DUNAREA DE JOS UNIVERSITY OF GALATI FACULTY OF LETTERS

Modalization
(An Elective Course in English Language for 2nd Year Students)

Associate Professor Steluta Stan, PhD

Modalization

CONTENTS
Chapter 1 Aspects of Modality in English 4 Chapter 2 Context and Modality 6 2.1. Context and Modality 2.2. Expressions of Modality. Some examples Chapter 3 Modals Verbs 3.1. Syntactic Behaviour 3.2. Modals and Tenses Chapter 4 Meanings and Uses of the English Modal Verbs 13 4.1. CAN 4.1.1. Ability CAN 4.1.2. Permission/Deontic CAN 4.1.3. Possibility/Epistemic CAN 4.1.4. Recurrence CAN 4.2. General Notes on the Secondary Modals 19 4.3. COULD 4.3.1. Substitutes for CAN/COULD 21 4.3.2. CAN/COULD Roundup 4.3.3. Exercises Meanings and Uses of CAN/COULD 23 4.4. MAY 4.4.1. Permission MAY 4.4.2. Epistemic MAY 26 4.4.3. Ability/Capability MAY 4.5. MIGHT 4.5.1. Epistemic MIGHT 4.5.2. Deontic MIGHT 28 4.5.3. Ability MIGHT 28 4.5.4. Exercises Meanings and Uses of MAY/MIGHT 4.6. MUST 4.6.1. Epistemic MUST 4.6.2. Deontic MUST 32 4.6.3. MUST Roundup 4.6.4. Exercises Meanings and Uses of MUST 36 4.7. SHALL 4.7.1. Epistemic SHALL 4.7.2. Deontic SHALL 38 4.8. SHOULD 4.8.1. Epistemic SHOULD 4.8.2. Deontic SHOULD 4.8.3. SHOULD in Indirect Speech Acts 4.8.4. Exercises Meanings and Uses of SHALL/SHOULD 41

6 8 10 10 11 13 13 16 17 18 20 21 26 26 26 27 27

28 30 30 34 38 38 39 40 40 41

Modalization

Chapter 1
4.9. WILL 4.9.1. Volition/Deontic WILL 43 4.9.2. Power WILL 4.9.3. Epistemic WILL 45 4.10. WOULD 46 4.10.1. WOULD for Past Time Reference 47 4.10.2. WOULD for Present Time Sphere 47 4.10.3. WOULD as an Irrealis Marker 4.10.4. WOULD in Indirect Speech Acts 4.10.5. WILL/WOULD Roundup Final Tests 43 45

48 48 49 51

Chapter 1 Aspects of Modality in English

Pragmatics studies how the transmission of meaning depends not only on the linguistic knowledge (e.g. grammar, lexicon etc.) of the speaker and listener, but also on the context of the utterance, knowledge about the status of those involved, the inferred intent of the speaker, and so on. In this respect, pragmatics explains how language users are able to overcome apparent ambiguity, since meaning relies on the manner, place, time etc. of an utterance. The ability to understand another speaker's intended meaning is called pragmatic competence. Central to discussions on modality are the notions of possibility, necessity and impossibility; logicians and philosophers, ever since Aristotle, have defined these notions together with the relations which may be perceived to exist between them; such investigations provide the basis of modal logic, which today is one of the most pursued branches of logic. The problem is that different disciplines have each approached the notion from different starting points, asking different questions on the basis of different theoretical assumptions; in each case, the nature of the question posed and of the goals set have led to different answers, i.e. different descriptions. A first attempt may be to consider the type of mental attitude and experience that involves the notions of possibility, necessity and impossibility. Michael Perkins says in Modal Expressions in English: To put it quite simply, it would appear that such notions are conceptually grounded on the fact that human beings often think and behave as though things might be or might have been other than they actually are (or were). Such a worldview appears to constitute an essential part of the fabric of our everyday lives. For example, the fact that it is raining, that the car has broken down and that I am late for work does not prevent me from imagining myself arriving at work on time [] in a quietly purring car in brilliant sunshine. 4 Modalization

Chapter 1 To talk about things being otherwise than they actually are is to talk about ALTERNATIVE, about conceivable though not actual states of affairs; such talk is known in logical studies as talk about other possible states of affairs or other possible worlds. It has been shown that the principles governing the use of modal expressions in ordinary language differ from those on which the use of their logical counterparts is based. Although the modal systems used by logicians cannot adequately explain the behaviour of modal expressions in the language, they can, nevertheless, serve as a basis for understanding how modality works in natural languages. So, in Perkinss example above, the fact that it is raining, that the car has broken down and that the speaker is late for work pertain to the actual state off affairs. A possible alternative course of events is a world in which the speaker conceives himself arriving in time, in brilliant sunshine, in a perfectly functioning car. We can say that to conceive of something being otherwise is to conceive its being real in some non-actual world or in some state of the actual world at a point in time other than the present. M. Perkins remarks that broadly speaking, the actual world is itself just one of an infinite set of possible worlds and, as such, it is not exclusively significant. Talk about possible worlds is noteworthy in so far as they are contrasted with and relative to the current, actual world. To say that Mary ought to be a loyal friend to Ann is to say that there is a state of affairs in which, according to the principles of morality, when a person interacts with other people, she is loyal. No need to stress the fact that what ought to happen is not exactly what actually happens, which means that moral statements do not derive from examples, rather they are grounded on a system of duties which reside in human reason. Perkins shows that there are three general systems of principles that can be involved when one studies the modalities: firstly, there are the modalities which conform to the rational laws of deduction. They are concerned with the interpretation of the world via the laws of human reason and are known as EPISTEMIC MODALITY. The term epistemic derives from episteme, the Greek word for knowledge. Perkins aptly points out that, in fact, the key concept which underlies modality is the state of lack of knowledge. To know that something is the case means that it, actually, is the case; of course, there are cases when one can know something and be mistaken, but then, ones knowledge is no longer knowledge. But to be certain (an epistemic modality) that something is the case does not mean that it really is the case. The second set of principles concerning modalities is defined in terms of social/institutional laws. These are of two general kinds: on the one hand, are those laws explicitly involving some legal authority or institution; on the Modalization 5

Chapter 1 other hand, are the usually less formal laws relating to social status, according to which one person may be said to have personal authority over another; in fact, there is no absolute dividing line between the two. The modalities that conform to social laws regard the sphere of duty, compulsion, order, command, instruction, appropriateness, and are known as DEONTIC MODALITY. The third set of principles concerning modalities has in view the relationship between actual (empirical) circumstances or states of affairs, and the states of affairs that follow from them in accordance with natural laws (the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, anatomy etc.) These modalities define the notion of capacity (physical or intellectual) and are known as ABILITY/DYNAMIC MODALITY. The three general systems of principles (rational/the laws of reason, social/the laws of society, natural/the laws of nature) define three different types of states of affairs/worlds. There are three envisageable courses of events conceived as alternatives to the actual world; they form the theoretical background against which the nature of the English modal expressions will be determined.

