19:23 How many letters you must have occasion to write, Mr Darcy.
a) grammatical b) MV c) 85 %

(27) 00:19:39 - I was quite in raptures at her beautiful design for a table.
- Perhaps you will give me leave to defer your raptures.
a) lexical b) AP c) 60 %

(28, 29) 00:20:01 - I do not know more than half a dozen women that are truly
accomplished.
- Goodness, you must (28) comprehend a great deal in the
idea.
- I do. Absolutely (29).
a28) grammatical b28) MV c28) 85 %
a29) lexical b29) AP c29) 90 %

(30) 00:20:32 I never saw such a woman. She would certainly be a fearsome thing
to behold.
a) lexical b) AP c) 90 %

(31) 00:21:03 It is a small kind of accomplishment, I suppose.

a) lexical b) FC c) hedging expression

20
(32) 00:21:40 - Shocking! How shall we punish him for such a speech?
- We could always laugh at him.
a) grammatical b) MV c) 40 %

(33) 00:22:04 - Oh, dear. I cannot tease you about that. What a shame, for I dearly
love to laugh.
- A family trait, I think.
a) lexical b) FC c) hedging expression

(34, 35) 00:22:57 - I do hope (34) you intend to stay here, Mr Bingley.
- Absolutely (35), I find the country very diverting. Don't you
agree, Darcy?
a34) lexical b34) FC c34) hedging expression
a35) lexical b35) AP c35) 90 %

(36, 37) 00:23:28 - A ball?

- It would (36) be an excellent way to meet new friends.
You could (37) invite the militia.
a36) grammatical b36) MV c36) 65 %
a37) grammatical b37) MV c37) 40 %

(38, 39, 40) 00:23:39 - I think (38) a ball is a perfectly irrational way to gain new
acquaintance.
- It would (39) be better if conversation, instead of dancing,
were the order of the day.
- Indeed (40), much more rational, but rather less like a ball.
a38) lexical b38) FC c38) hedging expression
a39) grammatical b39) MV c39) 65 %
a40) lexical b40) AP c40) 90 %

(41) 00:24:04 Mr. Bingley, I don't know how to thank you.

a) lexical b) FC c) 20 %

21
(42) 00:24:46 I hope, my dear, you've ordered a good dinner today.
a) lexical b) FC c) hedging expression

(43) 00:25:50 I’m honoured to have as my patroness Lady Catherine de Bourgh.

You've heard of her, I presume?
a) lexical b) AP c) hedging expression

(44) 00:26:16 I’ve often observed to Lady Catherine that her daughter seemed
born to be a duchess.
a) lexical b) AP c) hedging expression

(45, 46) 00:27:09 After dinner, I thought (45) I might (46) read to you for an
hour or two.
a45) lexical b45) FC c45) hedging expression
a46) grammatical b46) MV c46) 40 %

(47) 00:27:39 It is my avowed hope that soon I find a mistress for it.
a) lexical b) FC c) hedging expression

(48) 00:28:11 - Do not you agree? Mr Collins?

- Indeed. Indeed.
a) lexical b) AP c) 90 %

(49) 00:28:46 - Yours, I believe. [picking up a dropped handkerchief]

a) lexical b) FC c) hedging expression

(50) 00:29:13 - I have very poor taste in ribbons.

- Only a man truly confident of himself would admit to that.
- ;o, it's true.
a) lexical b) FC c) 90 %

(51) 00:29:22 - Dear, dear. You must be the shame of the regiment.
- The laughing stock.
a) grammatical b) MV c) 85 %

22
(52) 00:30:10 - Be sure to invite Mr Wickham. He is a credit to his profession.
- Of course, you must come, Mr Wickham.
a) lexical b) AP c) 90 %

(53) 00:30:26 - Do you plan to go to the ;etherfield ball, Mr Wickham?

