LG506 Unit 5 Modality.

LG506 Unit 5 Modality

Tense and modality: Modal uses of the past tense
In the last unit, we looked at cases where the past tense form refers to past time: Tom missed his train Absolute past: R → S When Tom arrives late tomorrow, he will claim that he missed his train Relative past: R → SSUB The lifeguard said that it was too dangerous to swim Backshifting: R = SSUB where SSUB is in the past (complements of a verb in the past tense) Today we will look at cases where the past tense refers to the present or future but conveys the idea that the situation is in some sense ‘unreal’

Condition clauses If John is at home, he will answer the phone If Max wins the lottery next Saturday, he will quit his job Non-past, realis If John was/were at home, he would answer the phone If Max won the lottery next Saturday, he would quit his job Non-past, irrealis If the accused was/*were at home (at the time of the crime), he must be innocent Past, realis If John had been at home, he would have answered the phone If Max had won the lottery, he would have quit his job Past, irrealis Irrealis condition clauses which refer to the past or present are usually counterfactual, whereas those which refer to the future express ‘remote’ possibility.

Other irrealis uses of the past tense Wish complements I wish Sue was/were/*is here I wish Max would/*will win the lottery (?...won the lottery tomorrow) I wish the train arrived at 10.00 I wish Sue {*invited / had invited} Mary yesterday It’s (high) time you finished/*finish your essay *It’s (high) time you will/would finish your essay It’s (high) time Joe was/*were/*is in bed ‘High time’ I would rather you left /?leave now *I would rather you will/would leave now I would rather Joe was/were/*is in bed ‘would rather’

Important point: the irrealis interpretation of the past tense is restricted to contexts like these
In particular, It is not available in main clauses or Consequent clauses in a conditional construction Tom helped us (past time only; ≠ ‘Tom would help us’) *If John were at home, he answered the phone

? Conditional sentences Truth conditions Condition clause
Consequent clause If, and only if, Tom takes a taxi If Tom takes a taxi, he will arrive on time TRUE FALSE TRUE FALSE ? FALSE TRUE TRUE

If his statement is true,
No modal Condition clause Consequent clause If Tom takes a taxi, he arrives on time If you heat water to 100°, it boils Systematic correlation ≈when(ever) If his statement is true, he is innocent Deduction If Tom believes this, he is a fool Subjective judgement If Tom calls, tell him I’m out Imperative

Realis / irrealis conditionals
Condition clause Consequent clause If Tom was here, he would help us Irrealis (Tom is not here) If Joe was at home, he must be innocent Past time, Realis If I won the lottery, I would quit my job If I win the lottery, I will quit my job Realis, Non-past Irrealis, Non-past Past tense in the condition clause can express either past time or irrealis mode, but not both: If Tom had been here, he would have helped us Irrealis, Past Past tense = irrealis have+ past part. = Past time Irrealis condition clauses which refer to the past or present are usually counterfactual, whereas those which refer to the future express ‘remote’ possibility.

Imperatives only possible with Realis conditionals
Some diagnostic tests Imperatives only possible with Realis conditionals If you win the lottery, lend me a fiver Realis, Non-past If you won the lottery (tomorrow), *lend me a fiver Irrealis, Non-past If you won the lottery (yesterday), lend me a fiver Realis, Past In Irrealis conditionals the modal must be a past-form If I won the lottery tomorrow I would / might /*will /*may quit my job Irrealis But not necessarily vice-versa: If I win the lottery I will / may /might / would / could quit my job Realis

Should conditionals If it should rain, we will go inside If, by any chance, … In Irrealis conditionals the modal must be a past-form Realis or irrealis? If Sue should call, tell her I’m out Imperatives only allow a Realis interpretation Conclusion: should conditionals are Realis

If Joe had the gun in his hand,
Past subjunctive (formal style) Past subjunctive Informal If Tom was here, he would help us Formal If Tom were here, he would help us If Joe was at home, he must be innocent Past time, Realis *If Joe were at home, The past subjunctive can only express Irrealis mode Be is the only verb that has a distinct past subjunctive form If Joe had the gun in his hand, he must be guilty Past time, Realis If Joe had an alibi, he would be acquitted Present time, Irrealis Hypothesis 1: Irrealis mode is always expressed by the past subjunctive, but with all verbs except be (in formal registers) the past subjunctive and the past indicative have the same form. Hypothesis 2: Irrealis mode can be expressed by the past indicative, but with be the past subjunctive can be used as an alternative. Other verbs don’t have a past subjunctive at all.

Inverted conditionals
If he were here, he would help us Were he here, he would help us

Restrictions: If he was here, he would help us *Was he here, he would help us Hypothesis: Inverted conditionals are possible only when the Auxiliary is ‘Subjunctive’. Had it rained, we would have left Inverted conditionals are not restricted to Irrealis mode. Should Sue call, tell her I’m out If I could fly, I would come to you ??Could I fly, Not all Irrealis conditionals allow the Inverted construction. If I won the lottery, I would quit my job *Did I win the lottery,

Neither is entirely correct!
If Inverted conditionals are possible only when the Auxiliary is ‘Subjunctive’… Past Indicative Past Subjunctive BE HAVE SHALL CAN DO Other verbs was had should could did V[+past] were had should --- --- Hypothesis 1: Irrealis mode is always expressed by the past subjunctive, but with all verbs except be (in formal registers) the past subjunctive and the past indicative have the same form. Hypothesis 2: Irrealis mode can be expressed by the past indicative, but with be the past subjunctive can be used as an alternative. Other verbs don’t have a past subjunctive at all. Hypothesis 2: Irrealis mode can be expressed by the past indicative, but with be, have and should, the past subjunctive can be used as an alternative. Other verbs don’t have a past subjunctive at all. Neither is entirely correct!