Modalization

Chapter 2

Chapter 2 Context and Modality

2.1. Context and Modality Language production starts from an extra-linguistic real-world situation. When the situation eliciting language appears, the speaker performs a speech act which involves a series of logical hierarchical choices of the linguistic elements at his disposal, which will best suit his communicative intentions. Communication and language production being organically bound to human beings and extra-linguistic situations, any adequate description of utterances should account for the relationships between the real-world extra-linguistic context and the linguistic choices made by the participants in the discourse. The proper interpretation of utterances can be a very complicated matter, to determine their appropriate use and to provide adequate descriptions and explanations, one must refer to many levels of language; not only the superficial (surface) syntactic environment and the logical semantic structure, but also the social context in which the discourse occurs must be brought into consideration. Many linguists have lately felt a real need for a theory of pragmatics in addition to syntax and semantics, to maintain a proper balance between the syntactic, the semantic and the pragmatic factors involved in the use of utterances in natural languages. In his study, Pragmatics and the Description of Discourse, Charles Fillmore has defined syntax, semantics and pragmatics and their interrelation as follows: SYNTAX as form characterizes the grammatical forms that occur in a language: the structural organization of sentences and the co-occurrence possibilities among lexical items in particular kinds of grammatical constructions. SEMANTICS as form+function relates the grammatical forms with their potential communicative functions, that is with what users of a language can do with these forms, in terms of the propositional content they can be used to express, as well as the speech acts they can be used to perform. PRAGMATICS as form+function+context is concerned with the relation between linguistic forms, their communicative functions and the contexts/settings in which given linguistic forms have given functions. Fillmore has emphasized an idea which is old in anthropology and philology, namely the necessity to contextualize, to anchor utterances in some social system as a condition for understanding how they can be used, under what circumstances, the role they can play in on-going conversations, etc. It is in the discourse context that one can best see what the participants are doing and what they are experiencing. The discourse rules, a subset of which is referred to as conversation rules, govern the conditions under which it is appropriate to perform one type of illocutionary act; also, they determine Modalization 7

Chapter 2 what answers qualify as appropriate responses to a certain act. Therefore, the concepts of pragmatics and contextualization have great relevance for the applied linguist, for the contrastive analyst, for second language teaching/learning and also for translation and interpretation. If one is to teach/learn second language use successfully, one must: - identify the situation in which certain forms and syntactic configuration are usable in his language. - determine the means by which the target language makes these distinctions, and - pair the two, although in terms of surface syntax the two languages might appear very different. Similarly, a translators task is compound: in addition to merely translating words and ideas, he must transpose contextual social and cultural concepts, contexts that are strictly speaking extra-linguistic. To be more specific, besides syntactic and semantic elements, pragmatic factors are clearly involved in the use and choice of modal expressions. The rules that enable one to define and classify them, to account for their often peculiar behaviour, to tell whether they are appropriately used and determine that use, are also to be found in the area of pragmatics, in the real-world context of the utterance. Consequently, one has to know: - the syntactic features and semantic values - the social position assumed by the participants in the discourse - the relationships between the speaker and the addressee/surface subject - the source and the goal of modality - the contextual assumptions shared by the participants in the discourse - the impression the speaker wants to make on the hearer etc. The problem of the equivalence or synonymy between two modals, between a modal and a lexical/cognate verb or between a modal and an idiom/apparent paraphrase is a good example to consider. MUST and SHOULD in their epistemic sense are often taken together under the label probably/likely and are assumed to be semantic equivalents; yet, the parallelism is not complete and the explanation is pragmatic, not syntactic or semantic; although the concept of probability is present in both, there are environments in which only one is possible or appropriate. Notice that in the following sentences only one Romanian modal corresponds to the two English verbs: You must/*should1 be out of your mind! Trebuie sa fii scrantit/ca nu esti intreg la minte! We should/*must get there before dark. Ar trebui sa ajungem la cabana inainte de a se intuneca.

incorrect

Modalization

Chapter 2 Both CAN and MAY partake of the notion of possibility, yet what is described as possible by the former is different from what is described as possible by the latter. They are not exact, interchangeable equivalents and there are contexts where the use of one is appropriate, while the others is not. Can is closer to logical possibility and is paraphrasable in English by it is possible for to, while may is closer to epistemic possibility corresponding to may: a avea posibilitatea, a-ti fi posibil and a fi posibil/cu putinta, poate (ca), respectively: I can be there in time It is possible for me to I may be there in time It is possible that Pot sa fiu acolo la timp Am posibilitatea/Imi este posibil sa - Este posibil sa/Poate ca Another intriguing relationship is that between English modals and their paraphrases. Until recently, they were regarded as perfect synonyms, the paraphrases existing only to fill the syntactic gaps where the simple modals were not available. But, if we consider the following sentences, we shall easily notice that there are semantic distinctions and differences in distribution and use between them. a) You may smoke. b) You are allowed to smoke. a1) Poti fuma/Iti dau voie sa fumezi. b1) Iti este permis sa fumezi. c1) Ti se da voie sa fumezi/Ai voie sa fumezi. In a) the speaker himself is giving permission or indicates his approval of it; in b) he merely reports that the subject has permission, but the speaker may be opposed to the idea. In Romanian the modal a putea does not make the performative/nonperformative distinction; the phrase a da voie, a-ti fi permis is chiefly used to report the existence of permission; it can also be used to give permission, as in a1), or to report permission, as in c1); the other paraphrase, a avea voie, may also be used both performatively, ai voie (de la mine) sa fumezi and non-performatively, ai voie (de la tatal tau) sa fumezi. Consider also: You must go now. Trebuie sa pleci acum. You have to go now. Trebuie sa pleci acum Youve got to go now. Trebuie sa pleci acum Sentence a) may be used when the speaker himself sets the obligation; b) is apt to be used when, say, the addressee needs to catch a train; c) seems closer to b). Romanian uses one modal, a trebui, for all the modal expressions used in the above English sentences, and does not make the distinction between obligation imposed by the speaker and obligation derived from other constraints. In conclusion, from the modal expressions available to him, a speaker will choose what will best suit his communicative intentions in a particular Modalization 9

