CO Limba Engleza, Anul 2

8/3/2019 CO Limba Engleza, Anul 2

1/56

Dunarea de Jos University of GalatiFaculty of LettersDepartment of English Language and Literature

Aspects of Modalityand

Modal Verbs

Optional Course in English Language

for 2nd Year Students

Associate Professor Steluta Stan, PhD

Galati

2008

CONTENTS

1


2/56

Chapter 1 Aspects of Modality in English3

Chapter 2 Context and Modality52.1. Context and Modality5

2.2. Expressions of Modality. Some examples7

Chapter 3 Modals Verbs93.1. Syntactic Behaviour93.2. Modals and Tenses10

Chapter 4 Meanings and Uses of the English Modal Verbs12

4.1. CAN 124.1.1. Ability CAN

124.1.2. Permission/Deontic CAN

154.1.3. Possibility/Epistemic CAN

164.1.4. Recurrence CAN 17

4.2. General Notes on the Secondary Modals184.3. COULD 19

4.3.1. Substitutes for CAN/COULD20

4.3.2. CAN/COULD Roundup20

4.3.3. Exercises Meanings and Uses ofCAN/COULD224.4. MAY 25

4.4.1. Permission MAY 254.4.2. Epistemic MAY

254.4.3. Ability/Capability MAY 25

4.5. MIGHT 264.5.1. Epistemic MIGHT

26

4.5.2. Deontic MIGHT 274.5.3. Ability MIGHT

274.5.4. Exercises Meanings and Uses ofMAY/MIGHT

274.6. MUST 29

4.6.1. Epistemic MUST 294.6.2. Deontic MUST

314.6.3. MUST Roundup 334.6.4. Exercises Meanings and Uses ofMUST

354.7. SHALL 374.7.1. Epistemic SHALL 37

2


3/56

4.7.2. Deontic SHALL374.8. SHOULD38

4.8.1. Epistemic SHOULD39

4.8.2. Deontic SHOULD 394.8.3. SHOULD in Indirect Speech Acts

404.8.4. Exercises Meanings and Uses ofSHALL/SHOULD40

4.9. WILL 424.9.1. Volition/Deontic WILL 424.9.2. Power WILL

444.9.3. Epistemic WILL 44

4.10. WOULD45

4.10.1. WOULD for Past Time Reference464.10.2. WOULD for Present Time Sphere

464.10.3. WOULD as an Irrealis Marker

474.10.4. WOULD in Indirect Speech Acts

474.10.5. WILL/WOULD Roundup

48

Chapter 1 Aspects of Modality in English

Central to discussions on modality are the notions ofpossibility, necessityand impossibility; logicians and philosophers, ever since Aristotle, havedefined these notions together with the relations which may be perceived toexist 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 thenotion from different starting points, asking different questions on the basisof different theoretical assumptions; in each case, the nature of the questionposed and of the goals set have led to different answers, i.e. differentdescriptions.

A first attempt may be to consider the type of mental attitude andexperience that involves the notions of possibility, necessity andimpossibility. Michael Perkins says in Modal Expressions in English:

To put it quite simply, it would appear that such notions areconceptually grounded on the fact that human beings often think andbehave as though things might be or might have been other than theyactually are (or were). Such a worldview appears to constitute an

essential part of the fabric of our everyday lives. For example, the factthat it is raining, that the car has broken down and that I am late for

3


4/56

work does not prevent me from imagining myself arriving at work ontime [] in a quietly purring car in brilliant sunshine. (1983)

To talk about things being otherwise than they actually are is to talk aboutALTERNATIVE, about conceivable though not actual states of affairs; suchtalk 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 theirlogical counterparts is based. Although the modal systems used by logicianscannot adequately explain the behaviour of modal expressions in thelanguage, they can, nevertheless, serve as a basis for understanding howmodality works in natural languages.

So, in Perkinss example above, the fact that it is raining, that the carhas broken down and that the speaker is late for work pertain to the actualstate off affairs. A possible alternative course of events is a world in whichthe speaker conceives himself arriving in time, in brilliant sunshine, in aperfectly functioning car. We can say that to conceive of something beingotherwise is to conceive its being real in some non-actual world or in somestate of the actual world at a point in time other than the present. M. Perkinsremarks 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. Talkabout possible worlds is noteworthy in so far as they are contrastedwith and relative to the current, actual world. To say that Mary oughtto 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 interactswith other people, she is loyal.

No need to stress the fact that what ought to happen is not exactly whatactually happens, which means that moral statements do not derive fromexamples, rather they are grounded on a system of duties which reside inhuman reason.

Perkins shows that there are three general systems of principlesthat can be involved when one studies the modalities:

1. Firstly, there are the modalities which conform to the rational laws of

deduction. They are concerned with the interpretation of the worldvia the laws of human reason. They are known as EPISTEMICMODALITY.

The term epistemic derives from episteme, the Greek word forknowledge. Perkins aptly points out that, in fact, the key concept whichunderlies modality is the state of lack of knowledge. To know thatsomething is the case means that it, actually, is the case; of course, thereare cases when one can know something and be mistaken, but then,ones knowledge is no longer knowledge. But to be certain (an epistemicmodality) that something is the case does not mean that it really is thecase.2. The secondset ofprinciples concerning modalities is defined in termsofsocial/institutional laws. These are of two general kinds:

4


5/56

a) On the one hand, are those laws explicitly involving some legalauthority or institution

b) On the other hand, are the usually less formal laws relating tosocial status, according to which one person may be said to havepersonal authority over another; in fact, there is no absolutedividing line between the two. The modalities that conform to

social laws regard the sphere of duty, compulsion, order,command, instruction, appropriateness, and are known asDEONTIC MODALITY.

3. The third set of principles concerning modalities has in view therelationship between actual (empirical) circumstances or states ofaffairs, and the states of affairs that follow from them in accordancewith natural laws (the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, anatomyetc.) These modalities define the notion of capacity (physical orintellectual).

The three general systems of principles (rational/the laws of reason,social/the laws of society, natural/the laws of nature) define threedifferent types of states of affairs/worlds. There are three envisageablecourses of events conceived as alternatives to the actual world; they formthe theoretical background against which the nature of the English modalexpressions will be determined.

5


6/56

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 aspeech act which involves a series of logical hierarchical choices of thelinguistic elements at his disposal, which will best suit his communicativeintentions.

Communication and language production being organically bound tohuman beings and extra-linguistic situations, any adequate description ofutterances should account for the relationships between

the real-world extra-linguistic context 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 andexplanations, one must refer to many levels of language; not only thesuperficial (surface) syntactic environment and the logical semanticstructure, but also the social contextin which the discourse occurs must bebrought into consideration.

Many linguists have lately felt a real need for a theory ofpragmaticsin addition to syntax and semantics, to maintain a proper balance betweenthe syntactic, the semantic and the pragmatic factors involved in the use ofutterances in natural languages. In his study, Pragmatics and theDescription of Discourse, Charles Fillmore has defined syntax, semanticsand pragmatics and their interrelation as follows:

SYNTAX as form characterizes the grammatical forms that occur in alanguage: the structural organization of sentences and the co-occurrence possibilities among lexical items in particular kinds ofgrammatical constructions.

SEMANTICS as form+function relates the grammatical forms withtheir potential communicative functions, that is with what users of alanguage can do with these forms, in terms of the propositionalcontent they can be used to express, as well as the speech acts theycan be used to perform.

PRAGMATICS as form+function+context is concerned with therelation between linguistic forms, their communicative functions andthe contexts/settings in which given linguistic forms have givenfunctions.

