Grammatical Modality

In this chapter as grammatical modality is mainly describes it should be also spoken about the interference of mood and modality. Mood and modality are here treated together as it reflects the fact that the same category may be expressed via mood in one language and with a modal in another. Mood is traditionally restricted to modal categories (i.e. categories mostly having to do with the speaker’s opinion or attitude toward the proposition which are expressed in verbal morphology (Palmer 1986, pg 21). Modals instead are typically independent words (verbs,auxiliaries, or particles).Mood is the form of the verb that shows the mode or manner in which a thought is expressed.English verbs have three moods:indicative,imperative,subjunctive.

1. Indicative Mood: expresses an assertion, denial, or question

2. Imperative Mood: expresses command, prohibition, entreaty, or advice

3. Oblique Mood (Conditional, Suppositional, Subjunctive 1, Subjunctive 2): expresses doubt or

-12-

something contrary to fact,wish, emotion, possibility, judgment,opinion, necessity.

In terms of both interpretation and position (in the sequence of verbal suffixes) one must distinguish indicative /subjunctive or realis/irrealis mood from speech act mood (interrogative,declarative, etc.). The two further categories of Evaluatives and Evidentials, are either expressed through verbal morphology, or with modal verbs or particles. As to modals, the interpretive distinction between epistemic and root modals i. e. their uses correlate with their structural distinction. Epistemic modals are located higher in clause structure than the root modals, in fact, higher than Past, Future and negation, apparently. Root modals in turn are not monolithic class of elements. They comprise different semantic subclasses (volition, obligation,ability, permission). So on might wonder whether they all occupy the same position in the functional portion of the clause.

Quasi-modal Verbs

Quasi-modals are a subcategory of modal verbs. Similar to modals verbs, quasi-modal verbs are common auxiliary verbs in the English language that express modality, which is the expression of subjective attitudes and opinions including possibility, necessity, and contingency. Also referred to as semi-modal verbs, the four quasi-modal verbs in English are:

ought to

used to

would rather

had better/best

-13-

Definiton

Modal verbs are difficult to define in any language because of the wide range of pragmatic uses of modal verbs by native speakers. Some of the more common definitions (in no particular order)of the modal verbs in English are:

can – ability, permission, possibility, request

could – ability, permission, possibility, request, suggestion

may – permission, probability, request

might – possibility, probability, suggestion

must – deduction, necessity, obligation, prohibition

shall – decision, future, offer, question, suggestion

should – advice, necessity, prediction, recommendation

will – decision, future, intention, offer, prediction, promise, suggestion

would – conditional, habit, invitation, permission, preference, request, question, suggestion

a) Can/Could

The Oxford English Dictionary offers the following definitions of the modal verb can:

1. To be able; to have the power, ability, or capacity.

E.g.

And out of the knowledge that no one could possibly enter his rooms without perceiving him to be a man of wealth. (John Galsworthy, Man of Property ,chapter 3, pg 61)

2. Expressing a possible contingency: To be allowed to, to be given permission to.

-14-

E.g

The idea of supposing that young cub Soams could give him advice! (John Galsworthy, Man of Property, chapter 2, pg 48).

E.g.

Who could tell what his son‘s circumstances really were?( John Galsworthy, Man of Property, Chapter 2, pg 55).

Here in the later example brought above we should pay attention to the translation into Armenian, where the modal verb could hasn‘t been translated into its lexical equivalent (i.e. by modal verb) but it is translated with the help of rethorical question3. Expressing possibility: To be permitted or enabled by the conditions of the case.

E.g.

You could do anything, Jo, if you weren‘t so damned careful of yourself (JohnGalsworthy, Man of property, chapter 2, pg 50).

b) Shall / Should

Shall is to express a future action. It is different than ―will in that it is used to express an order or prophecy. The negative of shall is ―shall not or the contraction shan‘t.It also indicates a modal action.

E.g.1

Shall it profit a man if he gains his own soul, but lose all his property?(Man Of Propert, John Galsworthy, chapter 3, pg 68).

Should can describe an ideal behaviour or occurrence and imparts a normative meaning to the sentence.

E.g. 2

I should have thought anybody liked to have fresh air, said June scornfully?(Man Of Property, John Galsworthy, chapter 3, pg 70

-15-

E.g.

Shouldn‘t wonder if it made a big price some day!(Man Of Property, John Galsworthy, chapter 3, pg 70).