‘Disjunctive-tautology’ conditionals (with whether)
NECESSARILY TRUE Informal Whether he is innocent or guilty, he deserves a fair trial Formal Whether he be innocent or guilty, he deserves a fair trial Present subjunctive *Is he innocent or guilty, he deserves a fair trial Be he innocent or guilty, Very Formal Inverted conditionals are possible only when the Auxiliary is ‘Subjunctive’.

Modal Auxiliaries Preliminary hypothesis: Modals are messy!

Strategy 1. Identify the different ways in which modals are ‘messy’
2. Try to find some order within this ‘messiness’ 3. Clarify the properties of individual modals and the ways in which they can be used

Morpho-syntactic properties of modals
They have no __s in the 3rd person singular of the present tense: *Tom cans swim They have no non-finite forms (infinitive or participle): *Tom wants to can swim *He has could/canned … *He is canning solve the problem They are followed by the bare infinitive (without to): *Tom can to swim They can’t take complements of other categories (e.g. DPs): *Tom can the problem They show the N.I.C.E. properties of auxiliaries: Tom can’t swim Can Tom swim? Yes, he can But he can swim

Often the same modal can have several different meanings or uses
Types of Modality Epistemic Qualifies the speaker’s commitment to the truth of the proposition expressed by the sentence Joe might have missed the bus Bill will be at work now It must be raining ‘Root’ Qualifies the conditions for the occurrence of the event or state described by the sentence’ Deontic Permission, obligation You may/must leave You can smoke here Dynamic Ability, volition Joe can swim Will you help me?

‘Wide scope’ ‘Narrow scope’ Modals and negation
Sue may not be at home (epistemic) ‘It is possible that she is not at home’ You may not leave (deontic) ‘You are not allowed to leave’ You mustn’t leave (deontic) ‘It is necessary for you not to leave’ (cf. You needn’t leave / you don’t have to leave ‘It is not necessary for you to leave’) You can’t leave (deontic) ‘It is not possible for you to leave’ ?She mustn’t be at home (epistemic) ‘I deduce that she is not at home’ She can’t be at home (epistemic) ‘It is not possible that she is at home’ ‘Scope’ Sue may not be at home Modal has scope over negation (POSS > NEG) You may not leave Modal is in the scope of negation (NEG > POSS) ‘Wide scope’ ‘Narrow scope’

Polarity sensitivity ?It can be raining No epistemic reading cf. It may/might be raining It can’t be raining Can it be raining? I don’t think it can be raining Allow an epistemic reading ‘Negative Polarity Items’ (NPIs) Words or phrases which can only occur in the scope of Negation or in questions (also for some items, in condition clauses and other ‘non-assertive’ contexts): Tom didn’t buy any bread Did Tom buy any bread? I don’t think Tom bought any bread *Tom bought any bread Sue hasn’t ever visited Rome Has Sue ever visited Rome? I don’t think Sue has ever visited Rome *Sue has ever visited Rome He didn’t lift a finger to help *He lifted a finger to help Hypothesis: can, in its epistemic use, is a Negative Polarity item

A brief interlude … The semi-modal need Lexical verb: -s 3rd person singular present tense takes infinitive with to Do-support in negative sentences & questions He needs/needed to fill in the form He doesn’t need to fill in the form Does he need to fill in the form? He needs some money Can take other complements Typical properties of Modal Auxiliaries No -s in 3rd person singular present tense takes bare infinitive with to No Do-support He needn’t fill in the form Need he fill in the form? *Need he any money? Can’t take other complements But… *He need fill in the form What conclusions can we draw? Need can be either a lexical verb or a modal auxiliary I don’t think he need fill in the form As a modal auxiliary, it also lack a past tense form (like must): *Needed he fill in the form *I don’t think he needed fill in the form As a modal auxiliary, it is a Negative Polarity Item (NPI), like Epistemic can

Dare shows a similar pattern
Lexical verb: -s 3rd person singular present tense takes infinitive with to Do-support in negative sentences & questions He dares/dared to insult his boss He doesn’t dare to insult his boss Does he dare to insult his boss? Modal Auxiliary: No -s in 3rd person singular present tense takes bare infinitive with to No Do-support He daren’t insult his boss Dare he insult his boss? But… *He dare insult his boss I don’t think he dare insult his boss As a modal auxiliary, it is a Negative Polarity Item (NPI), like Epistemic can As a modal auxiliary, it has a past tense form for some speakers (unlike need): %Dared he insult his boss %He dared not insult his boss A complication with dare is that it can take bare infinitive while functioning as a lexical verb, but it is also an NPI in this use: He didn’t dare insult his boss He wouldn’t dare do that *He dares / dared do that I don’t think he dares do that

Modals and tense Present can may must shall will Past could might should would Apart from could (and some uses of would), the past-forms only express past time in backshifted contexts: Joe can swim Joe could swim when he was two I thought he could swim It may rain *It might rain yesterday They said it might rain You may go out *You might go out yesterday ?I asked if I might go out It will rain *?It would rain yesterday They said it would rain Often the past-forms express irrealis mode: I could do it, if I tried (I can’t actually do it) Somebody might have got hurt (Nobody got hurt) The kids should be in bed (The kids aren’t in bed) I would have helped you (I didn’t help you) Some past-forms do not express past time or irrealis mode, but can best be analysed as separate items in their own right: It might / could be raining (cf. it may be raining)