Fillmore has emphasized an idea which is old in anthropology and philology,namely the necessity to contextualize, to anchor utterances in some socialsystem as a condition for understanding how they can be used, under whatcircumstances, the role they can play in on-going conversations, etc.

It is in the discourse context that one can best see what theparticipants are doing and what they are experiencing. The discourse rules, asubset of which is referred to as conversation rules, govern the conditionsunder which it is appropriate to perform one type of illocutionary act; also,they determine what answers qualify as appropriate responses to a certain

6


7/56

act. Therefore, the concepts ofpragmatics and contextualization have greatrelevance for the applied linguist, for the contrastive analyst, for secondlanguage teaching/learning and also for translation and interpretation.

If one is to teach/learn second language use successfully, he must:

1. identify the situation in which certain forms and syntactic configuration

are usable in his language.2. determine the means by which the target language makes thesedistinctions, and

3. pair the two, although in terms of surface syntax the two languagesmight appear very different. Similarly, a translators task is compound:in addition to merely translating words and ideas, he must transposecontextual social and cultural concepts, contexts that are strictlyspeaking extra-linguistic.

To be more specific, besides syntactic and semantic elements, pragmaticfactors are clearly involved in the use and choice of modal expressions.

The rules that enable one to define and classify them, to account fortheir often peculiar behaviour, to tell whether they are appropriately usedand determine that use, are also to be found in the area of pragmatics, inthe 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, betweena modal and a lexical/cognate verb or between a modal and anidiom/apparent paraphrase is a good example to consider.

MUST and SHOULD in their epistemic sense are often taken togetherunder the labelprobably/likelyand 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. Noticethat in the following sentences only one Romanian modal corresponds to thetwo English verbs:You must/*should1 be out of your mind! Trebuie sa fii scrantit/ca nu estiintreg la minte!We should/*must get there before dark. Ar trebui sa ajungem la cabanainainte de a se intuneca.

Both CAN and MAY partake of the notion of possibility, yet what isdescribed as possible by the former is different from what is described aspossible by the latter. They are not exact, interchangeable equivalents and

there are contexts where the use of one is appropriate, while the others isnot. Can is closer to logical possibilityand is paraphrasable in English by it is

1 incorrect

7


8/56

possible for to, while mayis closer to epistemic possibilitycorrespondingto 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 toI 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 andtheir paraphrases. Until recently, they were regarded as perfect synonyms,the paraphrases existing only to fill the syntactic gaps where the simplemodals were not available. But, if we consider the following sentences, weshall easily notice that there are semantic distinctions and differences indistribution 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 maybe opposed to the idea.

In Romanian the modal a putea does not make the performative/non-performative distinction; the phrase, a da voie, a-ti fi permis, is chiefly usedto 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 aveavoie, may also be used both performatively, ai voie (de la mine) sa fumeziand non-performatively, ai voie (de la tatal tau) sa fumezi.

Consider also:

a) You must go now. Trebuie sa pleci acum.b) You have to go now. Trebuie sa pleci acumc) 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) seemscloser to b). Romanian uses one modal, a trebui, for all the modalexpressions used in the above English sentences, and does not make thedistinction between obligation imposed by the speaker and obligationderived from other constraints.

In conclusion, from the modal expressions available to him, a speakerwill choose what will best suit his communicative intentions in a particularcontextual situation. Hence the importance of pragmatic elements, inaddition to the syntactic and semantic ones, for an adequate interpretationof modal expressions.

2.2. Expressions of Modality. Some Examples

8


9/56

At the level of linguistic manifestation, one can identify a set of modalexpressions on the basis of their shared semantic characteristics previouslydiscussed; in point of their syntax, the different modal expressions belong todifferent 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 thefact that they appear to express the same type of meaning, realizing theconceptual sphere of the three systems of law discussed above: rational,social and natural.

9


10/56

Chapter 3 Modals Verbs

3.1. Syntactic Behaviour

From the point of view of their surface syntactic behaviour, the Englishmodals do not constitute a uniform class; a sub-class of what might be calledpure/syntactic modals includes such items as CAN, COULD, MAY, MIGHT,WILL, WOULD, SHALL, SHOULD and MUST.

Some grammarians also consider a class ofmodal candidates involvingsuch verbs as seem, tend, happen and, possibly, believe, know, insist,advise, as well as cause and make. The subcategory of modals that isintermediate between the pure modals and the modal candidates isgenerally referred to as quasi-/semi-modals/modal paraphrases andtraditionally includes items as dare, need, ought to, have to, be to, be goingto, 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 anargument to characterize them as auxiliaries or semi-/quasi-auxiliaries. It hasbeen assumed, among other things, that the English modals are main verbsin the deep structure and this unverblike behaviour is due to what E. Baracalls history-specific development of the English language (Bara 1979).These features are:

1. they do not take the concord morpheme s on the 3rd person, singular,present tense (do not participate in number agreement);

2. they do not have non-finite forms (infinitives, participles);3. they occupy the leftmost position in the verb phrase (may leave, must

be reading, will have been told);4. they do not co-occur in constructions like *must can, *will may, *shall

must

However, the grammaticality of the following examples shows that conceptssuch as possibility, obligation, permission, ability are not necessarilymutually exclusive: You may need to/have to call again, where maysignalsepistemic possibility and need/have to deontic necessity. It is possible,therefore, to have a combination of modalities in a sentence, but theycannot, in general, be both expressed by syntactic modals.

5. they do not allow do-support;

6. they invert with the subject in interrogation;7. they can be directly negated by not;8. they are complemented by a verb in its infinitive form.

The treatment ofought to, be to, have to, used to, dare and need variesfrom author to author; however, here are some of their most importantfeatures:

1. OUGHT TO is considered not to belong to the true verb category inthe surface structure because it cannot pass the test for verbs, being asyntactic modal with idiosyncratic surface behaviour. In present-day

(American) English, ought to is very often reduced to otta, mainly butnot exclusively, in the spoken language.

10


11/56

2. 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 andnot occupy the leftmost position in the VP: Worse still may be to come.

3. HAVE TO agrees in person and number (have, has) and has past tense

syntax. In interrogation, it may both invert with the subject, like thesyntactic 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 notor allows do-support: Hadnt you got to do it? Didnt you have to do it?

4. USED TO is in present-day English a very defective verb, having onepast form for all persons, two possible negative forms (usedn/t to,didnt use to), two possible interrogative forms (used you to?, did youuse to?). Note that the forms with do-support seem to be morecommon.

5. DARE, as well as NEED, displays a formal behaviour that ischaracteristic of both syntactic modals and ordinary verbs, without anysignificant difference in meaning. The most common terms used forthem are pseudo-/quasi-modals. Their use as syntactic modals isrelatively rare in British English and even more restricted in AmericanEnglish.a) dare behaves like a regular verb in the affirmative (dare/dares inthe present, dared in the past). It should be pointed out that it is notmuch used in the affirmative except, perhaps, in the expression I

daresay, only with the 1st person singular. In the negative andinterrogative it may appear either as an ordinary verb or a syntactic

modal: Do you/does he dare? Dare you/he? Negative and interrogativeforms with do/does/didare in theory followed by the to-infinitive, but inpractice the to is often omitted: He doesnt dare (to) say it right (in)tomy face.*Note that when it is used with the meaning to challenge, dare is anordinary transitive verb: I dare you to fill in for me and see how hard itis.b)needmay also occur either as an uninflected syntactic modal or asan inflected regular verb: in positive statements the true verb iscommonly used, while in negations and questions both forms arepossible: I need/needed to go. They need not go/dont need to go.