- Perhaps.
a) lexical b) AP c) 60 %

(54, 55, 56) 00:30:37 - Forgive me, but are you acquainted with him,
with Mr Darcy?
- Indeed (54), I've been connected with his family since
infancy. You may be (55) surprised, Miss Elizabeth,
especially given our cold greeting this afternoon.
- I hope (56) your plans in favour of Meryton will not be
affected by your relations with the gentleman.
a54) lexical b54) AP c54) 90 %
a55) grammatical b55) MV c55) 60 %
a56) lexical b56) FC c56) hedging expression

(57, 58) 00:32:33 - I still think (57) there must've been (58)
a misunderstanding.
a57) lexical b57) FC c57) hedging expression
a58) grammatical b58) MV c58) 85 %

(59) 00:32:45 Let Mr Darcy contradict it himself. Till he does, I hope never to
encounter him.
a) lexical b) FC c) hedging expression

(60, 61) 00:34:16 - You might have (60) passed a few pleasantries with
Mr Bingley.
- I dare say (61) I’ve never met a more pleasant gentleman
in all my years.
a60) grammatical b60) MV c60) 30 %
a61) lexical b61) FC c61) hedging expression

23
(62, 63, 64) 00:34:50 - Have you seen Mr Wickham?
- ;o. Perhaps (62) he's through here.
- Lizzie, Mr Wickham is not here. Apparently (63), he's been
detained.
- Detained where? He must (64) be here.
a62) lexical b62) AP c62) 60 %
a63) lexical b63) AP c63) 70 %
a64) grammatical b64) MV c64) 85 %

(65, 66, 67) 00:35:19 - Perhaps (65) you will do me the honour, Miss Elizabeth.
- Oh, I did not think (66) you danced, Mr Collins.
- I do not think (67) it incompatible with the office of
a clergyman.
a65) lexical b65) AP c65) 60 %
a66) lexical b66) FC c66) hedging expression
a67) lexical b67) FC c67) hedging expression

(68) 00:36:01 Apparently, your Mr Wickham has been called on some business
to town.
a) lexical b) AP c) 70 %

(69) 00:37:34 - I love this dance.

- Indeed. Most invigorating.
a) lexical b) AP c) 70 %

(70) 00:38:00 Perhaps by and by I observe that private balls are much pleasanter
than public ones.
a) lexical b) AP c) 60 %

(71, 72) 00:39:16 - I hear (71) such different accounts of you as puzzle me
exceedingly.
- I hope (72) to afford you more clarity in the future.
a71) lexical b71) FC c71) hedging expression
a72) lexical b72) FC c72) hedging expression

24
(73) 00:40:07 - Is that Mr Darcy of Pemberley?
- I believe so.
a) lexical b) FC c) hedging expression

(74) 0:41:02 Of course, Caroline's a much better rider than I, of course.

a) lexical b) AP c) 90 %

(75) 00:41:40 Clearly my family is competing to see who can expose themselves to
the most ridicule.
a) lexical b) AP c) 90 %

(76) 0:41:49 - I think he likes her very much.

- But does she like him?
a) lexical b) FC c) hedging expression

(77) 00:43:05 - I've been practising all week.

- I know, my dear.
a) lexical b) FC c) 90 %

(78) 00:43:37 Charles, you cannot be serious.

a) grammatical b) MV c) 10 %

(79, 80, 81, 82, 83) 00:44:31 - Mrs Bennet, I was hoping (79), if it would not
trouble you, that I might (80) solicit a private
audience with Miss Elizabeth.
- Oh, certainly (81), Lizzie would (82) be very happy
indeed (83).
a79) lexical b79) FC c79) hedging expression
a80) grammatical b80) MV c80) 30 %
a81) lexical b81) AP c81) 90 %
a82) grammatical b82) MV c82) 65 %
a83) lexical b83) AP c83) 90 %

25
(84) 00:45:53 But before I am run away with my feelings, perhaps I may state my
reasons for marrying.
a) lexical b) AP c) 60 %

(85) 00:46:01 Secondly, I am convinced it will add greatly to my happiness.

a) lexical b) FC c) 90 %

(86) 00:46:23 I am to inherit the estate and such an alliance will surely suit
everyone.
a) lexical b) AP c) 90 %

(87) 00:46:59 I know ladies don't seek to seem too eager...