In some dialects, it is common to replace the subjunctive mood with the modal auxiliary should : "It is important that the law should be passed" (where other dialects would say, "It is important that the law be passed"); likewise "If it should happen, we are prepared for it" or "Should it happen, we are prepared for it" (where early Modern English would say, "If it happen, we are prepared for it," and many dialects of today would say "If it happens, we are prepared for it" or would use the subjunctive "If it were to happen, we would be prepared for it.").The time reference of a should statement can be shifted from the present or future to the past by using should +have + past participle of main verb, as in―the example brought in E.g.1(high likelihood (duty) or, less commonly).The following chapter goes through the grammatical modality expressed by modal verbs denoting grammatical features.

c) Need/Dare

Dare and need can be used either with modal or main verb characteristics both in the irmorphology and syntax. When used as modals, third person singular inflection for the simple present is absent, there are no imperative, finite or participial forms, they take direct not negation, they allow subject inversion in questions and take are infinitival complements. In main verb usage, all normal forms of the verbs appear, do-supportis required in negative and

interrogative constructions, and they are followed by to-infinitives or nominal complements. To

make it even more confusing, dare – and occasionally need –can also occur in so-called ―blend-constructions: these display a mixed use of both main verb syntax. The modal verb need may be used either as a defective or as a regular verb. As a defective one need has only one form, which is the present tense. In reported speech it remains unchanged.It is followed by the infinitive without

-16-

to.Need expresses necessity. When reference is made to the present or future it is followed by the simple infinitive. It is used in negative and interrogative sentences.In interrogative need usually implies that there is no necessity of performing the action.Modal need is restricted to contexts that are negative in a certain way.

D) Ought to

Ought is a little different from the other modal verbs because it needs―to in front of the infinitive, e.g.You ought to tell him. It has several functions but its most common uses seem to be to express some kind of obligation or to make a deduction, as in the following sentences.The use of ought to in the first instance indicates lack of volition on the part of the doer,and so the instruction must be followed as indicated. As also happens with other intrinsic modulation of propositions indicating obligation, we may perceive the author's authoritative voice. Eg - He ought never to have allowed the engagement (John Galsworthy, Man of Property, chapter 2, pg 47). In the example ought to is used with the perfect infinitive ought means that something right has not been done, a desirable action has not been carried out, and it,therefore, implies reproach, or just to indicate that something right has not been done,a desirable action has not been carried out, and it, therefore, implies reproach.

e) May/Might

The Oxford English Dictionary offers the following definitions of the modal verbs

may/might

1. Expressing objective possibility, opportunity, or absence of prohibitive conditions;have the potentiality to, be at liberty to, be permitted by circumstances to

2. Expressing permission or sanction: be allowed (to do something) by authority,law, rule, morality, reason, etc.

-17-

3. Expressing present subjective possibility, i.e. the admissibility of a supposition, ina direct or indirect statement.

4. Used in a question, with the effect of rendering the tone less abrupt or pointed.

Here in the example brought above we deal with a root/deontic modality, as in the context the question is obviously made for receiving permission to ask a question to the speaker.

E.g

And motionless, old Jolyon started at the wall, but for his open eyes, he might have been asleep(John Galsworthy, The Man of Property, chapter 2, pg 48).

As for this example it is easy to notice that the epistemic modality is used here, that is the verb might aquires the connotation expressing supposition, the sentence is also expressed by a conditional clause.

f) Will/Would

The verb will has the following forms:will - the present tense and would - the past tense.The latter form is used in two ways: in past-time context to express an actual fact and inpresent-time context to express unreality or as a milder and more polite form of will .Will and would may also be used as verbs of full predication (not modal verbs).Will may be used as a regular verb(wills, willed).It means ցանկություն հայտնել ,հարկադրել ,ներշնչել:

Would as a defective verb. It is used with reference to the present and means―ցանկանալ . It is found mainly in poetry and like the verb to wish is followed by an object clause:I would I were a careless child. While shall and should are treated as two different verbs in modern English,will and would Mare considered to be the forms of the same verb, its original meaning being that of volition (Volition is a general term which includes such meanings as willingness,

-18-

readiness, consent, intention and determination to perform an action). However, in some of their meanings the use of will is parallel only to would which expresses unreality in the present or serves as a milder or more polite form of will . The use of will and would which denotes an actual fact in the past is parallel in the following cases:when they express habitual or recurrent actions

E.g.

She had quite a reputation for saying the wrong thing, and tenacious like all herbreed, she would hold to it when she had said it, and add to it when she had said it, and add to it another wrong thing, and so on. (Man of Property, John Galsworthy,chapter 3,pg 63).

In addition to indicating an habitual action,will (would) in this case implies willingness,personal interest on the part of the doer of the action.Will (would)in this meaning is found in affirmative sentences and is followed by the simple infinitive. Besides it should benoted that in present-time context will in this meaning is not common. In past-time context would is mainly characteristic of literary style.They also express refusal to perform an action.

E.g 1

Though it hurt him to move he would no account have had altered the pale flesh of his underchin remained immovable.(Man of Property, John Galsworthy, chapter 3,pg61).

Ex 2.

I suppose you wouldn‘t know whether the land about here was freehold? He asked at last .(Man of Property, John Galsworthy, chapter 3, pg 69).

Ex 3.

He wouldn‘t run with the hare and hunt with the hands, and so to his son he said good – bye.(Man of Property, John Galsworthy, chapter 2, pg 52).

In this meaning will (would) is found in negative sentences and is followed by the simple infinitive.