Chapter 2 contextual situation. Hence the importance of pragmatic elements, in addition to the syntactic and semantic ones, for an adequate interpretation of modal expressions. 2.2. Expressions of Modality. Some Examples At the level of linguistic manifestation, one can identify a set of modal expressions on the basis of their shared semantic characteristics previously discussed; in point of their syntax, the different modal expressions belong to different syntactic classes and have widely different syntactic properties: - nouns: allegation, hypothesis, prophecy, proposal, command, instruction, invitation, request, assumption, certainty, doubt, expectation etc. - adjectives: sure, certain, possible, necessary, probable, compulsory, imperative, lawful, legal, permissible etc. - adverbs: allegedly, apparently, certainly, evidently, hopefully, likely, necessarily, obviously, perhaps, possibly, presumably, probably, seemingly, supposedly etc. - verbs: assume, believe, fancy, fear, feel, guess, hope, imagine, presume, suspect, think, trust etc. - modal verbs: can, may, must, will, shall, could, might, ought to, would, should, need, dare. All these lexical items have been termed modal expressions in virtue of the fact that they appear to express the same type of meaning, realizing the conceptual sphere of the three systems of law discussed above: rational, social and natural.

10

Modalization

Chapter 3

Chapter 3 Modal Verbs

3.1. Syntactic Behaviour From the point of view of their surface syntactic behaviour, the English modals do not constitute a uniform class; a sub-class of what might be called pure/syntactic modals includes such items as CAN, COULD, MAY, MIGHT, WILL, WOULD, SHALL, SHOULD and MUST. Some grammarians also consider a class of modal candidates involving such verbs as seem, tend, happen and, possibly, believe, know, insist, advise, as well as cause and make. The subcategory of modals that is intermediate between the pure modals and the modal candidates is generally referred to as quasi-/semi-modals/modal paraphrases and traditionally includes items as dare, need, ought to, have to, be to, be going to, be about to, be able to, used to. The syntactic modals exhibit the following idiosyncratic features or, very often called unverblike properties, which has been used as an argument to characterize them as auxiliaries or semi-/quasi-auxiliaries. It has been assumed, among other things, that the English modals are main verbs in the deep structure and this unverblike behaviour is due to what E. Bara calls history-specific development of the English language. These features are: - they do not take the concord morpheme s on the 3rd person, singular, present tense (do not participate in number agreement); - they do not have non-finite forms (infinitives, participles); - they occupy the leftmost position in the verb phrase (may leave, must be reading, will have been told); - they do not co-occur in constructions like *must can, *will may, *shall must However, the grammaticality of the following examples shows that concepts such as possibility, obligation, permission, ability are not necessarily mutually exclusive: You may need to/have to call again, where may signals epistemic possibility and need/have to deontic necessity. It is possible, therefore, to have a combination of modalities in a sentence, but they cannot, in general, be both expressed by syntactic modals. they they they they do not allow do-support; invert with the subject in interrogation; can be directly negated by not; are complemented by a verb in its infinitive form.

The treatment of ought to, be to, have to, used to, dare and need varies from author to author; however, here are some of their most important features:

Modalization

11

Chapter 3 OUGHT TO is considered not to belong to the true verb category in the surface structure because it cannot pass the test for verbs, being a syntactic modal with idiosyncratic surface behaviour. In present-day (American) English, ought to is very often reduced to otta, mainly but not exclusively, in the spoken language. BE TO, in almost all respects, behaves like the syntactic modals. Unlike them, it exhibits person and number agreement (am, is, are, was, were), has past tense syntax and may appear in the infinitive and not occupy the leftmost position in the VP: Worse still may be to come. HAVE TO agrees in person and number (have, has) and has past tense syntax. In interrogation, it may both invert with the subject, like the syntactic modals, or allow do-support, like true verbs: Have you (got) to leave right now? Do you have to leave? In negation also, have to is either directly negated by not or allows dosupport: Hadnt you got to do it? Didnt you have to do it? USED TO is in present-day English a very defective verb, having one past form for all persons, two possible negative forms (usedn/t to, didnt use to), two possible interrogative forms (used you to?, did you use to?). Note that the forms with do-support seem to be more common. DARE, as well as NEED, displays a formal behaviour that is characteristic of both syntactic modals and ordinary verbs, without any significant difference in meaning. The most common terms used for them are pseudo-/quasi-modals. Their use as syntactic modals is relatively rare in British English and even more restricted in American English. a) dare behaves like a regular verb in the affirmative (dare/dares in the present, dared in the past). It should be pointed out that it is not much used in the affirmative except, perhaps, in the expression I daresay, only with the 1st person singular. In the negative and interrogative it may appear either as an ordinary verb or a syntactic modal: Do you/does he dare? Dare you/he? Negative and interrogative forms with do/does/did are in theory followed by the to-infinitive, but in practice the to is often omitted: He doesnt dare (to) say it right (in)to my face. *Note that when it is used with the meaning to challenge, dare is an ordinary transitive verb: I dare you to fill in for me and see how hard it is. b) need may also occur either as an uninflected syntactic modal or as an inflected regular verb: in positive statements the true verb is commonly used, while in negations and questions both forms are possible: I need/needed to go. They need not go/dont need to go. Need you go?/ Do/Did you need to go?

