The use of english modals by first-year students of the department of anglophone studies

I.4 - THE CONTEXT OF SITUATION

According to Firth (1957) context of situation refers to the different features that contribute to the production of discourse and make it particular. To determine the context of a discourse, Brown and Yule (1983) suggest that we should ask ourselves «what would be the discourse if the context had been slightly different». The discourse may change if only one feature changes.

Firth (1957: 182)^7(*) declares:

«My view was, and still is, that `context of situation' is best used

as a suitable schematic construct to apply to language events...

A context of situation for linguistic work brings into relation

the following categories:

A. The relevant features of participants: persons, personalities.

(i) The verbal action of the participants.

(ii) The non-verbal action of the participants.

B. The relevant objects.

C. The effect of the verbal action»

Firth's study mentions the speaker and the addressee (their speech and their gesture), the

purpose of the interaction, and the results of the interaction. Firth's categories will be detailed by the ethnographer Hymes (1964)^8(*).

In his components of communicative events Hymes identifies:

- The addressor: the speaker or writer who produces the utterance

- The addressee: the hearer or reader who is the recipient of the utterance

- The audience: the overhearers or those who are not addressed directly but they are part of the speaker context

- The topic: what is talked about, including what is previously said and how things come sequentially.

The setting: the place and time where the event is situated. It takes into account the physical relations of the interactants with respect to posture and gesture and facial expression.

Knowledge of the addressee slightly influences the language of the addressor. Thus, if you know the addressee is the president of the Republic or the headmaster of a secondary school or your mother or your classmate it is easier to predict the style or register you will choose to address him. If the audience is political partners or students attending an English course the language will be selected according to their expectations. Knowledge of the context is essential to the use of modals. You would not say to your teacher: «You must see a doctor» (obligation), when you mean «You should see a doctor» (piece of advice).

I.5 - MODALITY

I.5.0 Introduction

The third edition of Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English (1974) defines modality as «being modal» (p.544) and modal as «relating to the mood of a verb» (P.544) It defines mood as «one of the groups of forms that a verb may take to show whether things are regarded as certain, possible, doubtful, etc. (p.548). These definitions are defective for two reasons. Firstly, they don't distinguish mood from modality; secondly, they confine modality to the only category of the verbs. Moreover, the term «modality» is not defined as such, it appeals us to refer to «modal». The term modality needs, therefore, a specialized definition which can distinguish it from mood.

The terms «mood» and «modality» are so linked that Palmer (1986:21) states that the distinction between mood and modality is similar to that between tense and time, gender and sex. Yet, this distinction will give some insight into the understanding of mood and modality. Gender is to sex what modality is to mood. It then appears that, since gender includes sex, breast, voice etc. modality includes moods and maybe other things.

Jespersen (1924:313)^9(*) restricts mood to a «syntactic not a notional category, which is shown in the form of the verb». And Lyons (1977:848)^10(*) remarks that «mood is a grammatical category that is found in some, but not all, languages». If mood is a syntactic category and modality a notional category, and if mood is not found as a grammatical category in all languages whereas modality exists in all languages, we can infer that modality is not expressed by mood in all languages. Consequently, mood is a grammatical category and it is an element of modality while modality is a notional or semantic category and as Palmer (1986) says, «the notion of modality is much more vague and leaves open a number of possible definitions.»

Another distinction - though implicit - between mood and modality is given by the sixth edition of the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English (2000:760). The dictionary does not have an entry for the word «modality,» nevertheless it gives two grammatical meanings to the term «mood».

The first definition is:

«Mood 4 [C] (grammar) any of the sets

of verb forms that shows whether what is said

or written is certain, possible, necessary, etc.»

The second definition is:

«Mood 5 [C] (grammar): one of the categories of verbs

use that expresses facts, orders, questions,

wishes or conditions: the indicative/imperative/subjunctive mood.»

The first definition refers to modality and the second definition is mood itself. How do linguists and philosophers define modality?

* ⁷ Brown and Yule, op.cit. p37

* ⁸ Giglioli (1972:22-23)

* ⁹Palmer (1986:10)

* ¹⁰ Ibid.