a) lexical b) FC c) 90 %

(88, 89) 00:47:14 Besides you should take into account, despite manifold
attractions, it is by no means certain (88) another offer of
marriage may (89) ever be made to you.
a88) lexical b88) FC c88) 20 %
a89) grammatical b89) MV c89) 60 %

(90) 00:48:15 Mr Colins has proposed to Lizzie, but she vowed she will not have
him, and now the danger is Mr Collins may not have Lizzie.
a) grammatical b) MV c) 60 %

(91, 92) 00:51:02 I do not think (91) Georgiana Darcy has her equal for
beauty, elegance and accomplishment. I hope (92) to call her
hereafter my sister.
a91) lexical b91) FC c91) hedging expression
a92) lexical c92) FC c92) hedging expression

(93) 00:51:22 - It's far more likely that he does not love me.
- He loves you, Jane. Do not give up.
a) lexical b) FC c) 70 %

26
(94) 00:51:28 Go to our aunt and uncle’s in London, let it be known you are there
and I am sure he will come to you.
a) lexical b) FC c) 90 %

(95) 00:52:00 I'm sure that will cheer her up, Papa.
a) lexical b) FC c) 90 %

(96) 00:53:02 For heaven’s sake, Lizzie, don’t look at me like that. There is no
earthly reason why I shouldn’t be as happy with him as any other.
a) grammatical b) MV c) 20 %

(97) 00:54:43 I must confess, the view from where I sit has been rather grey.
a) lexical b) FC c) 80 %

(98) 00:55:12 My dear, I think our guest is tired after her journey.
a) lexical b) FC c) hedging expression

(99) 00:55:26 We shan't be disturbed here. This parlour is for my own particular
use.
a) grammatical b) MV c) 20 %

(100) 00:57:16 Mr Darcy, I had no idea we had the honour.

a) lexical b) FC c) 20 %

(101) 00:57:39 Mr Collins, you can't sit next to your wife. Move. Over there.
a) grammatical b) MV c) 10 %

(102) 00:58:13 My eldest sister is currently in London. Perhaps you happened to see
her there.
a) lexical b) AP c) 60 %

(103) 00:58:36 I suppose you had no opportunity.

a) lexical b) FC c) hedging expression

27
(104) 00:58:56 I never heard such a thing. Your mother must've been quite a slave
to your education.
a) grammatical b) MV c) 85 %

(105) 00:59:18 Your youngest sisters must be very young.

a) grammatical b) MV c) 85 %

(106, 107) 01:00:51 - She plays very well.

- I hope (106) she practises. ;o excellence can (107) be
acquired without constant practice.
a) lexical b) FC c) hedging expression
a) grammatical b) MV c) 50 %

(108) 01:01:30 - What was my friend like in Hertfordshire?

- You really care to know?
a) lexical b) AP c) actuality / reality

(109) 01:02:11 Perhaps you should take your aunt's advice and practise.
a) lexical b) AP c) 60 %

(110, 111, 112) 01:03:16 - This is a charming house. I believe (110) my aunt
did a great deal to it when Mr Collins first arrived.
- I believe so (111). She could not have (112)
bestowed her kindness on a more grateful subject.
a110) lexical b110) FC c110) hedging expression
a111) lexical b111) FC c111) hedging expression
a112) grammatical b112) MV c112) 20 %

(113) 01:03:53 - What on earth have you done to poor Mr Darcy?

- I have no idea.
a) lexical b) FC c) 20 %

28
(114) 01:04:35 - So how long do you plan to stay?
- As long as Darcy chooses. I am at his disposal.
- Everyone appears to be at his disposal.
a) lexical b) FC c) hedging expression

(115) 01:05:15 There were apparently strong objections to the lady.

a) lexical b) AP c) 70 %

(116, 117, 118) 01:05:22 - I think (116) it was her family that was considered
unsuitable.
- So he separated them?
- I believe (117) so. I know (118) nothing else.
a116) lexical b116) FC c116) hedging expression
a117) lexical b117) FC c117) hedging expression
a118) lexical b118) FC c118) 90 %

(119) 01:06:50 - Are you rejecting me?