Epistemic vs Root modality
A fundamental distinction Propositions Situations (events or states) Mental constructs: representation of an idea within some cognitive system. Exist outside the mind of the speaker (e.g. in the real world) . Propositions can be true or false; we can believe, question or deny them Situations are things which happen, we can cause them, prevent them, participate in them, etc Roughly: A proposition is true (as is the sentence which expresses it) if it corresponds to a Situation which is real Typically, finite complement clauses denote Propositions Situations are usually referred to by non-finite complements Sue told Bill that she was ill Sue told Bill to call a doctor

Propositions Situations (events or states) Epistemic modals qualify Propositions Root modals qualify Situations Can usually be paraphrased by means of a finite clause: Bill may have missed the bus ‘It is possible that Bill missed the bus’ It must be raining ‘I deduce that it is raining’ Can usually be paraphrased by an infinitival construction: You may smoke here’ ‘You are allowed to smoke here’ ‘It is possible for you to smoke here’ Joe can swim ‘Joe is able to swim’ Often epistemic modals can be (loosely) paraphrased by a sentence with adverbs like perhaps, probably, obviously, …: Bill may have missed the bus ‘Perhaps Bill missed the bus It must be raining ‘It is obviously raining’ Root modals cannot be paraphrased in this way: You may smoke here ≠ ‘?Perhaps you smoke here’ Joe can swim ≠ ‘Perhaps Joe swims’

Propositions Situations (events or states) Epistemic modals qualify Propositions Root modals qualify Situations In affirmative sentences, Epistemic modals expressing possibility can be modified by well (≈ ‘indeed’): Root possibility modals cannot be modified by well (in this sense): *Joe can well swim *Joe could well swim when he was two Bill may well have missed the bus It might well rain tomorrow Tom could well be lying Or modification by well forces an epistemic interpretation which is not otherwise readily available: You may smoke here (normally ‘permission’) These observations provide us with diagnostic tests for distinguishing Epistemic and Root uses of modals in unclear cases You may well smoke here ‘Perhaps you (will) smoke here (but it’s not allowed) Paraphrase by a finite or infinitival complement construction Paraphrase by a sentence with adverbs like perhaps, obviously, … Modification by well (only with possibility modals in affirmative sentences)

Permission, obligation
Root modality ‘Root’ Qualifies the conditions for the occurrence of the Situation described by the sentence’ Deontic Permission, obligation You may/must leave You can smoke here Dynamic Ability, volition Joe can swim Will you help me? The conditioning factors are external to the situation itself, e.g.: ‘the wishes of the speaker’ ‘laws, regulations, social conventions, …’ The conditioning factors are internal to the situation (e.g. properties of participants in the situation): ‘Joe’s skills’ ‘the hearer’s willingness’ Three people can sit on this sofa ‘size of the sofa’

Modals and negation Clausal negation vs Constituent negation (VP-negation) Clausal negation Narrow scope (NEG > POSS) We couldn’t invite the Smiths (We didn’t have their address) VP-negation Wide scope (POSS > NEG) We could not invite the Smiths [VP ] (They didn’t invite us to their party) We couldn’t invite the Smiths, could we We could not invite the Smiths, couldn’t we We couldn’t invite the Smiths, and neither could our neighbours We could not invite the Smiths, and so could you The contracted form -n’t always expresses Clausal negation The full form not is potentially ambiguous Sometimes Clausal and VP negation can be combined: We couldn’t not invite the Smiths (They would be very offended)

Modals and negation Clausal negation vs Constituent negation (VP-negation) More examples can you and you can’t wear a baseball-cap either You can’t wear a hoodie to the wedding can’t you and you can not wear a suit too You can not wear a hat to the wedding A (prescriptive) written convention with can: cannot (single word) = Clausal negation (like can’t) can not (two words) = VP-negation Deontic may (normally narrow scope) You may not use a calculator in the exam But VP-negation allows wide scope You may, if you prefer, not use a calculator in the exam

Is a wide-scope interpretation always a result of VP-Negation?
Modals and negation Question… Is a wide-scope interpretation always a result of VP-Negation? How can we find out? The contracted form -n’t always expresses Clausal negation Contracted negation is compatible with wide scope: We mustn’t talk in class (OBLIG > NEG) Tom mightn’t get the job (POSS > NEG) With the full form not, diagnostic tests give ambivalent results We must not talk in class Tom might not get the job mustn’t we and so must you mightn’t he and so might you must we and neither must you might he and neither might you Conclusion: a wide-scope interpretation is not always the result of VP-Negation. Some modals (most clearly must, might and epistemic may) have scope over clausal negation.

Modals and negation There is no simple correlation between scope and types of modality (Epistemic vs Root, Possibility vs Necessity) However, a partial generalisation can be based on the interaction of two tendencies: Epistemic Root Necessity Possibility Wide scope Narrow scope Epistemic must: %?He mustn’t be at home Can, could, deontic may: He can’t / couldn’t swim You may not leave Root must: You mustn’t talk Need: He needn’t worry Epistemic may, might: He mightn’t be at home He may not win Epistemic could: He couldn’t have done that Problem: For many speakers, need can also have an epistemic use, with narrow scope: The burglar needn’t have come this way ‘It is not a necessary conclusion that he came this way’

A structural approach to Scope
Roughly, X has scope over Y if X is in a higher structural position than Y Auxiliaries (including modals) originate in a position below Pol, but in negative sentences must raise across not to circumvent the ‘blocking effect’ of not on Tense agreement (Unit 3)

A structural approach to Scope
Roughly, X has scope over Y if X is in a higher structural position than Y TP PolP V T' VP Pol not T Tom Auxiliaries (including modals) originate in a position below Pol, but in negative sentences must raise across not to circumvent the ‘blocking effect’ of not on Tense agreement (Unit 3) VP [+NEG] may Let’s assume that modals (and most other words) consist of a ‘form’ (e.g. may) and a ‘meaning’ (e.g. ‘POSS’ (Epist)) be at home ‘POSS’ (Epist) If the ‘meaning’ part raises along with the ‘form’, we get a wide-scope interpretation ‘It is possible that Tom is not at home’