Need you go?/ Do/Did you need to go?*Notice that the complement verb following needmay be used eitherin the long or the short infinitive, except after the inflected formsneeds and needed, when the to-infinitive is always used. When needisused with the meaning to require, it is a perfectly regular transitiveverb: 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) asseen by such grammarians as O. Jespersen, G. Leech, F.R. Palmer is based

11


12/56

on a semantic dimension of meaning present in the secondary modals andpossessed only to a minimal degree by the primary ones.

Some grammarians speak of a common hypothetical meaning sharedby the secondary modals (Leech), others of a formal/tentative meaning(Palmer), while most traditional ones view it simply as a problem ofpasttime reference (Jespersen). But speakers of English seldom recognize

them as an indication of past time. They are rather felt as markers ofsome kind of remoteness from the reality immediately perceptible at themoment of encoding.

Tentativeness, for example, is understood as a more remotepossibility, a more tentative probability, a lower degree of certainty: Theymight be telling the truth (although I very much doubt that).

A special type of remoteness is unreality or counterfactuality: I toldyou time and time again not to drive so fast; you might have had anaccident.

*Notice that, taken out of the context, might have hadis ambiguous; itcan express both tentative possibility and counterfactuality (contrary-to-reality).

Nevertheless, there are cases when these forms may be used toexpress earlierness in time. This happens when the time sphere is past andisindicated by a deictic marker or an introductory verb in the past tense, inwhich 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 chaptersdedicated to each modal.

The perfect marker have-en can also indicate counterfactualpossibility: 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 abilitymodalities; they can only appear with epistemic meanings. This isbecause epistemic modality is related to speaker-now and doesnot have tense itself. One exception may be deontic mustwhich hasno corresponding past/oblique forms: Applicants for this position musthave 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 perfectmarker on the complement verb (perfect infinitive) it is the latter whichsignals past.

Things are different with simple deontic or ability modals. We cantsay: She can have smokedand mean She was able to smoke.

When have-en co-occurs with past/oblique forms of the modals, itindicates past time, thus permitting the modals to signal tentativeness orunreality/non-fulfillment.

*Note that neither dare not nor used to can occur with thisconstruction, whereas needcan: I neednt have invited him over; hes such a

bore.

12


13/56

The progressive marker be-ing can combine with modals, but withcertain restrictions referring to those verbs that cannot be usually usedin the progressive aspect (know, resemble, understandetc.)Sometimes the be-ing morpheme may distinguish between possibleand permissive MAY: I think they may be visiting some relatives inBucharest; 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 tooccur with the be-ing marker: I shouldnt be talking to you. I dont even knowyou.

To conclude, the preferred or dominant interpretation in thiscombination is the epistemic reading, but it is by no means the onlypossible.

13


14/56

Chapter 4 Meanings and Uses of the English Modal Verbs

Before dealing with each of the modal verbs previously mentioned, we feelbound to sum up the basic meanings they occur with:

a. logical/epistemic modalities expressing possibility, probability,

virtual certainty;b. deontic modalities signaling permission, obligation, necessity;c. ability/dynamic modalities expressing potentiality, capability.

In actual use, however, the modals appear with many overtones, shades ofmeaning and degrees of intensity that can only be identified in the discoursecontext. The meanings of the modals will be distinguished from the speechacts they may be used to perform. Thus, with the literal meanings mentionedabove 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 differsfrom 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 apolysemous word having three different senses: the ability sense (bothphysical 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 distinguishbetween ability can,possibility can (epistemic modality), andpermission can(deontic modality).

4.1.1. ABILITYCAN

He doesnt trust too many people, but he cannot resist his littlegrandson. Can you feel the tension between them? The present study ismeant to show evidence that infants can and do solve problems at arelatively simple perceptual level. They cant speak a word of English butthey can make themselves understood.

The subject of all these sentences is animate, as questions of ability rise onlyin connection with animate creatures. In all these examples, can may bereplaced by be able to. There is no such perfect equivalence between thetwo, but it has been claimed that there are conditions that favour the use ofbe able to rather than can.

As given by F.R. Palmer, these conditions are:

1. Since can has no non-finite forms, only be able to is available afterother modal verbs: might be/should be/has got to be/must be able toetc.;

2. Be able to is a little more formal than can, and its occurrence is muchgreater in written texts;

14


15/56

3. Be able to is preferred if the TR (time reference) of the sentence ispresent, to indicate that the subject accomplishes the task: In this waywe 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 (notcould) the train.

*Note that in the negative, the sentence I ran fast but couldnt catchthe bus is correct.

As the examples indicate, can and be able to are not always freelyinterchangeable. What it should also be remembered is that if there is anintention 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 Kendemonstrated his ability to drive, and that a similar occurrence may happenagain. 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 canhear voices telling her to save France, we can conclude that, instead ofdifferent senses of the modal can, we can speak about different possibleenvironments of it. The contribution ofcan to the meaning of the sentenceseems to be to relate the event referred to to some external circumstancewhich 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 toindicate different speech acts. Consider some examples in which can isused contextually to indicate that action should be taken:

1. with 1st person pronouns, I or exclusive we, can is used to make anoffer: We can also give you a copy of the document if you wish. I cantell you the truth if you will hear it.

2. with 3rd person pronouns, where the speaker speaks on behalf ofsomeone else, but it is not clear if the initiative is his or not: Ill sendhim to see what he can do and then he can call you.

3. with a 2nd person pronoun it suggests that action be taken by theperson addressed: You can certainly give me a call back tonight.If the context is an interrogative one, then can with you does notfunction as a question about the addressees capacity to carry out theaction, but as a request that he do so: Can you hold on? Can you giveme a hand with this?

4. ifwe is used inclusively, it combines offer and suggestion: Do comeearly and we can have a drink.

5. can occurs with verbs of mental cognition like understand, remember,think, stand, bear, be bothered: He can never really believe that whensomebody takes a drug it is actually going to harm him. What you canremember out of his speech is what really matters. Can you see mewearing something like that?

15


16/56

Such examples represent contextual extensions of ability can, possibleenvironments of it.Syntactic behaviour

a) negationUsually 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 intoconsideration the fact that they werent able/were unable to elaborateon the matter at stake.But Palmer shows that it is also possible to negate the event by usingemphatic not: We can/cant not go. Such forms are a little more naturalwith always, just, simply: We can always/simply/just not go, cant we?

b) interrogation both can and be able to occur in interrogativesentences.

c) past time reference - As already stated, the affirmative past tenseform for accomplished tasks is was/were able to. Nevertheless, Palmerdiscusses some cases in which couldis used instead:

when an accomplishment is a matter ofpotentiality, not ofrealized task: In the state she was she could actually killsomeone.

in contexts in which a habitual, recurrent event is intended,could is the rule: I could stand up and tell them my opinionwhenever I wanted to.

couldntoccurs in all types of negative contexts to indicate thatan event was not accomplished: Only when he died, his wife

realized she could not live without him. A negative meaning ofthe entire context favours couldwith the same interpretation ofnon-accomplished task: He could hardly breathe, let alonespeak. One moment she seemed to be everything to him, andthen all he could think of was his career.Couldis also used with negative items like hardly, scarcely,little,

nearly which create an overall negative context: Little could hemake out of the text he was given for analysis.

the past time reference ofcan with sensation verbs is formed byusing could: From where I stood, I could see the moon. I couldunderstand all he said.

d) future time referenceCan, as shown above, does not indicate an event that takes place now;it merely indicates that circumstances are such as not to preclude suchan eventuality: Youll go to Ireland any time you like as long as you canget a good job there. Therefore, the temporal sphere ofcan is presentand extended present. The modal verb can be marked as future bywill/shall be able to: When youre in your eighties youll be able to saythat you are old and wise. Well be able to save an awful lot of money byliving there.