- I'm sure the feelings which hindered your regard will help you
overcome it.
a) lexical b) FC c) 90 %

(120) 01:07:30 - How could you do it?

- Because I believed your sister was indifferent to him.
a) lexical b) FC c) hedging expression

(121) 01:07:50 I suppose his fortune had some bearing?

a) lexical b) FC c) hedging expression

(122, 123) 01:08:42 So this is your opinion of me? Thank you for explaining so
fully. Perhaps (122) these offences might have been (123)
overlooked had not your pride been hurt by my scruples
about our relationship.
a122) lexical b122) AP c122) 60 %
a123) grammatical b123) MV c123) 30 %

29
(124) 01:12:40 As to the other matter, that of your sister and Mr Bingley, though the
motives which governed me may to you appear insufficient, they
were in the service of a friend.
a) grammatical b) MV c) 60 %

(125) 01:13:28 London is so diverting. It's true! There’s so much to entertain.

a) lexical b) FC c) 90 %

(126) 01:14:37 Is that really all you care about?

a) lexical b) AP c) actuality / reality

(127) 01:14:51 I am certain the officers will find women better worth their while.
a) lexical b) FC c) 90 %

(128) 01:19:25 - Is your master much at home?

- ;ot as much as I would wish.
- If he should marry, you might see more of him.
a) grammatical b) MV c) 30 %

(129) 01:20:33 - Do you not think him a handsome man, miss?

- Yes... Yes, I dare say he is.
a) lexical b) FC c) hedging expression

(130) 01:23:11 I thought you were in London.

a) lexical b) FC c) hedging expression

(131) 01:23:52 I’m so sorry to intrude. They said that the house was open for
visitors. I had no idea.
a) lexical b) FC c) 20 %

(132) 01:24:07 - I’m very fond of walking.

- Yes... Yes, I know.
a) lexical b) FC c) 90 %

30
(133) 01:27:56 ;o, this is my fault. I might have prevented all this by being open
with my sisters.
a) grammatical b) MV c) 30 %

(134, 135) 01:28:15 - Would I could help you?

- Sir, I think (134) it is too late.
- This is grave, indeed (135). I will leave you. Goodbye.
a134) lexical b134) FC c134) hedging expression
a135) lexical b135) AP c135) 90 %

(136, 137) 01:29:30 Lydia must (136) know what this must (137) be doing to my
nerves.
a136) grammatical b136) MV c136) 85 %
a137) grammatical b137) MV c137) 85 %

(138) 01:29:51 - You can't do that!

- Don't be such a baby.
a) grammatical b) MV c) 10 %

(139, 140) 01:30:23 - You will agree to this, Father?

- Of course (139) I agree. God knows how much your uncle
must've (140) laid on that wretched man.
a139) lexical b139) AP c139) 90 %
a140) grammatical b140) MV c140) 85 %

(141) 01:30:37 Your uncle must've been very generous.

a) grammatical b) MV c) 85 %

(142, 143, 144) 01:31:07 - He’s far richer than us and has no children.
- Is that really (142) all you think about?
- When you have five daughters, Lizzie, tell me what
else will occupy your thoughts. Then perhaps (143)
you'll understand.
- You don't know (144) what he's like.

31
 a142) lexical b142) AP c142) actuality / reality
a143) lexical b143) AP c143) 60 %
a144) lexical b144) FC c144) 20 %

(145, 146) 01:31:30 - We passed Sarah Sims in her carriage. So I took off my
glove so she might (145) see the ring.
- I'm sure (146) she was not half as radiant as you, my dear.
a145) grammatical b145) MV c145) 30 %
a146) lexical b146) FC c146) 90 %

(147) 01:31:44 You must all go to Brighton. That is the place to get husbands.
I hope you have half my good luck.
a) lexical b) FC c) hedging expression

(148) 01:32:26 The ;orth of England, I believe, boasts some spectacular scenery.
a) lexical b) FC c) hedging expression

(149) 01:32:30 So I thought who is to be our best man if he doesn't come back?
a) lexical b) FC c) hedging expression

(150) 01:33:12 - Write to me often, my dear.