TP PolP V T' VP Pol not T You VP [+NEG] may smoke here ‘POSS’ (Root) If the ‘form’ raises on its own, leaving the ‘meaning’ behind, we get a narrow-scope interpretation ‘It is not possible for you to smoke here’

Let’s simply assume this, without going into details
The same approach will work for contracted negation if we assume that attachment of Aux to –n’t places Aux in a higher structural position than –n’t TP PolP V T' VP Pol n’t T Tom Let’s simply assume this, without going into details VP [+NEG] might be at home ‘POSS’ If the ‘meaning’ part raises along with the ‘form’, we get a wide-scope interpretation ‘It is possible that Tom is not at home’

‘It is not possible that Tom is at home’
PolP V T' VP Pol n’t T Tom VP [+NEG] could be at home ‘POSS’ If the ‘form’ raises on its own, leaving the ‘meaning’ behind, we get a Narrow-scope interpretation ‘It is not possible that Tom is at home’

What determines whether the ‘meaning’ raises with the ‘form’ or whether it is left behind?
We have seen that some modals (need, dare and epistemic can) are NPIs. They must occur in the scope of Negation or some other ‘non-affirmative’ operator. Let’s assume that this restriction applies to the ‘meaning’ part, not the form

NPIs must occur in the scope of Negation (or
What determines whether the ‘meaning’ raises with the ‘form’ or whether it is left behind? NPIs must occur in the scope of Negation (or some other ‘non-affirmative’ operator). TP PolP V T' VP Pol n’t T In its original position, need satisfies this condition since its ‘meaning’ is lower than that of the negative operator You If the ‘meaning’ raised along with the form, the condition would no longer be satisfied VP You needn’t worry does not mean ‘it is necessary for you not to worry’ [+NEG] need worry ‘NEC’ (NPI)

NPIs must occur in the scope of Negation (or
What determines whether the ‘meaning’ raises with the ‘form’ or whether it is left behind? NPIs must occur in the scope of Negation (or some other ‘non-affirmative’ operator). TP PolP V T' VP Pol n’t T In its original position, need satisfies this condition since its ‘meaning’ is lower than that of the negative operator You If the ‘meaning’ raised along with the form, the condition would no longer be satisfied Thus, the only option is to raise the ‘form’ on its own, leaving the ‘meaning’ in the scope of negation VP [+NEG] need worry ‘NEC’ (NPI) You needn’t worry means ‘it is not necessary for you to worry’

Positive Polarity Items (PPIs)
Some words show the opposite restriction; they are rather unnatural in the scope of negation: ?Tom didn’t buy some bread This restriction extends to some cases where a higher clause is negated ?I don’t think Tom bought some bread Some modals show a similar degree of oddness in this context: ?I don’t think it might/may rain ?I don’t think you must leave now These modals also have scope over negation in simple sentences: It might/may not rain You must not leave now Hypothesis: might, must and epistemic may (like some) are Positive Polarity Items (PPIs). Their ‘meaning’ parts cannot be in the scope of negation.

If might raises on its own, leaving its ‘meaning’ part behind, this restriction is violated
TP PolP V T' VP Pol not T The ‘meaning’ part of a PPI modal must escape from the scope of negation It VP [+NEG] This gives the correct interpretation: ‘It is possible that it will not rain’ might rain ‘POSS’ (PPI)

Some modals show no polarity restrictions; they can occur naturally in both affirmative and negative contexts: Joe can swim I don’t think Joe can swim Sue could solve this problem I don’t think Sue could solve this problem These modals have narrow scope with respect to Clausal negation: Joe can’t swim ‘It is not possible for Joe to swim’ Sue couldn’t solve the problem ‘It would not be possible for Sue to solve the problem’ Thus, for the clear cases at least, it seems that the only modals that have scope over Clausal negation are PPIs What determines whether the ‘meaning’ raises with the ‘form’ or whether it is left behind? Raising of the ‘meaning’ part is possible only when it must escape from the scope of negation; i.e. when the modal is a Positive Polarity Item

Modals and tense We have seen that with lexical verbs (also non-modal auxiliaries), the past-tense can have the following interpretations: Absolute past (R  S): Tom left yesterday Relative past (R  SSUB ): He will claim that he missed his train Backshifted (R = SSUB ) in complements of a past-tense verb: The lifeguard said it was too dangerous to swim Non-past, irrealis in certain contexts (Condition clauses, complements of wish and it’s (high) time) This pattern seems to be totally regular. For example, we do not find individual verbs whose past-tense can have a backshifted interpretation but cannot express an absolute past … or which do not allow an irrealis interpretation … or which allow an irrealis interpretation in other contexts (e.g. in main clauses or the Consequent clause of a conditional sentence)

With modals there is no such uniformity
The interpretation of past-tense forms can vary from one modal to another … and between (subtly) different meanings or uses of the same modal We will investigate this issue next week when we look at the properties of individual modals in more detail

CONFIRMED Modals are messy! Preliminary hypothesis:
But we have disentangled some of this messiness by teasing apart different types of modality (often expressed by the same verb): Epistemic vs Root, Deontic vs Dynamic We have also seen how these different types of modality interact with other properties Scope properties of modals seem to be intimately linked to Polarity Sensitivity in ways which can be explicated structurally within the Auxiliary Raising account proposed in Unit 3

Strategy (last week) Main task for today
Modal Auxiliaries Continued Strategy (last week) 1. Identify the different ways in which modals are ‘messy’ 2. Try to find some order within this ‘messiness’ Main task for today 3. Clarify the properties of individual modals and the ways in which they can be used