Provided the possibility is timeless, can may relate to a specific futureevent. In sum, the distinction between present ability and futureability can be clearly seen in the following examples: He will be able to

16


17/56

run faster next year (future ability). He can run faster next year(inappropriate). Their team can win the Cup next year(present ability tobe actualized in the future).

In conclusion, the differences between can and be able to are:

o in the present tense, be able to indicates an accomplished task,unlike can;

o be able to is mandatory for past time reference to indicate theaccomplishment of an event;

o there where the ability is with the subject rather than thecircumstances, be able to is preferred;

o a distinction is to be drawn between present ability that canaccomplish something in the future (can), and future accomplishment(be able to);

o 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 ofpermission. Consider the following examples: You can go now. Can I borrowyour car; mine is broken. If you dont eat your meal, you cant have anycake. Residents can use the car-park without a ticket.

In all these examples, the system of laws relative to which thestatements are made represent the laws of society/social laws/institutionallaws, and involve either a person/an institution which creates permission.

This use ofcan is relatively recent and it is a case when can encroachesupon mays deontic territory. Until quite recently it has been fashionable forpopular grammar books to state that it is incorrect to use can in contexts inwhich permission is given. Perkins gives the following example in thisrespect:

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 ofMay I?. Yet, in fact, can is more widely used than may as an auxiliary ofpermission in colloquial English, having the less specific meaning you havepermission rather than I give you permission.

On the other hand, can tends to be avoided in formal and polite usagein both written and spoken English, where may is felt to be the morerespectable form. Nowadays can is no longer regarded as incorrect, butmerely as a less polite version ofmay. This use ofcan may be extended frompermission to strong recommendation as in: You can forget about yourpocket 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 doingsomething that cannot be avoided, or of something no one would choose todo.

17


18/56

If the context is such as to give rise to a sarcastic attitude in thespeaker, then permission can is extended to mean quite the reverse ofpermission, approaching a brusque and somehow impolite command: Youcan leave me out of that silly list of yours, thank you very much.

Syntactic behaviour

a) negation when in the negative, can refuses permission, in the samemanner as may not. Remark that mustnt and shant negate thesituation 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 givingpermission not to act, as in You can NOT come, but this can beambiguous unless cleared up by the context: You can come or you cannot come, as you wish.

b) interrogation in interrogative sentences, can is used to ask if theperson addressed gives permission, being in some cases simply amatter of courtesy: Can I get you a drink? Can I ring you back?A further contextual extension of permission is one in which the personaddressed should act in order for the event to take place: Can I have

the salt, please?

c) past time and future time reference as a past form, couldmayoccur in reported speech since it is evident that one cannot givepermission in relation to past events: He said I could leave the nextday.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 aboutmodernist 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 oneoutcome of nuclear war. Cigarettes can seriously damage your health. Hecant be working at this late hour.

Remark that can would not be used to refer to a sentence in thepresent which is known to be untrue: This can be a Toyota. *This can be aToyota, but it is a Mercedes.

Possibility can is more frequent in non-assertions i.e. negative andinterrogative sentences, while in affirmative ones may is preferred: Thismay be true. Can this be true? This cant be true.

Leech points out that it is not always easy to distinguish betweenpossibilitycan and ability can since ability implies possibility. There arehowever some syntactic markers present in the context which lead to oneinterpretation rather than the other:

18


19/56

o CAN in the ability interpretation requires a human or at least ananimate subject; the possibility interpretation is also available inthose contexts in which the subject is inanimate: Lightning can bedangerous (the possibility is stated positively). Lightning may bedangerous (or not) (both possibilities are open);

o Passive sentences constitute another context that favours the

interpretation towards a possibility sense; contrast the followingsentences: This game can be played by young children. (a clearpossibility interpretation due to the passive construction) Youngchildren can play this game (ambiguous between a possibility andan ability interpretation)

o Constructions with impersonal subjects favour an epistemic readingfor can: You can get quite lost in that metropolis.o The interpretation ofcircumstantial possibilityis more appropriate ifthere is a clear indication of the circumstances in which an event ispossible: 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 andwork for me.o The progressive aspectual form is a marker for epistemicinterpretation: Shes pulling your leg; she cant be working at thishour. 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 cantbe coming (possibility). With 2nd and 3rd person subjects, it is familiarthough 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.o The perfect infinitive form is another marker of epistemicinterpretation: Can I have made such a mistake? He can have beenhiding from you at that time.o The interpretation of possibility for can may be further extendedin colloquial language to express a suggestion for future action: Wecan see about that tomorrow.

Syntactic behaviour

a) negation cantnegates the modality (=it is not possible that), whilemay notnegates 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 (itis not possible that it was Jennifer).They came back so quickly from their honeymoon that they cant have

been too happy there.

b) interrogation the epistemic interpretation is frequent, indicatinguncertainty, bewilderment: Can it have been love that she was talking

so excitedly about? Who can it be that bosses everybody around?

19


20/56

c) past time reference can + perfect infinitive. Note that the perfectinfinitive does not generally co-occur with deontic or ability modals: Hejust cant have made such a fool of himself.

4.1.4. RECURRENCE CAN

Can is often used to denote recurrence, the fact that a tendency in aperson or thing is apt to manifest itself occasionally. Consider thesentences: Curiosity can kill. She can be so obliging when she chooses to.

The examples above can have indicative paraphrases with adverbialslike at times, sometimes, etc. Closest in meaning to the occasional can ischaracteristic will and customary, habitual would: She can/will/wouldspend hours on the internet. None of them refers to a specific time;however, while will and would imply regular/habitual activity, cansuggests occasional behaviour. Note that can also occurs in certainadverbial clauses of degree which have the value of a superlative: She isas happy as can be (= very happy). The duty of a president is to servethe people as best he can.

CONCLUSIONS

In sum, the above analysis shows that the question about whether particularinstances of can should be interpreted as ability, permission orpossibility can be resolved by postulating an invariant core sense whichmay contextually interact with one or more of the three different systems oflaws in which the circumstances are such as not to preclude an event (in theability and permission interpretation) or the truth of a sentence (in thepossibility interpretation).

4.2. GENERAL NOTES ON THE SECONDARY MODALS

As briefly mentioned before, some grammarians speak of a commonhypothetical meaning shared by the secondary modals, others of aformal/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 tensecounterparts of the primary modals, can, may, must, will, shall. Hisposition 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 ofthe past unreal, hypothetical tense which is thus devoid of temporalconnotations (1931: 112, 114);

G. Leech discusses the secondary modals as sharing a hypotheticalmeaning not present in the same degree in the primary ones.According to him, this meaning extends over three different areas:

20


21/56

hypothetical permission (could, might)/volition(would)/possibility (could, might). He also establishes aconnection between this hypothetical sense and the formal, politeuse of the secondary modals (1971: 117).