- Married women never have much time for writing.
- I dare say you won't.
a) lexical b) FC c) hedging expression

(151, 152, 153, 154, 155) 01:34:12 - Mr Bingley is returning to ;etherfield.

- ;ot that I care. I'm sure (151) I never want
to see him again, no. We shan’t mention a
word about it. Is it quite certain (152) he’s
coming?
- Yes, madam. I believe (153) he’s alone. His
sister remains in town.
- Why he thinks (154) we should be interested,
I’ve no idea (155). Come along, girls.

32
 a151) lexical b151) FC c151) 90 %
a152) lexical b152) FC c152) 80 %
a153) lexical b153) FC c153) hedging expression
a154) lexical b154) FC c154) hedging expression
a155) lexical b155) FC c155) 20 %

(156) 01:36:03 Oh, my Lord, I shall have a seizure, I'm sure I shall.
a) lexical b) FC c) 90 %

(157) 01:37:27 I hope the weather stays fine for your sport.
a) lexical b) FC c) hedging expression

(158) 01:37:35 - My Jane looks well, does she not?

- She does indeed.
a) lexical b) AP c) 90 %

(159) 01:37:50 Well, we must be going, I think.

a) lexical b) FC c) hedging expression

(160) 01:39:49 I know this is all very untoward, but I would like to request the
privilege of speaking to Miss Bennet.
a) lexical b) FC c) 90 %

(161) 01:40:00 Everybody to the kitchen immediately. Except you, Jane, dear,
of course.
a) lexical b) AP c) 90 %

(162) 01:41:19 Thank the Lord for that. I thought it would never happen.
a) lexical b) FC c) hedging expression

(163) 01:42:07 I am confident they will do well together.

a) lexical b) FC c) 90 %

33
(164) 01:42:34 I knew she did not be so beautiful for nothing.
a) lexical b) FC c) 90 %

(165) 01:43:33 - He thought me indifferent.

- Unfathomable.
- ,o doubt poisoned by his sister.
a) lexical b) AP c) 90 %

(166) 01:43:52 Perhaps Mr Collins has a cousin.

a) lexical b) AP c) 60 %

(167) 01:43:59 Maybe he's changed his mind.

a) lexical b) AP c) 60 %

(168) 01:44:20 The rest of your offspring, I presume?

a) lexical b) AP c) hedging expression

(169) 01:44:34 - Could I offer you a cup of tea?

- Absolutely not. I need to speak to Miss Elizabeth Bennet alone.
a) lexical b) AP c) 10 %

(170) 01:46:18 - Will you promise never to enter into such an engagement?
- I will not and I certainly never shall.
a) lexical b) AP c) 90 %

(171) 01:49:42 After what you’ve done for Lydia and, I suspect, for Jane also, it is I
who should be making amends.
a) lexical b) FC c) hedging expression

(172, 173, 174) 01:49:49 You must (172) know… surely (173) you must (174)
know it was all for you.
a172) grammatical b172) MV c172) 85 %
a173) lexical b173) AP c173) 90 %
a174) grammatical b174) MV c174) 85 %

34
(175, 176) 01:51:55 - Lizzie, are you out of your senses? I thought (175) you
hated the man.
- ;o, Papa.
- He is rich, to be sure (176).
a175) lexical b175) FC c175) hedging expression
a176) lexical b176) FC c176) 90 %

(177, 178, 179) 01:52:57 - But she doesn't like him. I thought (177) she didn't
like him.
- We must have been (178) wrong.
- It won't be the first time, will it?
- ;o, nor the last, I dare say (179).
a177) lexical b177) FC c177) hedging expression
a178) grammatical b178) MV c178) 85 %
a179) lexical b179) FC c179) hedging expression

(180) 01:54:10 You really do love him, don't you?

a) lexical b) AP c) actuality / reality

(181) 01:54:26 But it seems I am overruled.

a) lexical b) FC c) hedging expression

3.3 Results of the Analysis

Since the analysis focuses on one particular film, there was a unique opportunity to
monitor the distribution of epistemic modality markers. According to the English subtitles
is the whole film scenario divided into 1 241 sequences. Each sequence consists usually
from one or two utterances.