The ‘possibility’ modals: can/could, may/might

The ‘possibility’ modals: can/could, may/might
Core meaning: X is consistent with Y Epistemic: The proposition is consistent with the speaker’s beliefs or available evidence Dynamic: The situation is consistent with properties internal to the situation: Tom can swim ‘Tom’s skills’ Sue can reach the top shelf ‘Sue’s height’ Three people can sit on this sofa ‘size of the sofa’ Deontic: The situation is consistent with the speaker’s wishes, laws, regulations, etc. You can leave now You may smoke outside Dare also qualifies as a possibility modal: Bill daren’t ask for a pay rise ‘not consistent with Bill’s courage’

Can Root uses of can Dynamic (ability) Deontic (permission)
Sue can read Arabic Tom can swim You can go out tonight Students can use calculators in the exam

I can see a bird on the tree I can hear a strange noise
Can with perception verbs: ?I see a bird on the tree ?I hear a strange noise Use of can is generally preferred in the present tense Perhaps the semantically redundant use of can is a way of resolving this aspectual dilemma But why? Observation: perception is usually involuntary. If the conditions for perception are met, perception normally occurs. Are perception verbs stative or non-stative? The simple present tense with non-stative verbs usually forces a habitual (or scheduled event) interpretation I see the same bird on the tree every morning ?I see a bird on the tree now To describe events in the present, the progressive construction must be used ??I’m seeing a bird on the tree Perception verbs don’t seem to fit neatly into the stative / non-stative distinction

Epistemic can Negative Polarity Item ?It can be raining ≠ ‘Perhaps it is raining’ It can’t be raining Can it be raining? Often epistemic can’t expresses refusal to believe; e.g. in a context where it is clear to the speaker that the proposition is true It can’t be raining … I’ve just hung the washing out to dry The flight can’t have been cancelled … I have an important meeting to attend In these cases, epistemic (im)possibility expresses (in)consistency with what the speaker wants to believe

It can rain in the desert
It can be hot in Florida It can rain in the desert Children can be irritating Linguistics can be interesting ‘Sporadic’ can It is often hot in Florida It sometimes rains in the desert Children are occasionally irritating Linguistics is sometimes interesting Near paraphrase with frequency adverbs Is this use epistemic or root? Paraphrase by a finite complement construction Paraphrase by a sentence with adverbs like perhaps, obviously, … Modification by well (only with possibility modals in affirmative sentences) It can rain in the desert ≠ ‘It is possible that it rains in the desert’ ≈ ‘It is possible for it to rain in the desert’ ≠ ‘Perhaps it rains in the desert’ *It can well rain in the desert’

‘Sporadic’ can seems to be a dynamic root modal
Conclusion ‘Sporadic’ can seems to be a dynamic root modal It can be hot in Florida It can rain in the desert Children can be irritating Linguistics can be interesting Describe situations as being inherently possible Evidence that they are possible is often based on the fact that they are known to occur from time to time Hence the ‘sporadic’ interpretation

Could Among modal verbs, the can /could pair is the one that most clearly follows the regular present / past tense relation found with lexical verbs … We have seen that with lexical verbs (also non-modal auxiliaries), the past-tense can have the following interpretations: Absolute past (R  S): Tom left yesterday Relative past (R  SSUB ): He will claim that he missed his train Backshifted (R = SSUB ) in complements of a past-tense verb: The lifeguard said it was too dangerous to swim Non-past, irrealis in certain contexts (Condition clauses, complements of wish and it’s (high) time) This pattern seems to be totally regular with lexical verbs. For example, we do not find individual verbs whose past-tense can have a backshifted interpretation but cannot express an absolute past … or which do not allow an irrealis interpretation … or which allow an irrealis interpretation in other contexts (e.g. in main clauses or the Consequent clause of a conditional sentence)

Could As past tense of can (referring to past time)
Dynamic (past ability) Sue could read when she was two Deontic (past permission) In the 1960s, you could smoke in cinemas These example express ‘generic’ possibility: ability or permission to perform activities of the type described However, could cannot easily express ability or permission with respect to specific events in the past: ?The burglar could open the safe ‘The burglar was able to open the safe’ *Tom could go out last night ‘Tom was allowed to go out last night’ The burglar couldn’t open the safe ‘The burglar was unable to open the safe’ Tom couldn’t go out last night ‘Tom was not allowed to go out last night’ But these are fine when can is negated Polarity Sensitivity The burglar knew he could open the safe Tom’s parents said he could go out last night And in backshifted contexts Previous slide: “For example, we do not find individual verbs whose past-tense can have a backshifted interpretation but cannot express an absolute past”

Could Thus, even with can and could the tense distinction does not totally follow the regular pattern found with lexical verbs Nevertheless, could functions as the past of ‘sporadic’ can In the olden days, travelling could be dangerous Dinosaurs could be quite small Knights in armour could be cowardly And it occurs readily with perception verbs (even with respect to ‘specific’ situations): I could see a bird in the tree I saw a bird in the tree The simple past is also available here: Though there are some subtle differences in meaning: Tom saw the accident ?Tom could see the accident

Could As irrealis counterpart of can Dynamic (ability)
The burglar could open the safe if he had the right tools Deontic (permission) Tom could go out if he finished his homework = ‘would be able’ = ‘would be allowed’ It can also occur in the contexts which allow an irrealis interpretation for the past tense of lexical verbs If I could fly, I would come to you = ‘if I were able …’ I wish I could go out tonight = ‘I wish I were allowed …’ It’s high time Jack could read = ‘It’s time he was able …’

Could Often used in polite (deferential) requests and offers:
Could you lend me some money? Could you pass the salt? Could I be of assistance to you? Can you lend me some money? Can you pass the salt? Can I help you? This seems to be a pragmatic extension of irrealis mode. As if the speaker is not actually making the request or offer, but simply inquiring what the response would be. The same effect can be seen with past-forms of other modals Would you lend me some money? Should I wash the dishes? Might I make a suggestion? Will you lend me some money? Shall I wash the dishes? May I make a suggestion?