F.R. Palmer characterizes the common, unifying semantic feature ofthe secondary modals as tentativeness, saying that the secondary

modals have a more tentative epistemic or deontic interpretation thantheir primary modal correlates (1974: 127, 1979: 48);

M. Perkins objects to all the above mentioned proposals and offers aunifying denominator for hypothetical, imaginative past,formal/polite, tentative, under the term conditional, which, hethinks, subsumes all these distinctions and points out the fact that thesecondary modals presuppose the existence of a conditioningenvironment 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 ofutterance; but no matter what its formal status might be, such acondition must always be present in some way or another. (1983: 51)

4.3. COULD

The interpretations of couldare essentially the same as those of can, thedifference 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 aconditional reserve, the circumstances are such as not to precludethe occurrence of the event: I couldnt endure such behaviour. Hecould do it with the right moral support. If she tried harder, she couldcertainly 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 ofcould. As already stated, couldcanbe used to indicate habitual ability, general possibility that resulted in a

single occurrence, when be able to is preferred in statements while the ruleis more relaxed in the negative or with verbs of perception: I could stand upand tell them my opinion whenever I wanted. He read the message but couldnot understand it.

- permission could. It is frequent in 1st person requests as: Could I seeyour driving license? I wonder if I could borrow some money? Could wehave 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 doneotherwise?

In all the examples but the last one, couldmay be replaced by can with

a difference that Leech characterizes in the following manner: with couldthe speaker does not expect his plan to be granted, the negative inferencebeing but I dont suppose I may. Sometimes this negative assumption is

21


22/56

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 incases in which the speaker does expect his request to be complied with.Notice that couldmay report both can and couldused in direct speech: Hesaid 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

couldand mightin the epistemic interpretation, except in the negative formwhere couldnt is an instance of external negation and mightnt aninstance ofinternal negation: He couldnt have said that. (Its not possiblethat he said that). He mightnt have said that(Its just possible that he didnot say that)

*Remark that the time sphere of epistemic could is thepresent/extended present and the future (polite suggestion for futureaction): There could be trouble at the Dinamo-Steaua match tomorrow.Youcould answer these messages for me.

For past time reference, could+perfect infinitive is used: Could youhave 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 toldme in advance.

It should be pointed out that such statements can be ambiguous lestcleared by larger contexts as to the type of counter-factuality and the timereference.

4.3.1. SUBSTITUTES FOR CAN/COULD

1. 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 bedoubled by can/couldsince it would be pleonastic;

to form compound tenses; to avoid ambiguity for past time reference: He could have a

picnic on Friday last(permission).Remember that for past continuous ability only could isavailable: She could speak English and so was able to direct thestranger to his hotel., while be able to is used to express anachievement, the result of an effort; compare: He went up ontothe roof and was able to see the lake in the distance with Fromthe window of his motel room, he could see as far as the bridge(possibility, no effort)

2. MANAGE TO is often used to stress more effectively than be able to

the notion ofovercome difficulty;

22


23/56

3. USED TO is preferred to could/was able to for habitual, frequent pastaction/state which no longer exists at the moment of speaking. It ismore colloquial than be able to;

4. ZERO CAN/COULD when followed by verbs of physical/mentalperception/activity or emotions, they often lose the notional contentbecoming mere auxiliaries which should not be translated in

Romanian: I cant understand what youre getting at. (Nu inteleg)5. 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 youare not its member.

4.3.2.CAN & COULD - ROUNDUP

CAN expresses:

present tense of modal can: ability characteristic capacity,competence, skill (exception recurrence can = sometimes it canbe/happen that ); possibility, supposition, logical deduction(=MAY); permission (= MAY):I am told you can tame any animal. People can often be veryunfeeling. Can he belong to our group and me not having met himyet! Why cant you take your pills in time for a change? Can I useyour phone?

past tense of modal can = can + perfect infinitive (true for anymodal) (=past time + doubt, uncertainty, contrary-to-factness):I dont think he can have been so thoughtful. You can have met himsome time ago; hes quite your age, isnt he? They cant have seenus in that pub, can they?

near future (as to the present, for ferm, precise statement orcategorical 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 thearticles to be reviewed? They can/cant come to the meetingtomorrow.* Note that when the future moment is more remote, there is anadverb of definite future time in the sentence (nextweek/month/year, when) and the future possibility depends onthe ability, not on the circumstances (the ability has not yet beenacquired), shall/will/ll be able to are the only choices, canexpressing permission:Shell be able to speak (not can) several foreign languages whenshe 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.

COULDexpresses:

past tense of modal can only when it expresses:o general past permission (informal alternative for may) She

knew she could do whatever she liked.

23


24/56

o unfulfilled past possibility He said he couldnt believe itwhen he was told the news.

o past occasional ability She could be a charming person, inspite of the moments when she lost her temper. The drug canbe very effective in the treatment of pneumonia.

o past general physical/intellectual ability When young, he

could speak Arabic like an Arab. Years ago, she could jog fourmiles in the morning, before going to work.

o present indicative (the sequence of tenses, especially inindirect style) At his party, he said we could make as muchnoise as we wanted to, and we did.

o 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 usmove in on Monday.

conditional/subjunctive moods: I could have told that myself.

Hes put on weight, so he could take more exercise. If you coulddraw, you could have your name entered for the comingcompetition. I wish I could have had the chance to meet her.

could+perfect infinitive is used to express past ability notnecessarily used, or a possibility not put to the test: You could havefinished the text but insisted to leave. We could have offendedthem if we had omitted to send an invitation.

* Note that:

if there is no indication in the context as to the meaning ofcould,it can only expresspermission;

if there is no indication of mood, it is considered to be aconditional;

the pattern I can do ithas the past form I was able to do it; I couldnt do itcovers both the affirmative and the negative and

can be interpreted as both a negative conditional (futurereference) and a past tense (past reference); a larger context willclear the ambiguity;

when there is a specific past time adverbial (yesterday, two daysago, last week, at five oclock, then, when she saw them), beable to is preferred:John was able to have a picnic on Friday last.

(couldwould signal permission)

24


25/56

4.3.3.EXERCISES MEANINGS AND USES OF CAN/COULD

I. Identify the meanings of can in the following sentences; choosebetween:

a) physical / mental ability;

b) theoretical possibility;c) permission / prohibition;d) request, invitation, offer, suggestion (indirect speech acts).* Support your choices with explanations; add examples of your own.

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 providequite 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 Iwould regret later.However harsh they were, they still wanted their son to always be honestand speak up his mind; he stand up and tell them his opinion whenever hewanted to.

25


26/56

There was very little I say or do about the whole situation. What had beendone 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.

* Supply some more examples to highlight the differences in use betweenthe two.

III. Make sentences to illustrate the following meanings and uses ofcan-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 asWILL/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 preabine discursul.Sunt nou n ora. Credei c m-ai putea ajuta s gsesc sediul Institutului decercetri?Sugerm s ne oprim deocamdat, dar am putea continua mine la aceeaior. Credei c vom putea termina suficient de repede pentru a trimite latimp documentele?mi amintesc c era o vreme cnd puteam petrece zile ntregi fr sobosim. 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 puteas trimitem invitaiile chiar sptmna viitoare.Din fericire, mi-am fcut muli prieteni de cnd m-am mutat n acest ora.tii ct de greu poate fi la nceput.

26


27/56

Dac te concediaz, poi oricnd s vii la firma noastr. tiu ct de ncrederepoi fi i chiar a dori s ni te poi altura.n ce privete medicamentul acesta, se tie c poate fi foarte folositor ntratamentul pneumoniei; nu se poate s fi refuzat administrarea lui.Iari vorbete la telefon! Cu cine o mai fi vorbind i de data asta? A puteas 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 svorbesc cu ea. tiu ct de jignit se poate simi cnd nu este bgat nseam.Spune c ar putea termina lucrarea de ndat ce intr n posesia tuturorarticolelor de specialitate care s-au publicat n ultimii doi ani.A spus c ar putea termina lucrarea de ndat ce intr n posesia tuturorarticolelor de specialitate care s-au publicat n ultimii doi ani.Nu-mi dau seama ce urmrete; s-ar putea s intenioneze s nfiineze osocietate de asigurri.Dei poate fi nesuferit uneori, i-a cerut scuze c n-a putut ajunge la timp dincauza unui blocaj n traffic.Ai fi putut s-mi spui i mie despre brourile pe care le-ai luat de la ageniade 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, pois-mi spui i mie cine este, pentru c nu vd nimic cu ochelarii tia noi; a fiputut la fel de bine s m lipsesc de ei.Poi s crezi c parlamentul ar fi putut vota o asemenea lege care safecteze interesele bolnavilor?Dac au reuit s-i conving s intre n proiect, este pentru c ei chiar suntn stare s-l duc la bun sfrit.

Cercettorii din domeniu s-au strduit s obin un nou medicament care sfie ct mai eficient, astfel nct bolnavii s poat spera ntr-o nsntoirerapid.

27


28/56

4.4. MAY

Traditional studies of modal may recognize that it can be used in twodifferent senses, a permission/deontic sense and a possibility/epistemicsense.

4.4.1. PERMISSION MAY

Consider the following examples for the permission use of may: You mayleave the table when everyone has finished. May I have a quick wordwith you?If a sentence like You may go is uttered by someone in a position of

authority to someone of lower authority, would be probably understood as acommand. This explains why permission may can occur in rules andregulations. Perkins shows that the command interpretation of may isentirely due to the circumstances peculiar to the situation described. If thesame person had said You may smoke, it would have been understood not asa command but as a giving of permission.

All in all, the interpretation is: relative to the system of social laws, adeontic source an institution or a person in position of authority does notpreclude an event to take place. When compared to can, mayis regarded asmore polite while mightcarries an indication of greater uncertainty about theanswer and also of modesty, diffidence.

4.4.2. EPISTEMIC MAY

In its possibility interpretation, mayindicates that evidence available to the

speaker is such that the sentence cannot be assumed to be true, but nor canit be assumed to be false. While possibility can focuses primarily on thecurrent state of circumstances, may focuses primarily on the currentverifiability of the truth of the sentence.

A sentence like: John may run a mile in 4 minutes, but he never willbecause hes too lazy is unacceptable because it cites evidence that thesentenceJohn may run a mile in 4 minutes is currently falsifiable. Notice thatwith epistemic can the sentence is fine, whereas with can it is irrelevantwhether; John actually will run a 4 minute-mile or not, as long ascircumstances are not such as to preclude it.Consider the following pair of sentences: A friend can betray you. A friendmay betray you.

The first one is an observation between friends in general, i.e. thecircumstances include at least an instance of a friend committing a betrayal,while the second sentence is more likely to be a warning about a particularfriend, i.e. the truth of the sentence can be currently verified.

May is often attended by well (as an intensifier of the possibility) toexpress the speakers opinion that something being the case rather than thereverse is possible: It may well be that his wife did not know. (Se preapoateSe poate foarte bine s Este foarte posibil s)

4.4.3. ABILITY / CAPABILITYMAY

28


29/56

In this sense mayis rarely mentioned by grammarians. It seems to be morefrequent in passive constructions where it alternates with can: Problems maybe solved over a luncheon. Which have baffled scientists for years. The bookcan be had in hard cover for 10$ and it may be had in paper back for 2$.

Perkins remarks that while can relates to natural and social laws(ability and permission interpretation), maymost typically relates to rational

and social laws (the epistemic and deontic interpretation, i.e. possibility andpermission).In the same time, may in the ability interpretation carries either

something of its hypothetical interpretation or of its permissioninterpretation, being more used in written texts while can is expected incolloquial English.

According to Palmer, an important difference betweenability/permission can and permission/possibility may is that the former issubject-oriented, i.e. it relates semantically to some kind of activity,quality, status of the subject of the sentence, whereas mayis never subject-oriented, the state of affairs being always external to the subject of thesentence. He can speak 14 languages.(Poate/tie s) What can youcontribute to the discussion? He may speak 14 languages.(S-ar putea/Arputea)

Syntactic behaviour

a) negation:While cantis a case of external negation, the modal being negated: Pigscant fly (=Its not possible that pigs fly), may not is an instance ofinternal negation, the sentence being negated: Pigs may not fly.(=It is

possible that pigs dont fly).The forms maynt and mightnt are felt as awkward and unnatural inexpressions of permissions, cant and couldnt being regarded as thenatural forms.

b) interrogation:Epistemic/possibility can occurs mainly in interrogative and negativecontexts, while in affirmative sentences may is preferred: It may raintoday. Can it be cold up there? It cant be that cold.In AE there is an apparent tendency to prefer might to may for presentpossibility. The effect is to make the expression of possibility moretentative, the paraphrase being: It is barely possible that It is possible,

though unlikely, thatc) past time reference

The deontic senses have past tense counterparts with couldand might,respectively, while the epistemic senses form the past time reference bythe perfect infinitive forms: Its likely that he may have been there.

4.5. MIGHT

4.5.1. EPISTEMIC MIGHT

The epistemic interpretationofmightis by far more frequent than its deonticone. Although often regarded as a past tense form, mightrarely points to the

29


30/56

past. However, when the time sphere of the potential situation is past, it isemployed regardless of whether may/mightare used when the time sphereof the utterance is present: I think I may/might be late for the ceremony. Hethought he might

Might can also indicate a special type of unreality, namely counter-factuality. In such cases mightfollowed by the perfect infinitive implies non

performance of a past potential action. The perfect marker signals past timewhilemightcarries only counter-factuality: You might have turned down theinvitation (but you didnt).

Might+ perfect infinitive may also indicate a past possibility not put tothe test: Perhaps we should have taken the other road; it might have beenshorter.

Seldom used in the interrogative to express possibility/probability, mayand mightdo occur in wh-questions to express wonder, doubt, uncertainty,approximation, or a more polite question: She looks so young; how old may /might she be?

4.5.2. DEONTIC MIGHT

With its deontic interpretation, might carries an indication of greateruncertainty about the answer, and also of tentativeness, modesty,diffidence. The use ofmightfor permission in the past does not seem to bevery common and it is generally avoided in colloquial English and replacedby be allowed/permitted, but not in the passive: I asked him if I might go/Hewould allow me to go. It was an unwritten rule in their club that no questionsmight be asked about the members private lives.

4.5.3. ABILITYMIGHT

Might is regularly used to express tentative, doubtful (cap)ability either ofthe present or of the past, depending on the fulfillment of a conditionexpressed/understood (remember Perkinss conditionalityof the secondarymodals):If I had a writers pen, I might describe the beauty of this place properly.

4.5.4. EXERCISES MEANINGS AND USES OF MAY/MIGHT

I. Explain the meaning in which the modal MAY is used:- permission or prohibition;- request (sometimes ironical);- doubt about the present, past or future;- possibility, probability.

You might have tried to arrive on time.He might be still angry with you if he hasnt called on you for such a longtime.She may not have known that she was supposed to attend this meeting.One may come across unusual experiences while hunting in Africa.May I advise you to be more careful with your things?If I may say so, you were rather rash.She may have heard your proposal for greater efficiency in your department.

30


31/56

He thought he might not go, but finally had to.My friends may be right this time, but I still think its a good thing to have atalk with him.May I break into what seems to be an endless speech and give you a word ofadvice?May I have another helping of this delicious cake?

The train might be late today on account of the heavy snow falls, or theymight as well missed it altogether.She might have sent me a postcard; after all, Ive done so much for her.He asked the captain of the team if he might play that match as a midfield.Who may you be? (cf. Who are you?)He may be still living in that tiny little house, but, frankly speaking, I wish hedidnt.Dont be so mad; he asked if he might wait here and I said yes.I might go out tonight if I can find someone to babysit.

II. Make four sentences for each of the following uses ofMAY/MIGHT:

- formal permission asked for or granted (cf. CAN in similar examplesand give explanations to highlight the difference between the two);

- past/present/future possibility (cf. CAN in similar examples and giveexplanations);

- (external) ability (especially in passive constructions);- counterfactuality/vs/past unrealized possibility;- other speech acts (mild/casual commands, persuasive/irritated

requests, expressions of reproach, offers);

- in if-clauses;- as part of an analytic subjunctive (for wishes, after ORDER, REQUEST,DESIRE, etc., after expressions of fear, in adverbial clauses ofpurpose/concession).

III. Translate:

Ma intreb daca isi da seama de consecinte; s-ar putea sa fie constient deresponsabilitatea pe care si-a asumat-o, desi, sincer sa fiu, nu pare.Poti sa-ti iei adio de la vacanta pe care ti-am promis-o, atat timp cat nu te-aiachitat de partea ta de intelegere.

Copiii sub saisprezece ani nu pot participa la curse de masini atat depericuloase.Ai fi putut sa-i anunti ca plecati ca sa nu faca tot drumul acela numai ca sagaseasca usa incuiata.Sa traiesti fericit o mie de ani si sa ai parte de bucurii si sa stii sa-tisarbatoresti neimplinirile.Pot sa plec acum, sefu? Da, cred ca poti. Sa punem punct aici, dar maine s-ar putea sa am nevoie de tine dimineata, desi nu cred ca delegatia pe care oasteptam va veni atat de devreme.Am fi putut sa ne hotaram asupra variantei celeilalte, dar atunci s-ar ficomplicat lucrurile si e posibil sa nu mai fi fost in stare sa terminam la timp.Multumesc ca nu mi-ai spus ca nu mergi la petrecere; pot, la fel de bine sama duc singura ca si cum n-as avea partener.

31


32/56

Dupa cate vad s-ar putea sa amanam iesirea la iarba verde; cerul e acoperitde nori si s-ar putea sa inceapa ploaia in orice moment.Imprumutul acesta se poate obtine daca ai garantii serioase. Jocul se poate juca doar daca ii cunosti regulile si le respecti; altfel, s-arputea sa nu-ti gasesti nici un partener dispus sa-l joace cu tine.Daca ti-ai lua diploma anul acesta, ai putea sa-ti gasesti un loc de munca

care sa-ti satisfaca asteptarile.Toata lumea ocolea subiectul de teama sa nu-i trezeasca amintiri dureroase;ar fi putut sa se inchida din nou in sine, asa cum se mai intamplase, si nimicsi nimeni n-ar mai fi deschis-o spre comunicarea cu ceilalti.Dupa cat il cunosc, s-ar putea sa mai studieze inca, inchis in birou, dosareleacelea care i-au dat atata bataie de cap.Desi nu era foarte entuziasmat de idee, tatal sau il trimisese in Italia sastudieze pictura renascentista.Oricat ar costa, si oricate argumente mi-ar aduce el, insist sa ne petrecemvacanta in strainatate pentru ca, asa cum s-ar putea sa stii deja, serviciileoferite sunt mult mai bune si preturile mai rezonabile.Ii puteai simti din tonul vocii ingrijorarea cu privire la soarta proiectului cucare se inscrisese pentru obtinerea unei burse; fie ce-o fi, el incercase sinimeni nu-i putea reprosa lipsa de interes.Dupa atatia ani petrecuti pe mare, inca auzea zgomotul inconfundabil alvalurilor, oricat de preocupat de altceva ar fi fost.

4.6. MUST

4.6.1. EPISTEMIC MUST

The epistemic sense ofmustranks high on the probability scale and occursin utterances that have been described as necessary statements, logicalconclusions, inferences, deductions: They must have used their passkeysto get in. I feel terrible; I must have caught a cold or something.What may be underlined as obvious is the speakers strong belief,conviction or near certainty concerning the truth-value of the proposition.In fact such sentences can be rephrased as Im pretty sure/certain thatthey used

The speaker bases his assertion on his knowledge or on evidenceimmediately available to him from his observation of the relevant real

situations.Palmer proposes as a rough paraphrase for this use the only possible

conclusion is, while Leech suggests that epistemic mustis used to indicateknowledge arrived at by inference or reasoning rather than by directexperience. But, even ifmust is said to represent the strongest epistemic judgement one can make, it should, however, be underlined that thestrongest of all judgement is not the same as a factual assertion.

Must occurs chiefly as a present, since epistemic modalities areoriented to speaker now; it may appear with past time reference, usuallyin sub-clauses, only if the timesphere of the inference is simultaneous with

that of the past state of affairs referred to in the utterance: Than shebecame aware that the man must be their new neighbour.

32


33/56

Even when followed by a perfect infinitive, must is still a present,indicating the conclusions arrived at by the speaker at the time of speaking.She surely must have arrived by this time.

For future time reference be bound to is preferred.Mustmay occur in unreal conditional sentences indicating what, in the

speakers opinion, would be a near certainty or inevitable if a past, present

or future event did or did not come about, or would have been inevitable ifsuch an event had or had not come about. If one did not make all efforts tocome to an understanding, things must come to a deadlock. (Dac nu s-arface, lucrurile ar intra) If the pistol had been loaded, the child mustinevitably have shot himself. (Dac pistolul ar fi fost , copilul s-ar fimpucat).

*Notice that the notion ofconviction or high probability implied by must issometimes strengthened by an accompanying needs, of necessity,inevitably, etc. Notice also that in most cases, corresponding to theepistemic use ofmust, Romanian uses the present (and sometimes in pastcontexts, the imperfect) of epistemic a trebui. In some cases it is attendedby reinforcing adverbs such as: desigur, cu siguran, negreit, neaprat,inevitabil.

Syntactic behaviour

a) negationEpistemic mustis negated by cant, which is the more natural expression

of impossibility in English: If he saw a woman cook, it cant have been herMustntcan occur in those cases which Palmer calls verbal crossing out:

He must be there. Oh no, he mustnt.b) interrogationEpistemic must does not usually occur in interrogative contexts;

nevertheless, Palmer offers examples such as: Must they be on holiday?

Substitutes for Must

1. BE BOUND TOAs already stated, be bound to is usually used for future timereference. When must occurs with a future TR, it almost always isinterpreted in a deontic, not epistemic sense: The government must

act. It must make up its mind about priorities: offices or homes,housing estates or luxury buildings.

This restriction does not function for be bound to. We could say: The oddsare bound to be with them in these tight situations.

There is a difference in meaning between be bound to and must.Consider the examples: Johns bound to be in his office. John must be inthe/his office.

The first sentence is the more certain of the two; it has little or nosense of conclusion. The speaker wants to assert as positively as he canthat this is the only possibility. In the second sentence, the speaker isdrawing the most obvious conclusion. It may be a remark made inresponse to a comment that the lights were on in Johns office.

33


34/56

The nearest synonym ofbe bound to in sentences with a future TR is itis inevitable: If the Government deals with the situation realistically, thecost of the EU integration is bound to be great.

As to this difference, Palmer points out that the concept ofconclusivityis more appropriate to the present (must) and that of inevitability to thefuture.

2. HAVE GOT TOSometimes it occurs in an epistemic interpretation as in: If hes yourfriend, youve got to know all his jokes.