The first graph demonstrates in general how often epistemic markers occur in the
film. The data show that epistemic modality was found in 181 cases, i.e. in every seventh
sequence.

35
 181; 15%

Sequences containing
epistemic markers
Sequences without epistemic
markers

1060; 85%

Graph 1: Frequency of epistemic markers in the film Pride & Prejudice; total number of
sequences: 1241

As was suggested in chapter 2.4.4, there are two main ways of expressing epistemic
modality – grammatical and lexical. Following graph considers the 181 excerpts containing
epistemic markers. Apparently, there is a significant superiority of lexical expressions.

41; 23%

Grammatical ways of
expressing epistemic modality
Lexical ways of expressing
epistemic modality

140; 77%

Graph 2: The frequency of grammatical and lexical ways of expressing epistemic modality
in the film Pride & Prejudice; total number of excerpts: 181

36
 The last resulting data drawn from the analysis can be found in Table 4, which
presents the most common epistemic markers and number of their frequency. Letter ‘L’
stands for ‘lexical way’, letter ‘G’ stands for ‘grammatical way’. As can be seen, most
expressions are lexical, the prevailing one being hedging expression ‘I think’, then
‘perhaps’, ‘I hope’, ‘I believe’ and ‘I’m sure’. Surprisingly ‘must’ as a grammatical
expression appeared in top five.

Epistemic marker ∑ Epistemic marker ∑

I think 21 L really 5 L

must 14 G apparently 4 L

perhaps 11 L certainly 4 L

I hope 11 L can’t 4 G

I believe 9 L I don’t know 4 L

I’m sure 9 L I dare say 4 L

indeed 8 L I have no idea 4 L

might 7 G seem 3 L

of course 7 L I suppose 3 L

may 6 G would 3 G

I know 6 L (…)

Table 4: The frequency of occurrence of the most common epistemic markers; total
number of excerpts containing epistemic modality: 181

37
 4 COCLUSIOS AD FURTHER RESEARCH

Even though the number of excerpts studied in the ‘Analysis’ chapter is not very
large (181), the research questions posed in the first ‘Introduction’ chapter seem to be
clearly answered. The first being whether epistemic markers are rather rare phenomenon in
spoken English or quite frequent in usage. The second, to disprove the general assumption
that grammatical ways (i.e. modal verbs) are the most frequent epistemic markers. And
finally to determine the most common means for speakers to mark their epistemic stance.

The initial hypothesis for the first question was that epistemic modality will not be
very common. This was also the reason, that the author originally considered two films for
the analysis. Afterwards it turned out that total count of epistemic markers in two films
would be over 350. That is why it was decided to retain only one film – Pride & Prejudice
with 181 examples. As can be seen from Graph 1, epistemic markers appeared in 181 cases
(15%) from total number of 1241 subtitle sequences. That means that the speakers
expressed their attitude to truth or degree of conviction of what they are saying in
approximately every seventh utterance. Epistemic markers are therefore very frequent in
usage and the initial hypothesis was falsified.

Many reference books highlight grammatical way of expressing epistemic modality

as the main one. That would mean that modal verbs are the most epistemic markers. The
research data prove that there is a significant superiority of lexical expressions. Only in 41
cases (23%) from 181 the speakers used modal verb to express their epistemic stance. This
can be attributed to their relative syntactic immobility. Especially in conversation the
speakers think while they are producing the utterance. This is why lexical epistemic
markers are so frequent. They can be inserted in the statement anytime – at the beginning,
in the middle or at the end. The hypothesis that modal verbs are the most common
epistemic markers was thence also disproved.