Could Epistemic Use Sue could (well) be in the library It could (well) rain tomorrow I could (well) have left my umbrella in your office = may, might Unlike may and might, it has narrow scope in negative sentences Sue couldn’t be in the library (it’s closed) I couldn’t have left my umbrella in your office (I’ve used it since I was there) = can’t Unlike epistemic can, it is not a Negative Polarity Item With irrealis interpretation (usually with have + Ven) Somebody could (well) have been injured (but nobody was) If Tom hadn’t had the accident, he could still have been alive today

Tom has still not arrived
Epistemic Modality: a strategy for filling gaps in our knowledge 8.00 Tom left for work 10.00 Tom has still not arrived Known situation ? His train could have been cancelled may might He might have had an accident He may have gone to the football match He could have been kidnapped

Irrealis Mode At any time, almost anything can happen next A The computer might crash NOW B The ceiling could collapse D I may walk out C I might sneeze It is epistemically possible that this computer will crash before I show the next slide

Only joking It didn’t! But it might have!
These non-events are now a fixed part of the real world and cannot be changed A The computer didn’t crash A moment ago NOW B The ceiling didn’t collapse D I didn’t walk out C I didn’t sneeze Only joking It didn’t! Given the evidence available to us, it is no longer possible that this computer crashed a moment ago But it might have! However, we can still envisage these unreal events from a time when they were epistemically possible The computer might have crashed ‘It was possible that the computer would crash’

? Realis mode 10.00 Tom has still not arrived 8.00 Tom left for work
Known situation He might have had an accident Known situation Unreal world The computer might have crashed Irrealis mode A moment ago NOW The computer didn’t crash Known situation

Could Potential ambiguity between realis and irrealis interpretations
Realis (Epistemic) Perhaps he did; I wasn’t paying attention Tom could well have warned us … Tom could have warned us about the roadworks It would have been possible for him to warn us, but he didn’t Irrealis (Root) The decision hasn’t been announced yet Bill could have got the job If he had worn a suit to the interview What about For all you know, I could have got the job

Epistemic possibility (Realis)
May and might Principal uses of may Deontic (permission) You may leave now Usually with a performative effect -- granting permission rather than simply reporting that the action is allowed Can is neutral in this respect: You may smoke here You can smoke here Epistemic possibility (Realis) Sue may be in the library Tom may have missed his train It may rain tomorrow Might cannot function as an absolute past-tense of either use of may: *You might leave yesterday ‘You were allowed to leave yesterday’ *It might rain yesterday

Typically might is a near-synonym of epistemic may (more frequent in casual speech)
Sue might be in the library Tom might have missed his train It might rain tomorrow It can be used in backshifted contexts: Bill said it might rain yesterday *Bill said it may rain yesterday More marginally, in highly literary style, as a backshifted counterpart of deontic may: I asked if I might accompany her, and she replied that I might ME: “May/might I accompany you?” HER: “Yes, you may.” Like could, but unlike may in Standard English, epistemic might allows an irrealis interpretation (with the same potential ambiguities) Bill might (well) have got the job The decision hasn’t been announced yet If he had worn a suit to the interview I might (well) have died during the operation

Not all irrealis uses of might are epistemic:
Addition of well gives the realis epistemic interpretation: ‘Perhaps he did. I wasn’t paying attention.’ Tom might have warned us about the roadworks This example does not involve permission and does not correspond to other root uses of may There is actually a 3rd meaning of this sentence (compatible with well). ‘Tom didn’t know about the roadworks. If he had known, it is possible that he would have warned us’

In relatively formal written style, may has other root uses which do not involve permission in any obvious sense (usually in the passive form) These seeds may be sown directly outdoors Spare parts may be obtained from authorised dealers This appliance may be used without an earth connection Can is also possible here, but may provides an assurance that the activity is consistent with some favourable outcome, which is absent with can. Cf. This appliance can be used without an earth connection. It will work and it’s probably quite safe Might has a corresponding backshifted use The instructions stated clearly that these seeds might be sown directly outdoors, but independent tests have shown that they rarely germinate under these conditions Before the company went bankrupt, spare parts might be purchased in most hardware stores, but now they can only be obtained from specialist dealers More marginally, as a true past (highly formal)

Other uses of may Concessive: He may be poor, but he is happy ≈ Although he is poor, he is happy Extension of epistemic use He may well be poor, but he is happy Might is also possible with the same meaning, but could expresses possibility rather than concession He might be poor, but he is happy ?He could be poor, but he is happy Hortative (expressing wishes): May peace be with you (only with may)

The “necessity” modals must, need will/would, shall/should
ought (to), have (to)

Must (and have to) Must has no distinct past-tense form (though historically it is derived from the past-tense mōste, of Old English mōtan) Past time must be expressed by had to (or some other paraphrase) *Tom must leave yesterday Tom had to leave yesterday For many speakers, must allows a backshifted interpretation: %Tom knew he must leave quickly = Tom knew he had to leave quickly Must cannot express irrealis mode: *If I must leave quickly, I would call a taxi If I had to leave quickly, I would call a taxi *If it rained tomorrow, we must cancel the picnic If it rained tomorrow, we would have to cancel the picnic *If it rained tomorrow, we had to cancel the picnic Note that had to expresses irrealis mode in the same contexts as lexical verbs (if clauses, wish complements, etc. ). In other contexts, would is required.