12

Modalization

Chapter 3 *Notice that the complement verb following need may be used either in the long or the short infinitive, except after the inflected forms needs and needed, when the to-infinitive is always used. When need is used with the meaning to require, it is a perfectly regular transitive verb: He needs all the support he can get. He doesnt need our pity. 3.2. Modals and Tenses The distinction between the sometimes called primary modals (can, may, must, will, shall) and the secondary modals (could, might, would, should) as seen by such grammarians as O. Jespersen, G. Leech, F.R. Palmer is based on a semantic dimension of meaning present in the secondary modals and possessed only to a minimal degree by the primary ones. Some grammarians speak of a common hypothetical meaning shared by the secondary modals (Leech), others of a formal/tentative meaning (Palmer), while most traditional ones view it simply as a problem of past time reference (Jespersen). But speakers of English seldom recognize them as an indication of past time. They are rather felt as markers of some kind of remoteness from the reality immediately perceptible at the moment of encoding. Tentativeness, for example, is understood as a more remote possibility, a more tentative probability, a lower degree of certainty: They might be telling the truth (although I very much doubt that). A special type of remoteness is unreality or counterfactuality: I told you time and time again not to drive so fast; you might have had an accident. *Notice that, taken out of the context, might have had is ambiguous; it can express both tentative possibility and counterfactuality (contrary-toreality). Nevertheless, there are cases when these forms may be used to express earlierness in time. This happens when the time sphere is past and is indicated by a deictic marker or an introductory verb in the past tense, in which case the sequence of tenses occurs. We shall not insist on this aspect, though a very important one, because it will be furthered in the chapters dedicated to each modal. The perfect marker have-en can also indicate counterfactual possibility: The car is in such a bad condition that you might have got into trouble but for the safety belt. It is generally claimed that forms like could, would, might, should, ought to, neednt + have-en never occur as deontic and ability modalities; they can only appear with epistemic meanings. This is because

Modalization

13

Chapter 3 epistemic modality is related to speaker-now and does not have tense itself. One exception may be deontic must which has no corresponding past/oblique forms: Applicants for this position must have obtained a diploma in the past five years. *Note that the construction expresses a present requirement (must) concerning a past process (have obtained). In conclusion, when simple epistemic modals combine with the perfect marker on the complement verb (perfect infinitive) it is the latter which signals past. Things are different with simple deontic or ability modals. We cant say: She can have smoked and mean She was able to smoke. When have-en co-occurs with past/oblique forms of the modals, it indicates past time, thus permitting the modals to signal tentativeness or unreality/non-fulfillment. *Note that neither dare not nor used to can occur with this construction, whereas need can: I neednt have invited him over; hes such a bore. The progressive marker be-ing can combine with modals, but with certain restrictions referring to those verbs that cannot be usually used in the progressive aspect (know, resemble, understand etc.) Sometimes the be-ing morpheme may distinguish between possible and permissive MAY: I think they may be visiting some relatives in Bucharest; thats why we couldnt find them home. (=possibility). I think they may travel abroad since they have their passports on them. (permission) There are, however, contexts which allow deontic uses of modals to occur with the be-ing marker: I shouldnt be talking to you. I dont even know you. To conclude, the preferred or dominant interpretation in this combination is the epistemic reading, but it is by no means the only possible.

14

Modalization

Chapter 4

Chapter 4 Meanings and Uses of the English Modal Verbs

Before dealing with each of the modal verbs previously mentioned, we feel bound to sum up the basic meanings they occur with: - logical/epistemic modalities expressing possibility, probability, virtual certainty; - deontic modalities signaling permission, obligation, necessity; - ability/dynamic modalities expressing potentiality, capability. In actual use, however, the modals appear with many overtones, shades of meaning and degrees of intensity that can only be identified in the discourse context. The meanings of the modals will be distinguished from the speech acts they may be used to perform. Thus, with the literal meanings mentioned above they may appear in direct speech acts such as statements, questions, negations of possibility, probability, certainty, obligation, etc. In addition, they often participate in indirect speech acts whose illocutionary force differs from that of the direct act suggested by their surface structure: offers, invitations, requests, orders, suggestions etc. 4.1. CAN Like all the other modal verbs, can is considered by traditional studies a polysemous word having three different senses: the ability sense (both physical and mental), the permission sense (replacing may in everyday, colloquial language) and the possibility sense. Other grammarians consider that the polysemy of can is, in fact, a function of the contexts in which it occurs. Thus we come to distinguish between ability can (dynamic modality), possibility can (epistemic modality), and permission can (deontic modality). 4.1.1. ABILITY CAN He doesnt trust too many people, but he cannot resist his little grandson. Can you feel the tension between them? The present study is meant to show evidence that infants can and do solve problems at a relatively simple perceptual level. They cant speak a word of English but they can make themselves understood. The subject of all these sentences is animate, as questions of ability rise only in connection with animate creatures. In all these examples, can may be replaced by be able to. There is no such perfect equivalence between the two, but it has been claimed that there are conditions that favour the use of be able to rather than can. As given by F.R. Palmer, these conditions are:

Modalization

15

Chapter 4 - since can has no non-finite forms, only be able to is available after other modal verbs: might be/should be/has got to be/must be able to etc.; - be able to is a little more formal than can, and its occurrence is much greater in written texts; - be able to is preferred if the TR (time reference) of the sentence is present, to indicate that the subject accomplishes the task: In this way we are able to carry out our research. If the TR is past and if the situation is a single accomplished occurrence, only be able to is used: I ran and was able to catch (not could) the train. *Note that in the negative, the sentence I ran fast but couldnt catch the bus is correct. As the examples indicate, can and be able to are not always freely interchangeable. What it should also be remembered is that if there is an intention to specify that the task is accomplished, be able to is used. Consider also the following examples: Ken is driving. Ken can drive. In the first one, a process is going on; it can be rephrased as Look! Ken is able to drive. So, according to Palmer, is able to says can and does. In the second sentence, no process is going on; the speaker merely assumes some circumstances, a previous occasion on which Ken demonstrated his ability to drive, and that a similar occurrence may happen again. So, again according to Palmer, can says can and will do. Taking some more examples as: She can tell awful things sometimes. He can lift that huge suitcase. Our local team can beat yours. Joan of Arc can hear voices telling her to save France, we can conclude that, instead of different senses of the modal can, we can speak about different possible environments of it. The contribution of can to the meaning of the sentence seems to be to relate the event referred to to some external circumstance which is not explicitly identified, but the existence of which is assumed, and which is such as not to preclude the event from occurring. At the pragmatic level, we shall remark that can may be used to indicate different speech acts. Consider some examples in which can is used contextually to indicate that action should be taken: - with 1st person pronouns, I or exclusive we, can is used to make an offer: We can also give you a copy of the document if you wish. I can tell you the truth if you will hear it.