According to the data from Table 4, the most common epistemic marker is ‘I think’
(21 examples from total 181). Also ‘I hope’ (11) and ‘I believe’ (9) appeared over ten
times in the analysis. All those are so called ‘hedging expressions’ usually followed by
‘that’ complementizer. It contains cognitive or perception verb and therefore expresses
speaker’s subjective stance towards the truth value of the clause. Adverbial phrases like
‘perhaps’ (11) or ‘indeed’ (8) were frequent from reasons stated in question two. On the

38
other hand only one modal verb, namely ‘must’, appeared in top five expressions. The
number of examples (14) was the second highest after ‘I think’, which means that speakers
often express certainty with modal verbs. Still adverb phrases like ‘indeed’, ‘of course’ or
‘certainly’ carrying about 90% of likelihood emerged very often too.

Potential research questions to be further examined in the field of epistemic

modality seem difficult to find. Nevertheless, as mentioned above, it was originally
presumed that modal verbs were a common tool of expressing epistemic modality. This
was consequently denied by the research. Another question arises – what do modal verbs
most frequently express if not epistemic modality? This may be possible research question
for the author’s diploma thesis.

39
 REFERECES

Ariel, M. (2008). Pragmatics and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bach, K. (2006). Speech acts and pragmatics. In M. Devitt (Ed.), R. Hanley (Ed.), The
Blackwell guide to the philosophy of language (pp. 456). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Bevan, T., Fellner, E., Webster, P. (Producers), & Wright, J. (Director). (2005). Pride
& prejudice [ Motion picture]. United Kingdom/France: Focus Features.

Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman
grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Bybee, J., & Fleischman, S. (Ed.). (1995). Modality in grammar and discourse.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.

Dušková, L. et al. (1988). Mluvnice současné angličtiny na pozadí češtiny. Praha:

Academia.

Huddleston, R. (1984). Introduction to the grammar of English. Cambridge: University

Press.

Kärkkäinen, E. (2003). Epistemic stance in English conversation.

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.

Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1975). A communicative grammar of English. Harlow:

Longman.

Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Volume 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Palmer, Frank R. (1990). Modality and the English Modals. London/New York:
Longman.

Palmer, F. (2001). Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Papafragou, A. (2006). Epistemic modality and truth conditions. Lingua, (116), 1688-
1702.

vi
Perkins, M. R. (1983). Modal expressions in English. London: Frances Pinter.

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar
of the English language. Harlow: Longman.

Sgall, P., Hajičová, E., & Panevová, J. (1986). The meaning of the sentence in its
semantic and pragmatic aspects. Praha: Academia.

von Fintel, K. (2006). Modality and language. In D. M. Borchert (Ed.), Encyclopedia

of philosophy - second edition Detroit: MacMillan Reference USA.

von Wright, H. G. (1951). An Essay in Modal Logic. Amsterdam: North Holland.

vii
 SUMMARY I CZECH

Bakalářská práce se zabývá způsoby vyjádření jistotní modality v anglickém mluveném

projevu. Na základě znalostí získaných z odborné literatury nabízí různé pohledy na
modalitu obecně a následně se zaměřuje pouze na modalitu jistotní. Existují dva hlavní
způsoby, kterými může mluvčí vyjádřit svůj postoj k pravdivosti nebo pravděpodobnosti
tvrzení, a to gramatický (pomocí modálních sloves) a lexikální (pomocí příslovečných frází
či věty určité). Každá tato větev je dále rozebrána až po jednotlivé způsoby realizace
jistotní modality. Druhou část práce tvoří analýza 181 výňatků z filmu Pýcha a předsudek
natočeného režisérem Joe Wrightem v roce 2005. Výsledky analýzy ukazují, že jistotní
modalita je relativně častým jevem v mluveném jazyce (obsažena v 15 % sekvencí)
s ohledem na její omezené prostředky vyjádření. Druhá otázka výzkumu dokázala, že
jistotní postoj je zpravidla vyjadřován lexikálním způsobem (77%) díky své syntaktické
mobilitě. Na závěr bylo zjištěno, že nejfrekventovanějším výrazem je ‘I think’ (21
případů), ‘must’ (14 případů) ‘I hope’ (11 případů), ‘perhaps’ (11 případů) a ‘I believe’ (9
případů). Většina z nich je lexikální. Obecně lze říci, že je zde tendence vyjadřovat spíše
vyšší stupeň přesvědčení a jistoty nežli nižší.

viii

View publication stats