Root: Deontic (obligation)
Must Root: Deontic (obligation) Epistemic necessity You must leave now Assignments must be submitted by the deadline Passengers must wear a seat-belt It must be raining Sue must have left Tom must be tired

Must Types of root necessity
Performative: the speaker imposes an obligation (orders) You must go to bed immediately Declarative: the speaker reports that an obligation exists Passengers must wear a seat-belt Contingent necessity: the action described is a necessary condition for some objective Candidates must have a degree in Linguistics You must take the next turning on the left We must eat in order to survive Possibly some of these cases are ‘Dynamic’ rather than ‘Deontic’ This is the usual sense of lexical need Sometimes, must have can express a retrospective requirement: To qualify for a Distinction, students must have passed all modules at the first attempt But typically, must have favours an epistemic interpretation Tom must have left

What if I haven’t got a dog?
Gratuities must be paid to the head waiter References must be sent under separate cover

Must Types of epistemic necessity
Strict necessity: the proposition (P) is necessarily true Not P is inconsistent with the available evidence (or speaker’s beliefs) A: ‘I can’t find my keys anywhere’ B: ‘You must have put them somewhere’ The suspect must have come this way. All the other roads were blocked. Typically, epistemic must expresses a weaker notion of necessity P is the most plausible hypothesis that is consistent with the evidence Known situation: Tom hasn’t arrived for work He must have missed his train He might have missed his train He might have had an accident Most plausible? He may have gone to the football match He could have been kidnapped

Must Types of epistemic necessity
Strict necessity: the proposition (P) is necessarily true Not P is inconsistent with the available evidence (or speaker’s beliefs) A: ‘I can’t find my keys anywhere’ B: ‘You must have put them somewhere’ The suspect must have come this way. All the other roads were blocked. Typically, epistemic must expresses a weaker notion of necessity P is the most plausible hypothesis that is consistent with the evidence Have to usually favours a root interpretation, but when it has an epistemic interpretation it conveys strict necessity (with stress on have) Your keys have to be somewhere ?Tom has to have missed his train

?! In all of its uses, must has wide scope in negative sentences
However, for many speakers, negation of epistemic must is odd %You mustn’t have locked the door %Sue mustn’t be at home Instead, can’t is used You can’t have locked the door Sue can’t be at home ?! Some pedagogical grammars suggest that can’t is the negative form of epistemic must ‘not possible that P’ ≡ ‘necessary that not P’ ‘not necessary that P’ ≡ ‘possible that not P’ Logical equivalence can’t mustn’t needn’t mightn’t E.g. It is not possible that Sue is here ≡ It is necessarily true that Sue is not here It is not necessarily true that Sue is here ≡ It is possible that Sue is not here The suspect needn’t have come this way The suspect mightn’t have come this way

The same equivalence holds for root uses
You mustn’t leave now You can’t leave now The scope of have to: Where have to has the N.I.C.E. properties (Conservative British varieties), it has wide scope when negated directly (like mustn’t): %You haven’t to say anything. It’s a secret. With negation by do-support, it has narrow scope (like needn’t): You don’t have to say anything, but anything you do say may be used in evidence against you With have got to, judgements vary You haven’t got to say anything.

Epistemic must vs will Deduction Prediction Must: P is presented as a plausible explanation for a known state of affairs Will: P is presented as a plausible consequence of a known state of affairs He must have missed his train Known situation: Tom hasn’t arrived for work Known situation: Tom left for the station 20 minutes ago The train was due to leave 5 minutes ago It takes 30 minutes to get to the station He will have missed his train #He will have missed his train Another scenario: Bill asks me for advice. I suggest that he goes to see Prof Smith: Me: ‘She will be in her office now’ Prediction based on her normal habits (A few minutes later) Bill: ‘She wasn’t there’ Now a known situation Me: ‘She must be in a meeting’ Plausible explanation

Epistemic must cannot be used to make statements about the future Except with scheduled events or plans It will rain tomorrow *It must rain tomorrow Root interpretation only The train must arrive at p.m. Sue must be having a party on Saturday Scheduled event Plan Possible reason: Conjectures about the future cannot be used to explain known situations in the present or past Other epistemic modals (may, might and could) are neutral with respect to the distinction between predictions and deductions Tom hasn’t arrived for work Tom left too late to catch the train He may/might/could have missed his train

Will/would In their epistemic use (prediction):
will = Realis would = Irrealis If Sue is at home, she will answer the phone If Sue were at home, she would answer the phone If I win the lottery, I will quit my job If I won the lottery, I would quit my job Root (Dynamic) use: Volition (= ‘be willing’) This use is most clearly discerned in negative sentences and questions Tom won’t help us Tom wouldn’t help us Will you help me? Would you help me (if I asked)? Will does not normally occur in if clauses. When it does, it usually indicates volition. If Tom will help us, we should ask him If Tom helps us, we will pay him

Will/would Habitual (distributive) use:
Whenever I saw Sue, she would smile Tom would often take the dog for a walk Will has a similar use in the present: Whenever I see Sue, she will smile Tom will often take the dog for a walk Habitual will seems less common than habitual would. Perhaps because the simple present with non-stative verbs forces a habitual interpretation anyway, whereas the simple past favours a punctual interpretation With stress on will/would: ‘insistence’ Tom will keep interrupting me Sue would ask most awkward questions This seems to combine the aspectual (distributive habit) use with Dynamic (Volition) modality