This interpretation ofhave got to is quite common in American English:Youve got to be joking, the more likely British English form being Youmust be joking.

3. HAVE TOIn British English there appears to be a difference of context of usebetween have to and must. Contrast: You must be mad to do that.(epistemic interpretation, i.e. the conclusion from your action is that youare mad).You have to be mad to do that. (being mad is a necessary condition foracting in a certain may => so, the deontic use of have to isnt far away).Have (got) to has a stronger force than mustand cannot be weakened tothe interpretation of logical assumption. Someone must be telling lies voices mere suspicion. Someone has (got) to be telling lies sounds morelike an accusation.

4.6.2. DEONTIC MUST

If must is used in a context relative to the system of social laws and thecircumstances materialize in a person in a position of authority, must isinterpreted as indicating obligation or compulsion.

Two roles are important in the deontic use of must: the imposer/originator and the goal/receiver of the constraint or obligation.

The former is the logical subject of must, the latter is usually itssurface subject. The constraint imposed upon the subject may originate fromvarious sources such as:

o the will of the speaker or some other authority,o the subjects own will or keen desire,o laws, regulations, circumstances,o a power beyond the subjects control.

In many cases the source of the constraint is not specified. Insentences such as All man must die. What must be, must be, it is hard todistinguish between the epistemic and the deontic uses. Deontic must isused performatively when the speaker himself as authority imposes theobligation as in: If you come in after midnight you must come in quietly.Dont wake me up.

The speaker may also use must to report/state the existence of anobligation imposed by an external authority, to which he may or may not add

his support/approval: You must go now; the visiting hour is over and thehead nurse is very strict about it.

34


35/56

A sentence with a 1st person subject, such as I must be leaving/leavenow,is analysable in at least two ways: I must be leaving since I have a meeting to attend(the subject is under

the pressure of an external agent which reduces his freedom to act); I must be leaving because this is what I want to do/Im bored stiff with

your company(the subjects will/desire is so strong as to make him view

the actualization of the predication as necessary).Here are some further examples of keen desire or internal compulsion

overmastering the subject: Her secret smile made me feel that I must meether. You must always interfere, mustnt you? If you must smoke, use anashtray.

The subjects obligation/constraint may derive from other sources ofauthority such as:

o a power beyond the subjects control (rules, regulations, a code ofhonour): Women must cover their heads in church.

o the natural/inevitable consequence of a certain event: You made your

bed and you must lie upon it.o the necessity that a condition be fulfilled in order that a certain state of

affairs may be possible: You must work hard if you want to be an Astudent.

o a strong moral obligation or an urgent advisability: What I havepromised I must do. You must quit smoking if you want to live.

Like epistemic must, deontic mustis chiefly used in the present. It may alsooccur with a past tense value mostly in sub-clauses when the time sphere ispast:And the day came when she and her children must leave their home.

Deontic must+perfect infinitive cannot be used to describe an eventthat has actually occurred; have to or one of the other approximately

equivalent phrases are used instead: I was told that he had to/ had beenobliged to hand in his resignation.

In the following e.g., however, must+perfect infinitive is used in adeontic sense (mustexpresses a present requirement, the perfect infinitivebeing a past time indicator of the state of affairs described in theproposition): Applicants for this position must have studied a minimum oftwo years in a university.

Substitutes for MUST1) HAVE TO

The two are not exact semantic equivalents. Unlike must, have toalways indicates that it is not the speaker that requires theactualization of predication, but some external authority orcircumstances.Some of the deontic functions ofmustare shared by have to, whichmay represent a person under the constraint of:

a task or official duty: A President has to devote all his time andenergy to his country.

a power beyond the subjects control (a law of nature, anovermastering emotion): I saw she had to bite her lips not to burstinto tears.

the necessity of a condition to be fulfilled: If you want to be therein time, youll have to leave early.

35


36/56

According to many grammarians, have to is more common and preferable forhabitual activities and must for important and urgent obligations: I have tofeed the baby six times a day. I must feed the baby now; its been crying forhalf an hour.*The alternative from have got to is even more common in American English,frequently reduced to gotta both in speech and writing.

Syntactic behaviour

a) Past time reference

Must + Perfect Infinitive for the epistemic use. Had To for the deontic use.

b) Speech acts (other than statements, questions or negations ofobligations)

expression of disapproval/reproach: Must you drink so much? Doyou have to smoke those stinking cigars? Dont you have to write

some letters? casual invitations, excuses: You must come and see me one ofthese days.I must be leaving now.

suggestions, recommendations, emphatic advice (=should): Youmust see this movie; its the best Ive seen in years.

reprimands, orders: You mustnt speak like this to you mother.

36


37/56

4.6.3. MUST- ROUNDUP

It expresses the following functions:

1. (objective/subjective) necessity, duty, absolute obligation(either imposed by the speaker especially after the

verbs admit, conclude, realise, remember, say,understand - or deriving from external authority -rules/regulation orders, interdictions, officialprohibitions): You must keep your promise. We all must die.Im afraid I must mortgage the house. I mustnt leave before Isay goodbye to all people present. Must you always treateverybody like dirt? I must say that we have not identified all theconsequences. You must admit we cannot ignore thesearguments. You must call for a doctor; shes been seriouslyinjured. He must never treat us like that; we wont put up withsuch a behavior. You simply must not wear that shabby coatagain; its embarrassing. In Australia traffic must keep to the left.Lights must be on before dark. These books must not be takenaway from the reading room.*Absence of obligation/necessity is expressed by need not ordont/doesnt need to: you mustnt do that again, but youneednt be so upset about it. We do not need to go over thatagain and again; everybody has understood.I must go now! Need you really? Yes, I must or Ill be latefor my date.**In questions mustand needare often similar in meaning, but

needcannot be used after question words; when using needthespeaker hopes for a negative answer: What must she do if shewants to make some progress? Need I tell you that this is not thebest of solutions?

2. probability, supposition, logical conclusion/deduction:They arent home; they must be on holiday. He returned toosoon; he must have had a terrible time.*In the negative, cant/cannot is used: She must be there; shecant be anywhere else. He must have accepted; he cant haverejected such a terrific opportunity; it wouldve been sheermadness.

3. other speech acts: emphatic invitation or advice, reproach :You simply must see him in this performance. You mustnt missthe show tonight; Ive seen it twice already. Must you talk somuch?

MUST/vs/MAY

1) Both modals can express presupposition, but they differ through theopposed connotations they bring to this concept: may also suggestsuncertainty, whereas must suggests certain probability: She usuallykeeps late hours: she may still be at her work. She never goes to bedbefore midnight because she has a lot of work to get through; so, shemust still be at it now, its only eleven.

37


38/56

2) Both may (rarely, and most of the times replaced by can) and mustcan express interdiction, mainly in negative answers to mayquestions:Please, Doc! My hand is practically healed. May I go skiing? No, youcant (mustnt). Its much too risky.

MUST/vs/HAVE TO

Since must is defective, it refers only to present or general timeand, possibly, to the future. Where specific reference has to bemade to other times or aspects, must is supplemented by haveto. The have to forms often suggest that the obligation ishabitual or arises from some external source, circumstances:You must pay for yourself tonight. What do you mean, tonight? Ialways have to pay for myself. She said that I had to be at workearly in the morning to have the paper finished. (cf.)You muststay the night (I press you to do so)/vs/You have to stay thenight (You cant get back tonight).

In the 1st person, the difference between internal (must) and externalobligation (have to) is much attenuated and they very often can beused interchangeably. Nevertheless, must is recommended for anextremely important or urgent obligation, while have to should b

Documents

CO Limba Engleza, Anul 2