16

Modalization

Chapter 4 - with 3rd person pronouns, where the speaker speaks on behalf of someone else, but it is not clear if the initiative is his or not: Ill send him to see what he can do and then he can call you. - with a 2nd person pronoun it suggests that action be taken by the person addressed: You can certainly give me a call back tonight. If the context is an interrogative one, then can with you does not function as a question about the addressees capacity to carry out the action, but as a request that he do so: Can you hold on? Can you give me a hand with this? If we is used inclusively, it combines offer and suggestion: Do come early and we can have a drink. Can occurs with verbs of mental cognition like understand, remember, think, stand, bear, be bothered: He can never really believe that when somebody takes a drug it is actually going to harm him. What you can remember out of his speech is what really matters. Can you see me wearing something like that? Such examples represent contextual extensions of ability can, possible environments of it. Syntactic behaviour 1. Negation Usually only the modal verb is negated; with be able to either the auxiliary be is negated or unable is used instead: We have to take into consideration the fact that they werent able/were unable to elaborate on the matter at stake. But Palmer shows that it is also possible to negate the event by using emphatic not: We can/cant not go. Such forms are a little more natural with always, just, simply: We can always/simply/just not go, cant we? 2. Interrogation both can and be able to occur in interrogative sentences. 3. Past time reference - As already stated, the affirmative past tense form for accomplished tasks is was/were able to. Nevertheless, Palmer discusses some cases in which could is used instead: - when an accomplishment is a matter of potentiality, not of realized task: In the state she was she could actually kill someone. - in contexts in which a habitual, recurrent event is intended, could is the rule: I could stand up and tell them my opinion whenever I wanted to.

Modalization

17

Chapter 4 - couldnt occurs in all types of negative contexts to indicate that an event was not accomplished: Only when he died, his wife realized she could not live without him. A negative meaning of the entire context favours could with the same interpretation of non-accomplished task: He could hardly breathe, let alone speak. One moment she seemed to be everything to him, and then all he could think of was his career. Could is also used with negative items like hardly, scarcely,little, nearly which create an overall negative context: Little could he make out of the text he was given for analysis. The past time reference of can with sensation verbs is formed by using could: From where I stood, I could see the moon. I could understand all he said. 4. Future time reference Can, as shown above, does not indicate an event that takes place now; it merely indicates that circumstances are such as not to preclude such an eventuality: Youll go to Ireland any time you like as long as you can get a good job there. Therefore, the temporal sphere of can is present and extended present. The modal verb can be marked as future by will/shall be able to: When youre in your eighties youll be able to say that you are old and wise. Well be able to save an awful lot of money by living there. Provided that the possibility is timeless, can may relate to a specific future event. In sum, the distinction between present ability and future ability can be clearly seen in the following examples: He will be able to run faster next year (future ability). He can run faster next year (inappropriate). Their team can win the Cup next year (present ability to be actualized in the future). In conclusion, the differences between can and be able to are: - in the present tense, be able to indicates an accomplished task, unlike can; - be able to is mandatory for past time reference to indicate the accomplishment of an event; - there where the ability is with the subject rather than the circumstances, be able to is preferred; - a distinction is to be drawn between present ability that can accomplish something in the future (can), and future accomplishment (be able to); - be able to is more common in writing than in speech. 4.1.2. PERMISSION/DEONTIC CAN Since about the 18th century, it has been possible to use can in the sense of permission. Consider the following examples: You can go now. Can I

18

Modalization

Chapter 4 borrow your car; mine is broken. If you dont eat your meal, you cant have any cake. Residents can use the car-park without a ticket. In all these examples, the system of laws relative to which the statements are made represent the laws of society/social laws/institutional laws, and involve either a person/an institution which creates permission. This use of can is relatively recent and it is a case when can encroaches upon mays deontic territory. Until quite recently it has been fashionable for popular grammar books to state that it is incorrect to use can in contexts in which permission is given. Perkins gives the following example in this respect: Jack: Can I go out? Mum: Not can, may. Jack: Ok, may I go out? Mum: Sure you can. Many an English schoolchild has been rebuked for saying Can I? instead of May I?. Yet, in fact, can is more widely used than may as an auxiliary of permission in colloquial English, having the less specific meaning you have permission rather than I give you permission. On the other hand, can tends to be avoided in formal and polite usage in both written and spoken English, where may is felt to be the more respectable form. Nowadays can is no longer regarded as incorrect, but merely as a less polite version of may. This use of can may be extended from permission to strong recommendation as in: You can forget about your pocket money this week. Well, if he doesnt like it he can always lump it. Here the speaker is being ironical, offering somebody the choice of doing something that cannot be avoided, or of something no one would choose to do. If the context is such as to give rise to a sarcastic attitude in the speaker, then permission can is extended to mean quite the reverse of permission, approaching a brusque and somehow impolite command: You can leave me out of that silly list of yours, thank you very much. Syntactic behaviour 1. Negation when in the negative, can refuses permission, in the same manner as may not. Remark that mustnt and shant negate the situation i.e. they lay an obligation that a situation will not take place. There is also a possibility of negating the situation i.e. of giving permission not to act, as in You can NOT come, but this can be ambiguous unless cleared up by the context: You can come or you can not come, as you wish. 2. Interrogation in interrogative sentences, can is used to ask if the person addressed gives permission, being in some cases simply a matter of courtesy: Can I get you a drink? Can I ring you back?