Will vs shall In prescriptive grammar, shall is the 1st person form of epistemic will. But this ‘rule’ is not widely observed. Historically (etymologically), shall expresses ‘obligation’ whereas will expresses ‘volition’ or ‘willingness’. (Cf. German sollen vs willen) For many speakers, shall is almost obsolete Questions interpreted as offers or requests Surviving uses: Shall I wash the dishes? (offer) Will you wash the dishes? (request) In legal or administrative language (e.g. legal contracts): The tenants shall maintain the property in good order The proprietor shall have reasonable access to the property Sometimes this use of shall is exploited for humorous or sarcastic effect: ‘She who shall be obeyed’ (epithet applied to Margaret Thatcher)

Should Unlike shall (almost obsolete for many speakers), should is still widely used. Where the prescriptive rule (shall as 1st person form) is obeyed, should is its backshifted form: I shall leave soon I said I should leave soon More typical uses of should are not directly related to shall in any obvious way (i.e. should is not the past tense of shall, but is best analysed as a separate modal in its own right).

Should Root uses: We should leave soon
Children should obey their parents Often characterised as a ‘weak necessity’ modal (an attenuated form of must) Retrospective requirements: ‘Normal’ requirement (allowing exceptions) To qualify for a Distinction, students should have passed all modules at the first attempt To qualify for a Distinction, students must have passed all modules at the first attempt ‘absolute’ requirement (no exceptions) In more typical examples, should is very different from must The kids should be in bed now You should have informed the police Irrealis, counterfactual when the situation is in present or past The kids must be in bed now You must have informed the police Only possible with an epistemic interpretation

These paraphrases are also counterfactual
Should As an ‘evaluative’ modal The kids should be in bed now ‘It would be desirable for the kids to be in bed’ You should have informed the police ‘It would have been appropriate to call the police’ These paraphrases are also counterfactual We should leave soon ‘It would be appropriate to leave soon’ The deontic force of should (weak obligation) is a pragmatic effect. By stating that a situation would be desirable/appropriate, the speaker exerts pressure on the hearer to bring the situation about.

Should Scope in negative sentences:
In the ‘normal requirement’ use, should clearly has wide scope (like must) To qualify for a Distinction, students should not have failed any modules To qualify for a Distinction, students must not have failed any modules For the ‘evaluative’ cases, there are two possible approaches: You shouldn’t have called the police ‘It would have been appropriate [not to call the police]’ ‘It was not [appropriate to call the police]’ Entails ‘you did call the police’ Realis Irrealis Wide scope Narrow scope I will not attempt to resolve this issue here

Should Epistemic use The bus should arrive soon The weather should be fine tomorrow ‘Probability’ ‘It is probable that the bus will arrive soon’ ‘The weather is likely to be fine tomorrow’ But, ‘probablility’ is based on the premise of an ‘ideal world’ (one in which buses run on time or weather forecasts are accurate) The bus should arrive soon ≈ ‘If the world is ‘ideal’, the bus will arrive soon’ Potential ambiguity: Sue should have arrived a few minutes ago Realis, epistemic: Speaker doesn’t know whether Sue has arrived but is making a conjecture Irrealis, evaluative(?) Sue hasn’t arrived

Should ‘Subjunctive’ use I am eager that he should arrive on time
Denotes a ‘Situation’ I am eager that he arrive on time I am eager for him to arrive on time If anyone should call, tell them I’m out Should anyone call, tell them I’m out ‘Inverted conditionals’ are only possible with verbs in the subjunctive

Should A puzzling case: I should know what happened. I was there.
In its most natural interpretation, this sentence does not entail ‘I don’t know what happened’. It does not involve ‘weak obligation’ either Plausible paraphrase: ‘It would be appropriate for you to believe that I know what happened’

Ought Alice in Wonderland (Walt Disney 2010)
Caterpillar: The question is ‘Who are you?’ Alice: Alice Caterpillar: We shall see. Alice: What do you mean by that? I ought to know who I am. Caterpillar: Yes, you ought, stupid girl.

Ought Syntax Shows mixed modal auxiliary / lexical verb properties
Ought we to leave? We ought not to leave Auxiliary properties Usually requires to with the infinitive: We ought to leave *We ought leave Lexical verb property But, for many speakers, to can be omitted in questions and with ellipsis: Ought we (to) leave? Yes, we ought (to) For some speakers, do-support is possible in colloquial style (non-standard): %Did we ought to leave? %We didn’t ought to leave Lexical verb property Historically, ought (like must) is a past-tense form (of the verb owe)

Ought Semantic properties Synonymous with ‘evaluative’ should
We should leave soon Children should obey their parents The kids should be in bed now You should have informed the police We ought to leave soon Children ought to obey their parents The kids ought to be in bed now You ought to have informed the police No ‘normal requirement’ use To qualify for a Distinction, students ought not to have failed any modules This seems to be an evaluative comment on the criteria for obtaining a Distinction Epistemic use? The bus ought to arrive soon The weather ought to be fine tomorrow Seem to favour an evaluative interpretation Sue ought to have arrived a few minutes ago No ‘subjunctive’ use: *I am eager that he ought to arrive on time *If anyone ought to call, tell them I’m out *Ought anyone to call, tell them I’m out

Summary Past-forms do not systematically denote past time Where they do refer to the past, they show restrictions which are not found with corresponding present-forms (e.g. root could) Often a past-time interpretation is restricted to formal (rather archaic) style (e.g. might) A backshifted interpretation is generally available Past-forms can express irrealis mode Many past-forms are best analysed as separate items (e.g. they have non-past, realis interpretations or meanings which are not directly related to the corresponding present-forms)

LG506 Unit 5 Modality.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "LG506 Unit 5 Modality."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

LG506 Unit 5 Modality.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "LG506 Unit 5 Modality."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback