Modality

1. General characterisation

Realis vs. irrealis

2. Mood vs. modality

The Subjunctive

2.1 Mood

Subjunctive: contrary to present state of affairs, not factual; expresses wishes, weak certainty (past), weak manipulation. The distinction between indicative and subjunctive may be phrased as word-to-match-the-world (indicative; in Polish że) vs. world-to-match-the-word (subjunctive; in Polish żeby).

2.2 Form

Present (be, do, follow) and past (were, did, followed). The distinction, however, pertains more to mood than to tense. Givón (1993: 275-6) distinguishes three factors on which this subtle modal contrast between present and past subjunctives hinges:

1. The expected degree of resistance on the part of the implied manipulee;

2. The speaker's uncertainty about the outcome;

3. Perhaps the speaker's anxiety about the outcome.

I'd rather she go/went somewhere else.

I'd rather go somewhere else.

Present:

I insist that we reconsider the Council's decisions.

I insist that the Council reconsider its decisions.

I insist that the Council's decision(s) be reconsidered.

Past—were-subjunctive:

If she were/was leaving, you would have heard about it.

Only were is acceptable in as it were `so to speak'; were is usual in if I were you.

Negation of the present subjunctive does not require an operator:

I insist that we not reconsider the Council's decision.

2.3 Use (Quirk et all)

The two main uses of the present subjunctive are the mandative subjunctive and the formulaic (optative) subjunctive.

2.3.1. The mandative subjunctive

It is used in a that-clause after an expression of such notions as

• Demand,

• Necessity,

• Recommendation,

• Proposal,

• Plan,

• Intention (for the future).

Verbs, adjectives and nouns which introduce subjunctive:

• Verbs: insist, prefer, request, suggest, recommend, ask;

• Adjectives: necessary, desirable, imperative, vital, essential, important;

• Nouns: decision, requirement, resolution, advice.

Subjunctive mood is more typical of AmE; in BrE putative should is used:

The employees demanded that he resign <AmE>/should resign <BrE>/resigns.

2.3.2. The formulaic (optative) subjunctive:

It is used in certain set expressions:

God save the Queen.

Long live the King.

God bless you.

Come what may…

Heaven forbid (that…).

Be (that) as it may,… (=Whether that is true or not…)

Suffice it to say that…

Be it so. `Niech tak będzie.'

Come what will. `Niech się stanie co ma się stać.'

Success attend ye. `Niech cię szczęście nie opuszcza/Niech ci towarzyszy szczęście.'

Past subjunctive is hypothetical in meaning. It occurs in the following types of subordinate clauses:

• Conditional: after if, if only, suppose, whether,

• Concessive: after even though, though,

• Adverbial clauses of purpose: after lest,

• Other: after wish, it's time, etc.

If I were a rich men, I would…

I wish the journey were over. (compare `I wish…would…' to express volition)

Just suppose everyone were to act like you.

They decided to come early lest all the seats were/be taken.

Even though it be her choice… `Nawet jesli miałby być to jej wybór…'

3. Ways of expressing modality

4. Types of modality: classification

modality
root		epistemic
dynamic	deontic

5. Force-dynamic interpretation of modality

Metaphorical extensions — examples from the realm of sensual perception

Evolution of modality: dynamic deontic epistemic

Force-dynamic interpretation of must, have to, may and can

6. English modals (from Coates 1983)

6.1 Syntactic characterisation

A modal auxiliary:

1. takes negation directly;

2. takes inversion without do;

3. can occur in `code' (So can I.);

4. takes emphasis (Ann COULD solve this problem.);

5. has no -s for 3^rd sg.;

6. has no non-finite forms;

7. does not co-occur with other modal auxiliaries.

Characteristics (1)-(4) distinguish modal auxiliaries from content verbs (NICE properties); (5)-(7) from non-modal auxiliaries be, have and do.

Quasi-modals: have to, be going to, be able to, be bound to.

6.2 Root vs. epistemic modality

Epistemic modality is concerned with the speaker's assumptions (must, should, ought) or assessment of possibilities (may, might, could, will) and, in most cases, it indicates the speaker's confidence (or lack of confidence) in the truth of the proposition (składnik przedstawieniowy; state of affairs — event, state, action) expressed.

6.3 Grammatical features of Epistemic modality

1. Negation affects the proposition and not the modality (apart form suppletive can't).

2. There are no past tense forms (apart form occasional might for may in reported speech).

3. The occurrence of HAVE + -EN affects the proposition, not the modality.

4. The co-occurrence of the Epistemic modals and certain syntactic forms, such as HAVE + -ED, BE + -ING etc, distinguishes this category of modality from non-Epistemic.

6.4 Root modality (much more difficult to characterise): animate subjects, agentive verbs and passive voice are all linked with Root meaning

7. Speech-act modality

(1) He may be a university professor, but sure he's dumb.

(2) There may be a six-pack in the fridge, but we have work to do.

(3) Reagan will/must be a nice guy (as far as the content of the speech is concerned), even if we criticize his policies.

(4) Ok, Peking can be Beijing; but you can't use `Praha' for Prague.

(5) In New Orleans, you would be smoking a cigar right now.

(6) Remember, the mobsters can be as guilty as you like, but you mustn't suggest the police are implicated, or the jury will stop being sympathetic.

(examples form Sweetser 1990: 70-72)

Bibliography

Coates, Jennifer. 1983. The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London and Canberra: Croom Helm.

Givón, Talmy. 1993. English Grammar: A Function-Based Introduction. Vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.

Sweetser, Eve E. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 54). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Inferential	confident	Non-inferential
MUST (= from the evidence available I confidently infer that…)		WILL (= I confidently predict that…)
SHOULD, OUGHT (= from the evidence available I tentatively assume that…)			MAY, MIGHT, COULD (= I think it is perhaps possible that…)
	doubtful

Negative forms (it is the main predication and not the modal predication which is negated for Epistemic modality)

Inferential	confident	Non-inferential
CAN'T (= I'm sure because of … that…not…)		WON'T (= I confidently predict that … not …)
SHOULDN'T (= from the evidence available I tentatively assume that … not …)			MAY NOT, MIGHT NOT, COULD NOT (= I think it's possible that … not …)
	doubtful

Positive can is never epistemic, neither is must not.

---