Modality and the English Modal Verb System more

Heather Marie Kosur Tuesday 5 October 2010 Modality and the English Modal Verb System The modal verb is a distinct verb form unique to Germanic languages and to Modern English especially that differs from prototypical verbs in form and function. The nine full modal verbs in English are can, could, may, might, must, shall, should, will, and would. The four quasimodal verbs in English—which are a subset of modal verbs that "possess some but not all properties of prototypical modals" (Kosur 2009: 1)—are ought to, used to, would rather, and had better (had best). Unlike prototypical English verbs, modal verbs are defective and neutral (Huddleston 1984: 126; Kosur 2009: 2). Verbal defectiveness refers to a lack of non-tensed forms, verbal neutralization to the lack of separate third person singular simple present forms (Huddleston 1984: 126; Kosur 2009: 2). Modal verbs further differ from prototypical verbs in that modal verbs perform only the auxiliary grammatical function of modal within verb phrases functioning as predicates (Kosur 2009: 2-3). Although all Englishes allow for one modal verb to occupy the initial position of a verb phrase functioning as a predicate, some Englishes also allow for multiple modals, which are "a periphrastic verb construction characterized by the use of two or more modal and/or quasi-modal verbs within a single verb phrase" (Kosur 2009: 3). Understanding the unique form and function of modal verbs in relation to prototypical verbs is essential to understanding the modality of the English modal verb system. Modal verbs express modality, which is loosely defined as the grammaticalized expression of the subjective attitudes and opinions of the speaker including possibility, probability, necessity, obligation, permissibility, ability, desire, and contingency (Bybee et al. 1994: 176-181; Kosur 2009: 1). In Modern English, both modal verbs and grammatical mood Kosur 2 express modality (Kosur 2009: 1). Grammatical mood is loosely defined as a set of inflected verb forms that express modality of an action or state. Although some grammarians interchange mood and modality as synonyms, mood more accurately describes a subset of modality. Mood is a grammatical category, which R. L. Trask (1997: 99, 144) defines as "[a]ny one of the various categories which may be present in particular languages and which, when present, oblige all the words in a relevant class always to appear in one of two or more distinct grammatical forms, depending on the grammatical environment." All verb phrases functioning as predicates must inflect for mood. But whereas mood specifically describes the modality expressed by verbs via inflection, modality may be expressed through any number of grammatical forms or functions such as verbs, adverbs, adjectives, nouns, and particles or other language features such as intonation and inflection (Li 2004: xvi). However, because of the form of the verb phrase in which a modal verb occupies the initial position, grammatical mood is intrinsically connected to the modality expressed by English modal verbs. Three grammatical moods exist in the verb system of Modern English: indicative, imperative, and subjunctive. The indicative mood expresses assertions, denials, and questions of actuality or strong probability; the imperative mood direct commands, requests, and granting or denial of permission; and the subjunctive mood commands, requests, suggestions, wishes, hypotheses, purposes, doubts, and suppositions that are contrary to fact at the time of the utterance. As auxiliary verbs, modal verbs never function as the head of a verb phrase. Unlike with other auxiliaries, however, the verb phrase that contains a modal verb is always conjugated into a present subjunctive form. Therefore, only eight possible combinations exist for verb phrases in which a modal verb occupies the initial position: modal + active simple present subjunctive, modal + active present progressive subjunctive, modal + active present perfect Kosur 3 subjunctive, modal + active present perfect-progressive, modal + passive simple present subjunctive, modal + passive present progressive subjunctive, modal + passive present perfect subjunctive, and modal + passive present perfect-progressive. (For comparison, a verb phrase without a modal verb may be conjugated into seventeen forms.) Setting aside the imperative mood, the major difference between the indicative mood and the subjunctive mood is that the indicative mood expresses realis modality (true to fact) and the subjunctive mood expresses irrealis modality (contrary to fact) (Chalker et al. 1998a). Thus, in addition to the modality inherently expressed by the English modal verbs, the verb phrase that contains a modal verb also expresses irrealis modality. In conjunction with the irrealis modality of the verb phrase that follows a modal verb, modals verbs also express additional modality. According to Frank Palmer in Modality in English: Theoretical, descriptive, and typological issues (2003: 7-8), English modal verbs express four kinds of modality: epistemic, deontic, dynamic, and evidential. Epistemic modality is the "expression of the judgment of possibility or necessity of a proposition by a speaker" (Palmer 1979: 41;Palmer 1990: 50-58; Kosur 2009: 1). Deontic modality is the "expression of the judgment of possibility including permissibility or necessity including obligation of an action, state, or event by a speaker" in which control of the action, state, or event is external to the subject of the clause (Palmer 1990: 50,69-74; Palmer 2003: 7; Kosur 2009: 1). (The imperative mood expresses deontic modality.) Dynamic modality is similar to deontic modality except that the control is internal to the subject (Palmer 2003: 7). Evidential modality is similar to epistemic modality except that, instead of judgment, evidential modality allows a speaker to offer evidence for the "truth-value of the proposition" (Palmer 2001: 24; Palmer 2003: 7). All thirteen modal and quasi-modal verbs express one or more kinds of linguistic modality; most Kosur 4 express at least epistemic and deontic modalities. In broader categorizations, epistemic modality and evidential modality both express propositional modality, and deontic modality and dynamic modality both express event modality (Palmer 2001: 8-9). Propositional modality focuses on the subjective attitude of the speaker about the "truth-value or factual status of the proposition" (Palmer 2001: 8). Event modality focuses on the subjective attitude of the speaker about potential but not actualized performances (Palmer 2001: 8). The fundamental difference between propositional modality and event modality is the judgment on propositions, or knowledge, versus the judgment on actions, states, and events, or performances (Palmer 1990: 6, 69; Kosur 2009: 1). The scope, which is the "range over which a particular linguistic item meaningfully extends its influence" (Chalker et al. 1998b), of propositional modality extends to the entire proposition while the scope of event modality extends to only the action, state, or event. To provide an example, the can in We can go to the movies because we have a car expresses propositional modality because the scope of the modal verb encompasses the entire clause We go to the movies; conversely, the can in We can go the movies because Mom said so expresses event modality because the scope of the modal verb focuses on the event of our being allowed to go to the movies. Understanding the difference between propositional modality and event modality is essential for understanding the difference between epistemic and evidential modalities and deontic and dynamic modalities. Not all linguists and logicians (logic being a field also focused on the study of modality), however, agree with Palmer about the kinds of modality. Joan Bybee, Revere Perkins, and William Pagliuca (1994: 177) also identify four types of modality: agent-oriented modality, speaker-oriented modality, epistemic modality, and subordinating modality. Eric Swanson (2008: 1195) lists five modalities—deontic possibility, logical possibility, bouletic possibility, Kosur 5 nomological possibility, epistemic possibility—in addition to a statement about the existence of additional modalities. Jennifer Coates identifies twelve modalities: strong obligation, weak obligation, permission, volition, predication, ability, possibility, strong inference, weak inference, hypothesis, and quasi-subjunctive (Drury). Georg Henrik von Wright argues for four modalities: alethic, epistemic, deontic, existential (Drury). Ferenc Kiefer (1994: 2516-2517) identifies five modalities: epistemic, deontic, circumstantial, dispositional, and boulomaic. Douglas Biber, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan (1999: 485) discuss only two modalities: intrinsic and extrinsic. Many of the modalities identified by other scholars overlap with the modalities identified by Palmer or simply differ in terminology only; however, Palmer offers the most comprehensive and most reflective description of the modality of Modern English. To analyze the modality of the English modal verb system requires an understanding of the modality of the English language. All verb phrases in which a modal verb occupies the initial position express the irrealis modality of the subjunctive mood. The initial modal verb also expresses one of four modalities: epistemic, deontic, dynamic, and evidential. Verb phrases that contain a multiple modal express both epistemic modality (the initial modal verb) and deontic modality (the second and subsequent modal verb[s]) (Nagle 2003: 351; Fennell 1993: 434; Kosur 2009: 4-5). Although some linguists and logicians argue for an alternative description of modality, the analysis offered by Palmer best accounts for the modality expressed by modal verbs and the Modern English verb system in general. Kosur 6 References Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman. Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. Mood and modality. In The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world, 176-242. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Chalker, Sylvia & Edmund Weiner. 1998a. Irrealis. In The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar, http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html? subview=Main&entry=t28.e744. (30 Sep. 2010.) Chalker, Sylvia & Edmund Weiner. 1998b. Scope. In The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar, http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html? subview=Main&entry=t28.e1320. (4 Oct. 2010.) Drury, Richard. A brief glossary of modality. http://dinamico2.unibg.it/anglistica/slin/modgloss.htm. (28 Sep. 2010.) Fennell, Barbara A. 1993. Evidence for British sources of double modal construction in Southern American English. American Speech 68(4).430-437. Huddleston, Rodney. 1984. Introduction to the grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kiefer, Ferenc. 1994. Modality. In R. E. Asher (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2515-2520. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Kosur, Heather Marie. 2009. Multiple modals in modern English: Use, history, and structure of periphrastic modal verbs. http://ilstu.academia.edu/HeatherMarieKosur/Papers/142161/Multiple-Modals-in- Kosur 7 Modern-English--Use--History--and-Structure-of-Periphrastic-Modal-Verbs. (28 Sep. 2010.) Li, Renzhi. 2004. Modality in English and Chinese: A typological perspective. Boca Raton, Florida: Universal Publishers. Nagle, Stephen J. 2003. "Double modals in the southern United States: Syntactic structure or syntactic structures?" In Roberta Facchinetti, Manfred G. Krug & Frank Robert Palmer (eds.), Modality in contemporary English (Topics in English Linguistics), 1-17. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Palmer, F. R. 1979. Modality and the English modals (Longman Linguistics Library). London: Longman. Palmer, F. R. 1990. Modality and the English modals (Longman Linguistics Library), 2nd edn. London: Longman. Palmer, F. R. 2001. Mood and modality (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics), 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Palmer, Frank. 2003. Modality in English: Theoretical, descriptive, and typological issues. In Roberta Facchinetti, Manfred G. Krug & Frank Robert Palmer (eds.), Modality in contemporary English (Topics in English Linguistics), 1-17. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Swanson, Eric. 2008. Modality in language. Philosophy Compass 3(6). 1193-1207. Trask, R. L.1997. A student's dictionary of language and linguistics. London: Arnold.