Modalization

19

Chapter 4 A further contextual extension of permission is one in which the person addressed should act in order for the event to take place: Can I have the salt, please? 3. Past time and future time reference As a past form, could may occur in reported speech since it is evident that one cannot give permission in relation to past events: He said I could leave the next day. Could in the following examples is not a past form but a more polite way of asking for or granting permission: Could we go on to talk about modernist novels? For similar reasons, there can be no future expression of permission. Palmer shows that we can indicate that permission will be given by using the verb to permit: I shall permit you to. 4.1.3. POSSIBILITY/EPISTEMIC CAN Can is said to have a possibility interpretation when it indicates that, according to the laws of reason/rational laws, circumstances are such as not to preclude the truth of the asserted sentence: There can be only one outcome of nuclear war. Cigarettes can seriously damage your health. He cant be working at this late hour. Remark that can would not be used to refer to a sentence in the present which is known to be untrue: This can be a Toyota. *This can be a Toyota, but it is a Mercedes. Possibility can is more frequent in non-assertions i.e. negative and interrogative sentences, while in affirmative ones may is preferred: This may be true. Can this be true? This cant be true. Leech points out that it is not always easy to distinguish between possibility can and ability can since ability implies possibility. There are however some syntactic markers present in the context which lead to one interpretation rather than the other: CAN in the ability interpretation requires a human or at least an animate subject; the possibility interpretation is also available in those contexts in which the subject is inanimate: Lightning can be dangerous (the possibility is stated positively). Lightning may be dangerous (or not) (both possibilities are open); Passive sentences constitute another context that favours the interpretation towards a possibility sense. Contrast the following sentences: This game can be played by young children. (a clear possibility interpretation due to the passive construction) Young children can play this game (ambiguous between a possibility and an ability interpretation)

20

Modalization

Chapter 4

Constructions with impersonal subjects favour an epistemic reading for can: You can get quite lost in that metropolis. The interpretation of circumstantial possibility is more appropriate if there is a clear indication of the circumstances in which an event is possible: You can only get a job if youre good at it and you really want it. If they give you the sack, you can always come and work for me. The progressive aspectual form is a marker for epistemic interpretation: Shes pulling your leg; she cant be working at this hour. Its such a fishy situation that you can be standing on a bomb; so, handle it with care. Palmer distinguishes between She cant come (ability) and She cant be coming (possibility). With 2nd and 3rd person subjects, it is familiar though tactful imperative: Jack and Jill, you can be standing over there; and you, dear, can sit right beside me. It can be contrasted with the undemocratic, coercive shall. The perfect infinitive form is another marker of epistemic interpretation: Can I have made such a mistake? He can have been hiding from you at that time. The interpretation of possibility for can may be further extended in colloquial language to express a suggestion for future action: We can see about that tomorrow. Syntactic behaviour 1. Negation cant negates the modality (=it is not possible that), while may not negates the complement verb (=it is possible that not): He cant be at home (=it is not possible that he is). He may not be at home (=it is possible that he is not). If you saw a woman in front of the house, it cant have been Jennifer (it is not possible that it was Jennifer). They came back so quickly from their honeymoon that they cant have been too happy there. 2. Interrogation the epistemic interpretation is frequent, indicating uncertainty, bewilderment: Can it have been love that she was talking so excitedly about? Who can it be that bosses everybody around? 3. Past time reference can + perfect infinitive. Note that the perfect infinitive does not generally co-occur with deontic or ability modals: He just cant have made such a fool of himself. 4.1.4. RECURRENCE CAN

Modalization

21

Chapter 4 Can is often used to denote recurrence, the fact that a tendency in a person or thing is apt to manifest itself occasionally. Consider the sentences: Curiosity can kill. She can be so obliging when she chooses to. The examples above can have indicative paraphrases with adverbials like at times, sometimes, etc. Closest in meaning to the occasional can is characteristic will and customary, habitual would: She can/will/would spend hours on the internet. None of them refers to a specific time; however, while will and would imply regular/habitual activity, can suggests occasional behaviour. Note that can also occurs in certain adverbial clauses of degree which have the value of a superlative: She is as happy as can be (= very happy). The duty of a president is to serve the people as best he can. CONCLUSIONS In sum, the above analysis shows that the question about whether particular instances of can should be interpreted as ability, permission or possibility can be resolved by postulating an invariant core sense which may contextually interact with one or more of the three different systems of laws in which the circumstances are such as not to preclude an event (in the ability and permission interpretation) or the truth of a sentence (in the possibility interpretation). 4.2. GENERAL NOTES ON THE SECONDARY MODALS As briefly mentioned before, some grammarians speak of a common hypothetical meaning shared by the secondary modals, others of a formal/tentative one, while others view it simply as a problem of past time reference: O. Jespersen remarks that the modals could, might, would, should, ought to are identical in formal realization with the past tense counterparts of the primary modals, can, may, must, will, shall. His position is that the secondary modals do not indicate past time; instead, they indicate, what he calls, unreality, impossibility, improbability which, in his opinion, constitute an imaginative use of the past unreal, hypothetical tense which is thus devoid of temporal connotations (1931: 112, 114); G. Leech discusses the secondary modals as sharing a hypothetical meaning not present in the same degree in the primary ones. According to him, this meaning extends over three different areas: hypothetical permission (could, might)/volition (would)/possibility (could, might). He also establishes a connection between this hypothetical sense and the formal, polite use of the secondary modals (1971: 117). F.R. Palmer characterizes the common, unifying semantic feature of the secondary modals as tentativeness, saying that the secondary modals

