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

I.5.2 - Forms and uses of modals

Modals are a type of auxiliary verbs used to indicate an attitude about an action or a state. Most modals can be used when discussing the present, past or future meanings.

There are five basic or central modals: CAN, MAY, MUST, SHALL, WILL. The verbs NEED, DARE, OUGHT (TO) are also sometimes classified as modals, because of some of the characteristics they share with the modals above.

Modals have specific properties and diverse meanings. We shall present first the grammatical forms of modals and then discuss their meanings.

I.5.2.1 - The grammatical forms of English modals

Modals have some grammatical properties they share with the auxiliary verbs BE and HAVE. Huddleston (1976:333) quoted in Palmer (1986), calls them the NICE properties = modals occurrence with Negation, Inversion, `Code' and Emphatic affirmation as in:

I cannot go.

Must I come?

He can swim and so can she.

He will be there.

Beside these properties, modals have distinctive properties.^21(*)

In English there are three lexical forms of modals: one-word modals, periphrastic modals and modal-like forms.

One-word modals

Historically present tense forms Historically past tense form

can could

will would

may might

shall should

must /

Central modals and their periphrastic modal counterparts

central modal periphrastic modal

can to be able to, to be likely to, to be allowed to

will to be going to, to be about to, to be apt to

must to have to, to have got to

should ought to, to be to, to be supposed to

would (= past habit) used to

may to be permitted to

Modal-like forms

had better

would rather

would prefer

would like

NEED and DARE are used sometimes as modal auxiliaries and sometimes as main verbs.

There are plenty of modals with several forms, nevertheless their properties can be easily learned by a diligent student. Would it be the same with the meaning of modals? Let us discuss the meanings of modals.

Most scholars agree that each English modal verb has two uses^22(*): the deontic use and the epistemic use. We shall present first, the deontic use of modals, and then their epistemic use. Finally, we shall compare the two uses.

I.5.2.2 - Deontic use of modals

The term `deontic' is used in the study of modals to include them in the set of modality Jespersen (1924:320)^23(*) characterizes as «containing an element of will». Jespersen's list of deontic uses is as follows:

«containing an element of will

jussive go (command)

compulsive he has to go

obligative he ought to go/we should go

advisory you should go

precative go please

hortative let us go

permissive you may go, if you like

optative (realizable) may he still be alive

desiderative (unrealizable) would he were still alive

intentional in order that he may go»

A close look at the compulsive, obligative, advisory and permissive shows that they contain a modal verb, and they express some interaction between the speaker and the hearer. Specifically, the speaker is addressing someone, using a kind of authority. Deontic modality in this sense seems to be directives or commissives in accordance with Searle's study of speech act. Searle (1979:14)^24(*) defines commissives as «where we commit ourselves to do something» and directives as «where we try to get our hearer to do something» (Searle, 1983:166)^25(*). It is remarkable that both are subjective (they are about the intention of the speaker) as well as performative (they are about things to perform). For that reason, they will always express future actions. Palmer (1986:97) notes, «At the time of speaking a speaker can get others to act or commit himself to action only in the future». By using directives or commissives the speaker may be giving permission, advice, or he may be imposing obligation or warning of necessity. We shall discuss these elements separately.

I.5.2.2.1 - Request

Not only can speaker express his own attitudes but he can also ask the addressee about his - whether he considers an action deontically permissible or necessary. He does it through request.

E.g. May I come in?

Must I come in?

The use of the interrogative form with the possibility modal may is a request for permission. Thus, May I come in? does not mean `Is it the case that I have permission to come in?' but it means `I ask you to give me the permission to come in'. Conversely the use of must is essentially a request for information alone. Must I come in? would never be a request for the hearer to place an obligation upon the speaker (Wardhaugh, 2003).

Shall I come in? does not ask for permission or for information, but it is a request for advice involving the first person. In this way, shall is a consultative, and it can be replaced by should:

Shall I call her or will you? Should I call her?

SHALL can be used to express invitation; in this case, should cannot substitute for shall without changing the meaning.

Shall we meet tonight? Should we meet tonight?

(would you like to meet me tonight?), (is it advisable that we meet tonight?),

i.e., an invitation i.e., a question

In addition to the use of questions for invitation, modals are used for requests.

WILL, WOULD, CAN, and COULD are used for general request with `you' as in:

WILL

CAN you help me with this job?

WOULD

COULD

Can and will in making request seem to imply: is this possible...? While could and would seem to query the willingness of the person being addressed. Could and would are more formal.

MAY, MIGHT, CAN, COULD are used in request for permission. `I/we' are used. In deontic modality, may and can are interchangeable, which is not the case in epistemic modality.

Example: May/Can

Might I go now?

Could

Might and could are less direct.

Leech(1987:89) notes that Shall I/we is favoured by politeness because «it is more polite to consult the wishes of the listener, than to assert one's own wishes as speaker». In request the `authority figure' is the hearer.

Krupp and Tenuta (2002) remark that with modals of invitation you ask someone to go someplace or to do something with you, while with modals of request you ask someone else to do something for you or to grant you the permission to do something. Between equals, asking permission is like making a request. Thus, «Can I take your pen?» is almost the same as «Can you let me take your pen?»

Since the speaker can ask for permission, the listener can grant permission.

I.5.2.2.2 - Permission

The distinction between general request and request for permission becomes clear when statements are expressed:

Yes, I can. * Yes, I could.

Answers to general requests

Yes, I will. * Yes, I would.

Yes, you may. * Yes, you might.

Answers to request for permission

Yes, you can. * Yes, you could.

It follows that may and can are used to give permission.

Feigenbaum (1985:118) notes that very conservative grammar books maintain that only may expresses permission; however can is common in many situations except in the most formal ones. Can is traditionally considered less polite and less `correct' than may.

By using may or can the speaker is qualified to grant permission. When the speaker says, «You may go now» he means that he gives the permission to go, but he cannot predict whether the hearer will go.

Wardhaugh (2003:57) signals that some language users think that Can I open the window? does not mean Do I have your permission? because can must be epistemic in this use (do I have the ability) not deontic. Only the context says the meaning of the modal. Compare:

He may leave. (now that he has answered my question)

He can speak English. (Because he has my permission to do so)

Palmer (1986:103) notes that with can the speaker is dissociating himself from the permission, whereas he is associating with it in using may. Examples:

You may smoke here. (You have my permission)

You can smoke here. (It is allowed to smoke)

MAY and CAN have the past tense form MIGHT and COULD but MIGHT is very rarely used at all to indicate past time. By saying, «You could come» the speaker means the subject was permitted to come yet when he says «You might come» might does not express past time but a strong force than may. Huddleston (1984:170) asserts that substituting may for might in the past is a special use of might.

COULD can be used to answer to a general request but it expresses conditional.

E.g. - Could you help me with this job?

- Yes, I could (if you would wait a few minutes while I finish this work)

Besides the fact that the speaker can allow someone to do something, he can undertake the decision by himself through advice.

I.5.2.2.3 - Advisability

According to Lhéhéré and Ploton (1990), SHOULD, OUGHT TO are used to give advice or recommendation. The results may not be bad if the advice is not taken. The listener may or may not take the advice, i.e., the speaker thinks that the obligation may not be fulfilled. Should is more often used than ought to. The use of should implies that a certain behavior characterizes the subject. In «Your wife should write you letters», the speaker thinks that the wife does not write enough. He recommends her to do so. The use of ought to implies that the circumstances should bring the subject to have a definite behavior, it is not unfortunately the case. In «Your wife ought to write you letters», the speaker thinks that it is normal, and natural that a wife writes letters to her husband.

Stronger advice can be expressed by the use of HAD BETTER. If the advice is not taken the result may be bad for the listener. It is almost an obligation.

E.g. You had better shut the door. (If you do not want me to beat you)

Should and ought to are also used to talk about beliefs and opinions. In these cases, there is no recommendation or advice.

E.g. You should marry her if you want to be happy. (Advice)

People should get married if they want to be happy. (Personal opinion)

Sometimes the listener may not have the choice. Then, there is a necessity.

I.5.2.2.4 - Necessity

Necessity is stronger than advisability. There is no feeling of choice whether to do something or not. MUST is a common way of indicating necessity. (Wardhaugh, 2003)

E.g. He must do it. (Or we are lost).

In necessity and advisability the speaker does not speak as holding an authority but he speaks as a member of society: the speaker believes it is a social duty for him to advise; advice can also come from the love the speaker has for the addressee.

E.g. You must see a doctor, father.

NEED also is used to express necessity as in «You need to see a doctor, father».

If the speaker thinks the listener will not respect his advice, he can impose upon him his intention by using authority. It becomes an obligation.

I.5.2.2.5 - Obligation

Obligation is often expressed by Searle's (1983:166) commissives. SHALL with 2^nd and 3^rd person form expresses obligation.

E.g. You shall go to school.

James shall have money next week.

You will go to school (whether you like it or not: it is quasi - imperative)

The speaker commits himself to ensuring that the event takes place: he promises to arrange that the person addressed will go to school and that James will receive the money.

Modals of obligation are also used for something a person is required or obliged to do because of laws, customs, rules or circumstances. When the source of obligation is not the speaker we use HAVE TO. There may be a penalty or consequences for not fulfilling the obligation.

E.g. Applicants must have post graduate qualifications.

He must obey his master. (Compulsion)

He has to obey his master. (This is the rule)

With have to the speaker is dissociating himself from the obligation. It is objective because the obligation tends to come from a source outside the speaker. The usual implication of must as an obligation is that the speaker is the person who exerts authority over the person(s) mentioned in the clause, i.e., the source of obligation is the speaker. This calls for pragmatic presupposition since a person from an inferior social rank cannot compulse his superior to do something. Moreover, the implicature of «You shall go to school» is that, «If you do not go to school I shall punish you».

Therefore, a deep analysis of deontic modality requires the study of implicature, presupposition and speech act for many reasons. Firstly, within speech act there are commissives and directives whereby permission is given or obligation is imposed. Secondly, through implicature advice can be taken or not, something judged necessary or not. Finally, for an obligation to be fulfilled or a permission to be granted, there is the presupposition of the speaker's authority over the listener. Thence, if a boy says, «Dad, you must go to school» it will be interpreted as a necessity. But if the father says, «John, you must go to school» it will be interpreted as an obligation; such an interpretation depends on the social relationship between the speaker and the hearer, and the necessity of the advice. It is possible to order the modals according to the speaker's degree of authority and/or conviction, or the urgency of the advice.

100 Obligation

Necessity

Advisability

Permission

0 Request

Speaker's authority or urgency of the message

increases, but not necessarily in equal increments.

Applications of utterances to the scale:

100 You will see a doctor

You shall see a doctor

You must see a doctor

You need to see a doctor

You had better see a doctor

You should see a doctor

You ought to see a doctor

You might/could see a doctor

You can/may see a doctor

0 May I see a doctor?

Summary of deontic use of modals:

Request: could, can, would, will, may, must, shall, should

Invitation: shall, would, can, could

Permission: may, could, can, might

Advisability: should

Necessity: must

Obligation: must, shall, will

Students need to know the degrees of the deontic use of modals and be able to use modals that are deontically appropriate. For Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1983:84), «many ESL/EFL students, even at the advanced level, do not recognize that they are often perceived by native speakers of English as being abrupt and aggressive with their requests». They suggest that if we could teach them to soften their requests by employing the historical past-tense forms of the modals, they might find their request being better received.

I.5.2.3 - Epistemic use of modals

The term `epistemic' should apply not simply to modals that basically involve the notion of possibility and necessity, but to any modal that indicates the degree of commitment by the speaker to what he says. The term `epistemic' etymologically comes from Greek and means `understanding' or `knowledge'. It should be interpreted as showing the status of the speaker's understanding our knowledge. This includes the speaker's own judgments, his beliefs and the kind of warrant he has for what he says. Palmer (1986:54) believes that the purpose of epistemic modals is to provide an indication of the degree of commitment of the speaker. He says that the speaker «offers a piece of information, but qualifies its validity for him in terms of the type of evidence he has». Epistemic modals bear subjectivity in that they indicate the status of the proposition in terms of the speaker's commitment to it. Wardhaugh (2003:56) states, «If it is a statement, the proposition in sentence containing an epistemic modal may be true or false, and if it is not a statement, the proposition it expresses may also be true or false».

E.g. He may go tomorrow. (Or he may not- I am not sure)

Would he agree? (Or not?)

Jespersen (1924:321) quoted in Palmer (1986:10) defines epistemic modality as «containing no element of will». The speaker does not assert his will but states what he thinks of a situation on the basis of what he knows or sees. Jespersen provides a list of epistemic uses of modals:

«- Containing no element of will

Apodictive twice two must be (is necessarily) four

Necessitive he must be rich/or he could not spend so much

Assertive he is rich

Presumptive he is probably rich/he would (will) know

Dubitative he may be (is perhaps) rich

Potential he can speak

Conditional if he is rich

Hypothetical if he were rich

Concessional though he is rich»

Though the assertive, the conditional, the hypothetical and the concessional express modality in its broad sense, we cannot consider them in the current study because they do not contain modal auxiliaries. By contrast, the apodictive, the necessitive, the presumptive and the dubitative contain modals and they express the commitment of the speaker to the utterance, because the speaker infers or predicts, from what he knows, the probable state of facts. The potential corresponds to Palmer's dynamic modal. In deontic modality, the speaker tells how he wants things to happen while in epistemic modality the speaker tells how he thinks things are or will be. Inference is the basis of epistemic modality. The speaker uses the epistemic modals to indicate how sure he is that an action or situation takes place, will take place, or took place. Sureness can be low (possibility), high (probability), or 100% (certainty).

I.5.2.3.1 - Possibility

Modals of possibility are used to refer to an intention that is not definite at the time of speaking. CAN, COULD, MAY, and MIGHT are used for present and future situations. Could and might show a less strong possibility than can and may. May does not occur in questions to express possibility. Example of possibility:

It may be true. (= `it is possible that it is true')

Leech (1987:81) notes that, in general, may represents `factual possibility', and can represents `theoretical possibility'. He provides two sets of equivalent statements:

FACTUAL: the road may be blocked

= `it is possible that the road is blocked'

= `perhaps the road is blocked'

THEORETICAL: the road can be blocked

= `it is possible for the road to be blocked'

= `it is possible to block the road'

He comments that «the road can be blocked» describes a theoretical conceivable happening, whereas «the road may be blocked» feels more immediate, because the actual likelihood of an event's taking place is being considered. Leech concludes that «factual possibility» is stronger than «theoretical possibility». Then, may is stronger than can. The scale of possibility is as follows (decreasingly):

The illness may be fatal.

The illness can be fatal.

The illness might be fatal.

The illness could be fatal.

While possibility is about something that is 50%certain to happen, probability is something that is very certain of occurring if one considers the evidence. It may not occur, but it probably will.

I.5.2.3.2 - Probability

Something is probable when it is expected. Modals of probability indicate a conclusion or deduction, an evaluation based on earlier information. SHOULD and OUGHT TO are used to express probability. Ought to is normally stressed, whereas should is not so. (Leech, 1987:82)

E.g. They should be waiting for her.

They ought to be waiting for her.

MUST is used to express inference. This is a conclusion based on specific evidence or information. It is more certain than expectation.

E.g. Someone is knocking at the door. I was expecting to receive Mary. So the person knocking must be Mary.

Must is stronger than ought to because ought to is based on assumptions while must relies on known facts.

E.g. A lazy student might say, «I remember that the teacher has repeated this rule over, and over again; I shall no longer study other rule, the test must be about this rule». A more cautious student will say, «The test ought to be about this rule».

A possible scale of probability:

Must

Ought to

Should

With ought to the speaker lacks confidence in what he says, with must the speaker has confidence in what he says. If he is more than confident in what he says he will use straightforwards statement, but as the action does not yet occur, the speaker uses modals of certainty.

I.5.2.3.3 - Certainty

Modals of certainty indicate a prediction, agreement, or promise. WILL (and sometimes SHALL with I or we) is used for present and future statements of prediction, agreement, or promise. (Feigenbaum, 1985)

Will is used for prediction when the speaker makes a `forecast about the present' concerning an event not directly observable. For instance when someone says, «That will be Dick. I was expecting him to call me. [On hearing the telephone ring]. In this case must can replace will, but with a weaker force.

The prediction can be based on the force of `typical or characteristic behavior'. This is common in general statements, whether of a proverbial, scientific or some other kind. Accidents will happen could be paraphrased as, «It is a predictable or characteristic fact about life that accidents happen».

Will is also used for future time promise. I will meet you at nine o'clock could be paraphrased: «Do not worry; I will come, I promise».

SHALL (with I/we) is used for emphatic certainty. In the example, «Unless you die, I shall meet you again», shall expresses more than just a prediction; it is a very strong insistence of my invitation to meet you again.

Emphatic certainty:

Normal Emphasized

Will.............shall

Shall............. Will

A possible scale of certainty (decreasing):

Will emphasized

shall

shall normal

will

must

The study of epistemic modals shows how a speaker can move from simple supposition to assertion. The following examples display the degree of certainty. The degree are not equidistant.

100% Will It will rain tomorrow

Must It must rain tomorrow

Should It should rain tomorrow

May It may rain tomorrow

Could It might rain tomorrow

Might

O% Negation It will not rain tomorrow

(This scale of prediction is adapted from Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman: 1983:87)

The prediction or inference can be weak (could/might), stronger (may), strong (should), very strong (must), or absolutely certain (will).

It is noteworthy that epistemic modals have corresponding adverbs and adjectives:

Could/might------possibly, possible

May---------------perhaps, quite possible

Should------------probably, probable

Must--------------certainly, certain

Will---------------undoubtedly, undoubted

Now that we have stated the inner differences between epistemic modals, we can contrast them with deontic ones.

I.5.2.4 - Epistemic use versus deontic use of modals

Though both epistemic and deontic uses are expressed in a single modal, there may be differences between them. To interpret a modalized utterance some parameters should be considered.

The first thing to determine is the intention of the speaker. If the speaker thinks that the person involved in the utterance is more or less free to act or to be, he will put emphasis on the subject. In this case we deal with deontic modality.

Subject Modality Predicate

Speaker

Deontic Modality

E.g. He may come tomorrow

= He is permitted to come

He must be in his office

= He is obliged to be in his office

If the speaker believes that he can more or less predict the occurrence of events or state of facts, he will put focus on the predicate. Here we are within epistemic modality.

Subject Modality Predicate

Speaker

Epistemic Modality

E.g. He may come tomorrow

= Perhaps he will

He must be in his office

= I am certain that he is

We can provide a chart of the five central modals in terms of deontic and epistemic use regarding the speaker's intention.

CHART 1: The speaker's intention through the use of modals

SPEAKER'S POINT OF VIEW
ABOUT A CHARACTER MORE OR LESS SPECIFIC TO THE SUBJECT (DEONTIC)		ABOUT THE CHANCES OF OCCURRENCE OF THE ACTION (EPISTEMIC)
Inherent character (genetic) e.g. Boys will be boys	will		Absolutely certain occurrence e.g. It will rain tomorrow
Character conferred on the subject by an authority (authorization) e.g. Every citizen can change their name	Can		Possible occurrence but not certain e.g. Accidents can happen
Character conferred on the subject by the speaker (permission) e.g. You may go out	May		Quite possible occurrence e.g. They may win the match
Character imposed on the subject by the speaker e.g. You shall go to school	Shall		Strong insistence on occurrence e.g. Justice shall be rendered
Recall of an obligation that the speaker would like to see performed e.g. They must come on time	must		Deduction of a certain occurrence by the speaker e.g. He must be tired

This chart is adapted from Lhérété and Ploton (1990:133)

Lhérété and Ploton note that with must, the speaker is concerned with the link between the subject and the predicate by considering both: no one is favored. Subject Predicate

MUST

Speaker

The second difference between epistemic and deontic uses of a modal lies on the use of paraphrase. Adverbs and adjectives can often be used to paraphrase the epistemic but not the deontic use of a modal^26(*).

The third distinction between the epistemic and the deontic use can be made by using periphrastic modals.

CHART 2: Modal auxiliaries and periphrastic modals

MODAL	EPISTEMIC	DEONTIC
Will Can May Shall Must	To be about to To be likely to To be liable to To be bound to To be sure to	To be apt to To be permitted to To be allowed to To be to To be obliged to

Time also can be used to distinguish the deontic use from the epistemic use of a modal. With deontic modality the time involved in the idea of the speaker is future: the speaker requires or permits something to be done after the obligation is imposed or the permission is granted.

E.g. You must do your homework. (From now on)

They may leave. (They can start going)

With the epistemic modality, by contrast, the time involved in the speaker's idea is generally present or past.

E.g. The teacher must be sick. (Present)

He must have overeaten. (Past)

Another criterion which might differentiate the two types of modalities is the identities of participants. Depending on the social status of the participants, we may be dealing with the epistemic or deontic use of a modal.

E.g. A teacher to his student:

- You may meet me next Monday. (deontic use of may)

(= I allow you to meet me)

A student to his teacher:

- You may meet me next Monday. (Epistemic use of may)

(= it is possible that we meet)

To summarize, a distinction of the epistemic use from the deontic use of a modal might be made by considering the chart below.

CHART 3: Distinctive features of meanings

DISTINCTIVE FEATURES	EPISTEMIC	DEONTIC
Speaker's subject is of	higher social status	lower social status
Speaker's action orientation (time)	present or past	Future
Speaker focuses intention on	predicate	Subject
Paraphrase	adverbs and adjectives	past participle
Periphrastic equivalence	(see chart above)	(see chart above)
Speaker's point of view is	based on knowledge or beliefs or opinion	about acts to be performed

This chart is valid only for the central modals in the present tense. The reader might notice that we did not discuss forms such as past, conditionals and negation. We want to deal, in this work, with the simplest forms, with hope to undertake further studies on the complex forms. With past tense or with negation, the meanings of modals do not follow the framework of our discussion. The reader may also remark that we dealt only with differences. We focus on differences between the epistemic use and the deontic use of modals because we want to know whether students perceive this distinction. It does not mean that there are no similarities. We can note en passant that they have common criteria which make them modals.

Modality is broadly defined as the use of words that carry important information about the stance and attitude of the sender to the message. These words can be verbs, adverbs, or adjectives. However, many grammarians reduced modality to the set of verbs (will, shall, can, may, must) known as modals. This is certainly due to the fact that the study of modality reveals two large types of modality: epistemic modality and deontic modality. The English modals seem to be the only words that express both senses. Modals have particular grammatical properties, and each modal has semantically intricate meanings. However, a pragmatic approach can help state the differences between these meanings.

* ²¹ See Appendix I

* ²² CAN has a third use when it expresses ability. It is the dynamic use (Palmer,op.cit. p102)

* ²³ Ibid. p 10

* ²⁴ Ibid. p 97

* ²⁵ Ibid.

* ²⁶ Celce-Murcia and Larsen Freeman, o.p. cit. p85