-19-

Conflicting accounts have been given of the morphosyntactic status of English will: it has been argued to be a future tense marker rather than a modal and to be a modal rather than a future tense marker, Comrie (1985) notes a syntactic difference between volitional and futurate will, that the former but not the latter can be used in if clauses

E.g

If it rains tomorrow, we will get wet.

Because ―future time reference uses of will are grammatically distinct from modal uses of will in such subordinate clauses,Comrie (1985: 48) argues,―the grammar will have to refer directly to the feature of futurate time reference. These examples therefore suggest (but do not, of course, prove) that English does have a separate grammatical category of future time reference, i.e. a future tense. However, as Hall (2001: 35–36) points out, epistemic will patterns with futurate will in this respect.However in the following examples it‘ll be quite easy to reveal the very modal will, which appears unrecognizable at the first sight .

E.g 1.

It‘ll be miserable work living here alone. (―Man Of Property, John Galsworthy,chapter 2, pg 59)

E.g 2.

These little men, they will not take the trouble! (Man OfProperty, JohnGalsworthy, chapter 3, pg 68).

This suggests that the relevant distinction is between root and epistemic necessity, supposition not between modality and future tense, and that futurate will can be treated as simply a sub-case of epistemic will . We thus assume, in light of these observations and the fact that it patterns syntactically with the other English modals inevery way, that will is a modal.

-20-

CONCLUSION

The problem of modality as a whole is very difficult. There are various means of expressing modality — modal words, modal verbs and the category of mood. Since two of them or even all three may be used simultaneously, it is evident that there may be several layers of modality in a sentence. A great variety of combinations is possible here.Modality expresses the speaker’s attitude to the propositional content of a statement.In our work we considered theoretical grounds of modality, particularly the types of modality. The following main kinds of modality were ascertained:epistemic, deontic, dynamic and evidential modality.Lexico-grammatical, lexical and grammatical means of modality conveying were displayed in the process of the work. The research provided the possibility to specify the ways of expressing modality in English by means of different parts of speech: verbs, adverbs, nouns, adjectives.Modal verbs and modal words as means of modality expressing in Modern English were studied in the practical part of the work.Human thinking appears as a result of the world perception and it is closely connected with language – the primary means of its expression. The category of modality is the category of language and presents in itself the judgment concerning the reality or the statement related to the ties and phenomena of the reality. In general, modality can be defined as the speaker’s attitude to the content of his statement and the relation of the content of the statement to the reality.Modality– is a multifold phenomenon, and therefore in the linguistic literature we can find different thoughts concerning the essence of this phenomenon. Modality (from Latin modus – measure, method, shape) in different object domains is a category which characterizes modus operandi or an attitude toward the action.The majority of scientists (A. Kratzer, F.R. Palmer) consider that there are six main types of modality, six senses in which the various categories of modality may be understood. Within each type, all the categories occur, but with other meanings than in the other types. The categories have similar interrelationships and properties within each type. These uniformities allow us to abstract them, but ultimately each type needs to be considered separately. The interactions between types must also be analyzed.Modality is a category of linguistic meaning having to do with the expression of possibility and necessity. This phenomenon is a grammatical-semantic category, which expresses the speaker’s

-21-

attitude towards the expression,his evaluation of the attitude input towards objective reality. As it is wellknown,it becomes traditional to divide modality into two types: objective modality andsubjective modality. This approach was based on the principles of work Russian scholar V. Z. Panfilov. In this case, objective modality is an attitude of the expression towards reality (reality or unreality, possibility or impossibility,necessity or probability etc.) and subjective modality is the expression of speaker’s attitude towards the utterance. In West European linguistics Sh.Ballie’s conception of modality was widely spread. In his opinion, in any utterance/expression we can single out basic content (dictum) and modal part (modus), in which is expressed intellectual, emotional and volitional consideration of the speaker concerning dictum. He distinguishes explicite and implicit modus. The main form of expression of the explicite modus is the main clause consisting of compound sentence with object clause. Thus, in Sh.Ballie’s interpretation modality is presented as syntactic category, in the expression of which the modal verbs playthe main role.

-22-

Bibliography

1. Roberts, C - Modal subordination and pronominal anaphora indiscourse.Linguistics & Philosophy (1989).

2. Paola Pietrandrea – Studiesin Language companion, Series 74, Epistemic Modality, functional properties and the Italian system..

3. Frank Robert Palmer. 2001. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition.

4. Cornillie and Pietrandrea - Lexical and grammatical modality at work Workshop at SLE 2009

5.Angelika Kratzer. 1991. “Modality”. In Semantics: An International Handbook of

Contemporary Research, edited by Arnim von Stechow & Dieter.

Internet sources

6. http://www.brighthubeducation.com/esl-lesson-plans/37641-modal-verbs-in-english/

7. http://dinamico2.unibg.it/anglistica/slin/modgloss.htm

8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_verb

-23-

Date: 2015-12-18; view: 3334