22

Modalization

Chapter 4 have a more tentative epistemic or deontic interpretation than their primary modal correlates (1974: 127, 1979: 48); M. Perkins objects to all the above mentioned proposals and offers a unifying denominator for hypothetical, imaginative past, formal/polite, tentative, under the term conditional, which, he thinks, subsumes all these distinctions and points out the fact that the secondary modals presuppose the existence of a conditioning environment overtly marked, i.e. conditional clauses, indirect speech, past time reference. In his own words: Sometimes the condition will be realized formally as a conditional clause and sometimes it will be merely left implicit in the context of utterance; but no matter what its formal status might be, such a condition must always be present in some way or another. (1983: 51) 4.3. COULD The interpretations of could are essentially the same as those of can, the difference being one of conditionality: - ability could. Could may have an ability interpretation if it is the system of natural laws that is taken into consideration and, under a conditional reserve, the circumstances are such as not to preclude the occurrence of the event: I couldnt endure such behaviour. He could do it with the right moral support. If she tried harder, she could certainly do it. Note that the present conditional of a putea is the usual form in Romanian for these weakened modalities. In all examples, can may be substituted for could, the difference residing in the conditionality sense of could. As already stated, could can be used to indicate habitual ability, general possibility that resulted in a single occurrence, when be able to is preferred in statements while the rule is more relaxed in the negative or with verbs of perception: I could stand up and tell them my opinion whenever I wanted. He read the message but could not understand it. - permission could. It is frequent in 1st person requests as: Could I see your driving license? I wonder if I could borrow some money? Could we have something to drink? Sometimes could is used instead of could+perfect infinitive for past time reference, as in: She made a compromise. How could she do/have done otherwise? In all the examples but the last one, could may be replaced by can with a difference that Leech characterizes in the following manner: with could the speaker does not expect his plan to be granted, the negative

Modalization

23

Chapter 4 inference being but I dont suppose I may. Sometimes this negative assumption is overtly expressed in requests where the conditionality sense is explicit as in: I dont suppose I could talk to her. By extension, could will be used out of habit of politeness even in cases in which the speaker does not expect his request to be complied with. Notice that could may report both can and could used in direct speech: He said I could go can be the reported form of both You can go and You could go. A past time sphere and the rules of the sequence of tenses are the most common reasons for past-marking: He asked if he could use my phone. - epistemic could: You could not be put to prison for speaking against industry, but you can be sent to an asylum for speaking like a fool. What could have turned him so angry? Leech remarks that it is difficult to see any difference in the use of could and might in the epistemic interpretation, except in the negative form where couldnt is an instance of external negation and mightnt an instance of internal negation: He couldnt have said that. (Its not possible that he said that). He mightnt have said that (Its just possible that he did not say that) *Remark that the time sphere of epistemic could is present/extended present and future (polite suggestion for future action): There could be trouble at the Dinamo-Steaua match tomorrow. You could answer these messages for me. For past time reference, could+perfect infinitive is used: Could you have left your umbrella on the train? This construction can also lead to a contrary-to-fact interpretation or, also, complaint: They could have come when expected. You could have told me in advance. It should be pointed out that such statements can be ambiguous lest cleared by larger contexts as to the type of counter-factuality and the time reference. 4.3.1. SUBSTITUTES FOR CAN/COULD BE ABLE TO its use is compulsory in the following cases: - to supply non-finite forms (infinitive, participles). Note that it almost never has progressive and past forms, and it cannot be doubled by can/could since it would be pleonastic; - to form compound tenses;

24

Modalization

Chapter 4 - to avoid ambiguity for past time reference: He could have a picnic on Friday last (permission). Remember that for past continuous ability only could is available: She could speak English and so was able to direct the stranger to his hotel., while be able to is used to express an achievement, the result of an effort; compare: He went up onto the roof and was able to see the lake in the distance with From the window of his motel room, he could see as far as the bridge (possibility, no effort) MANAGE TO is often used to stress more effectively than be able to the notion of overcome difficulty; USED TO is preferred to could/was able to for habitual, frequent past action/state which no longer exists at the moment of speaking. It is more colloquial than be able to; ZERO CAN/COULD when followed by verbs of physical/mental perception/activity or emotions, they often lose the notional content becoming mere auxiliaries that should not be translated in Romanian: I cant understand what youre getting at. (Nu inteleg) BE SUPPOSED TO can be one of the most subtle ways of expressing interdiction in English: You are not supposed to enter this club if you are not its member. 4.3.2. CAN & COULD - ROUNDUP 1. CAN - present tense of modal can: ability characteristic capacity, competence, skill (exception recurrence can = sometimes it can be/happen that); possibility, supposition, logical deduction (=MAY); permission (= MAY): I am told you can tame any animal. People can often be very unfeeling. Can he belong to our group and me not having met him yet! Why cant you take your pills in time for a change? Can I use your phone? - past tense of modal can = can + perfect infinitive (true for any modal) (=past time + doubt, uncertainty, contrary-to-factness): I dont think he can have been so thoughtful. You can have met him some time ago; hes quite your age, isnt he? They cant have seen us in that pub, can they? - near future (as to the present, for ferm, precise statement or categorical request; with could, the speaker is more hesitant, polite, diffident): Can/Could you come to/and have lunch with us, say tomorrow? Can/Could you repeat, please? When can/could you bring the articles to be reviewed? They can/cant come to the meeting tomorrow.

Modalization

25

Chapter 4

*Note that when the future moment is more remote, there is an adverb of definite future time in the sentence (next week/month/year, when) and the future possibility depends on the ability, not on the circumstances (the ability has not yet been acquired), shall/will/ll be able to are the only choices, can expressing permission: Shell be able to speak (not CAN) several foreign languages when she has finished the interpreters course. Dont worry about her! When she has been coached long enough, shell be able (not CAN) to pass the entrance examination. - future (as to the past should/would be able to) I knew I should/would be able to meet them again. 2. COULD - past tense of modal can only when it expresses: general past permission (informal alternative for may): She knew she could do whatever she liked. - unfulfilled past possibility: He said he couldnt believe it when he was told the news. - past occasional ability: She could be a charming person, in spite of the moments when she lost her temper. The drug can be very effective in the treatment of pneumonia. - past general physical/intellectual ability: When young, he could speak Arabic like an Arab. Years ago, she could jog four miles in the morning, before going to work. - present indicative (the sequence of tenses, especially in indirect style): At his party, he said we could make as much noise as we wanted to, and we did. - could (not) for all negative/interrogative/negative-interrogative sentences with a past main verb. - future in the past of modal can: They said they could help us move in on Monday. - conditional/subjunctive moods: I could have told that myself. Hes put on weight, so he could take more exercise. If you could draw, you could have your name entered for the coming competition. I wish I could have had the chance to meet her. - could+perfect infinitive is used to express past ability not necessarily used, or a possibility not put to the test: You could have finished the text but insisted to leave. We could have offended them if we had omitted to send an invitation.

26

Modalization

Chapter 4 *Note that: - if there is no indication in the context as to the meaning of could, it can only express permission; - if there is no indication of mood, it is considered to be a conditional; - the pattern I can do it has the past form I was able to do it; I couldnt do it covers both the affirmative and the negative and can be interpreted as both a negative conditional (future reference) and a past tense (past reference); a larger context will clear the ambiguity; - when there is a specific past time adverbial (yesterday, two days ago, last week, at five oclock, then, when she saw them), be able to is preferred: John was able to have a picnic on Friday last. (could would signal permission)

Modalization

27

Applications 4.3.3. EXERCISES MEANINGS AND USES OF CAN/COULD I. Identify the meanings of can in the following sentences; choose between: a) physical / mental ability; b) theoretical possibility; c) permission / prohibition; d) request, invitation, offer, suggestion (indirect speech acts). You cant take these books home with you. She knows I cannot refuse her so she always asks for favours. Can it be true? It (simply) cant be true! What is done cannot be undone. There can be only one possible and terrifying outcome of this imminent war. He cant have meant to hurt her feelings as I know they are the best of friends. Who can be ringing so late at night? Can it be Jim, whos just got back from the States? What can she mean by that? Now I can understand what you mean to do. We can send you a confirmation of receipt, if you wish. The bus station is not very far; you can walk there; it takes you about five minutes. Can I have a look at those photos? You can call on me every time you feel like it. Im sorry I cant help you with your mathematics; I have no head for algebra. You can certainly give me a ring back to tell me when you come by. She can spend day after day in the library searching more data for her research paper. Can you pass me the sugar, please? We already know she can be unfriendly when she wants to. He cant not answer their polite request to forward the necessary details. We can try to solve that now or we can put it off for later. You cant have rejected such an attractive proposal if you know where your interest lies. II. Give reasons for using can/be able to in the following sentences; refer to the course whenever you need: If he still is the person I have known him to be, Im sure he will to provide quite decently for him and his family. I see her standing there alone, and I say that she felt embarrassed, to say a word. When she saw the bus, she ran as fast as she , but to get on. He made me so mad that in the state I was, I actually say things I knew I would regret later.

28

Modalization

Applications However harsh they were, they still wanted their son to always be honest and speak up his mind; he stand up and tell them his opinion whenever he wanted to. There was very little I say or do about the whole situation. What had been done be undone. They were so shocked, they hardly utter a word. I understand what he meant, but that did not necessarily mean that I agree with him. Look! As I have told you I dont know how many times, I do it on my own. When you are in your sixties, youll to say that you have had enough. III. Make sentences to illustrate the following meanings and uses of can-could/be able to: present physical/mental ability; past physical/mental ability; present ability to be actualized in future; accomplished task in the present; single accomplished past occurrence; single potential (not realized) task; habitual, recurrent past event; not accomplished past event; timeless future physical/mental ability; physical/mental ability to be actualized at a specific future moment; description of present/past characteristic features of people/events; possible event/situation; asking for/granting present/past/future permission; strong recommendation; circumstantial possibility (if, you can)/(so that X can/could); present/past occasional, recurrent, habitual behaviour (the same as WILL/WOULD); past possibility not put to the test/unfulfilled past possibility; reproach for past actions; offers, requests, suggestions, invitations. IV. Translate into English and give reasons for your choices: M tem c nu neleg prea mult din ce spune; ori nu sunt n stare s urmresc nimic pentru c sunt obosit, ori vorbitorul nu i-a structurat prea bine discursul. Sunt nou n ora. Credei c m-ai putea ajuta s gsesc sediul Institutului de cercetri? Sugerm s ne oprim deocamdat, dar am putea continua mine la aceeai or. Credei c vom putea termina suficient de repede pentru a trimite la timp documentele? mi amintesc c era o vreme cnd puteam petrece zile ntregi fr s obosim. S fie oare vrsta? Nu se poate! Am s fiu n stare s-l bat la table cnd voi avea mai mult experien. Putem s gzduim urmtoarea conferin la Galai, vara viitoare. Am putea s trimitem invitaiile chiar sptmna viitoare.

Modalization

29

Applications Din fericire, mi-am fcut muli prieteni de cnd m-am mutat n acest ora. tii ct de greu poate fi la nceput. Dac te concediaz, poi oricnd s vii la firma noastr. tiu ct de ncredere poi fi i chiar a dori s ni te poi altura. n ce privete medicamentul acesta, se tie c poate fi foarte folositor n tratamentul pneumoniei; nu se poate s fi refuzat administrarea lui. Iari vorbete la telefon! Cu cine o mai fi vorbind i de data asta? A putea s pariez c e vreuna din prietenele ei cu care poate vorbi ore ntregi fr s se plictiseasc. Nu se poate s fi venit la ntrunire; a fi observat-o i sigur m-a fid us s vorbesc cu ea. tiu ct de jignit se poate simi cnd nu este bgat n seam. Spune c ar putea termina lucrarea de ndat ce intr n posesia tuturor articolelor de specialitate care s-au publicat n ultimii doi ani. A spus c ar putea termina lucrarea de ndat ce intr n posesia tuturor articolelor de specialitate care s-au publicat n ultimii doi ani. Nu-mi dau seama ce urmrete; s-ar putea s intenioneze s nfiineze o societate de asigurri. Dei poate fi nesuferit uneori, i-a cerut scuze c n-a putut ajunge la timp din cauza unui blocaj n traffic. Ai fi putut s-mi spui i mie despre brourile pe care le-ai luat de la agenia de voiaj; mi-a fi fcut o idee mai clar despre condiiile pe care le ofer. Vezi silueta acea care se apropie? Dac reueti s recunoti persoana, poi s-mi spui i mie cine este, pentru c nu vd nimic cu ochelarii tia noi; a fi putut la fel de bine s m lipsesc de ei. Poi s crezi c parlamentul ar fi putut vota o asemenea lege care s afecteze interesele bolnavilor? Dac au reuit s-i conving s intre n proiect, este pentru c ei chiar sunt n stare s-l duc la bun sfrit. Cercettorii din domeniu s-au strduit s obin un nou medicament care s fie ct mai eficient, astfel nct bolnavii s poat spera ntr-o nsntoire rapid.

30

Modalization