be to and have to + lexical verbs and their modal meanings from functional and cognitive perspectives (a case study based on lifelines textbooks used in hanoi pedagogical university no 2

Modality is understood as a semantic category, which covers such notions as possibility, probability, necessity, volition, obligation and since the semantic field of modality has widened

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Values in modality

Table 2: Modality and Modulation

Table 3: Semi- modality distinction

Table 4: The auxiliary verb- main verb gradient

Table 5: Variant forms of the lexical verb be

Table 6: Variant forms of have

Table 7: The result of the achieved test

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

DECLARATION……… i

ACKNOWLEDEGMENTS……… ii

ABSTRACT……… iii

LIST OF TABLES……… iv

PART A: INTRODUCTION 1

1 Rationale of the study 1

1.1 Literature review 1

1.2 Rationale 2

2 Aims of the study 3

2.1 Objectives 3

2.2 Research questions 3

3 Scope of the study……… 4

4 Methodology……… 4

5 Design of the study……… 4

PART B: DEVELOPMENT 5

CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 5

1.1 Theory of Grammar 5

1.1.1 Definitions 5

1.1.2 Schools of grammar 5

1.1.2.1 Functional Grammar 5

1.1.2.2 Halliday‟s Functional Grammar 6

1.1.2.3 Cognitive Grammar 6

1.2 Concept of modality and semi- modality in English 7

1.2.1 Definition of modality 7

1.2.2 Types of modality 7

1.2.2.1 Deontic modality 8

1.2.2.2 Epistemic modality 9

1.2.2.3 Types of modality in Halliday‟s view 9

1.2.2.4 A cognitive approach to modality 11

1.2.2.5 Summary 13

1.2.3 Concept of semi-modality 13

1.3 Modal and semi- modal verbs in English……… 15

1.3.1 Concepts of modal and semi- modal verbs 15

1.3.1.1 Definition of modal verbs 15

1.3.1.2 Definition of semi-modal verbs 15

1.3.2 Morphological, syntactic and semantic features of modal verbs 16

1.3.2.1 Morphological, syntactic features of modal verbs 16

1.3.2.2 Semantic features of modal verbs 17

1.3.3 Morphological, syntactic (inflectional) and semantic features of semi- modals 18

1.3.3.1 Morphological, syntactic (inflectional) features of semi- modals 18

1.3.3.2 Semantic features of semi- modals 20

1.3.4 Summary 21

CHAPTER 2: INVESTIGATION 22

2.1 Features of modal meanings expressed by „be to‟ and „have to‟ 22

2.1.1 Conventional meanings of „be to” 22

2.1.2 Conventional meanings of “have to” 23

2.1.3 „Be to‟, „have to‟ and the semantic blend between Epistemic and Deontic modality 25

2.1.4 Summary 26

2.1.5 Inflection of „be‟ in present, past, progressive and perfect tense 27

2.1.5.1 Be- as an auxiliary 28

2.1.5.1.1 Be- in forming the progressive 28

2.1.5.1.2 Be- in forming the passive 29

2.1.5.2 Be – a lexical verb / full verb 29

2.1.5.2.1 Be with the perfect aspect 29

2.1.5.2.2 Be with the Progressive Aspect 30

2.2.1 Inflection of „have‟ in present, past, perfect and progressive tense 31

2.3 Structures containing “be to” and “have to” + verb 32

2.3.1 Structures containing „be to‟+ verb 32

2.3.1.1 „Be due to‟+ verb 32

2.3.1.2 „Be about to+ verb‟ and „be on the point of + V-ing‟ 32

2.3.1.3 „Be able to‟+ verb 33

2.3.1.4 „Be going to‟+ verb 33

2.3.1.5 „Be meant to‟ and „be supposed to‟+ verb 33

2.3.1.6 „Be bound to‟ and „be supposed to‟+ verb 33

2.3.2 Structures containing “have to” + verb 34

2.3.3 Summary 34

CHAPTER 3- INVESTIGATION AND FINDINGS 35

3.1 Test design 35

3.1.1 Description of syllabus and textbook 35

3.1.2 Objectives of the test 35

3.1.3 Format of the test 35

3.2 Test implementation 36

3.3 Test result and errors made by learners 36

3.4 Application to the teaching and learning modals and semi- modals 38

3.4.1 Frequencies of Vietnamese students‟ errors in using modals and semi- modals 38

3.4.2 The causes to Vietnamese students‟ errors 39

3.4.3 Solutions to the problems 39

PART C: CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATION 41

1 Conclusions 41

2 Implications of the study for teaching English modals and semi-modals 41

3 Limitations of the study 42

4 Suggestions for further research 42

REFERENCES 43

APPENDIX I

PART A: INTRODUCTION

1 Rationale of the study

1.1 Literature review

Modality is understood as a semantic category, which covers such notions as

possibility, probability, necessity, volition, obligation and since the semantic field of

modality has widened to cover the attitudinal notions as above, consequently, there have

been a number of types of forms which realize these concepts, among which the use of

semi-modals such as “be to” and “have to” are very common in English

The study on modal and semi-modal verbs, interests so many linguists and

researchers undoubtedly, theirs provide a great help for Vietnamese learners of English

However, beside such certain contributions, there still exist some gaps that need dealing

with For example, Quirk, R (1972) considers the meanings of modal auxiliaries only in the

respect of their syntactic and morphological properties and partly makes a schematic

survey of their chief meanings Downing, A and Locke, P (1995) refer to the meaning of

modals in terms of Epistemic modality (Modal certainty, probability, possibility) and

Intrinsic modality (Volition, obligation, necessity, ability, permission), this initially gives a

distinction between the two types of modality, nevertheless, the meanings of each modal

are only discussed briefly and semantically

Yule, G (1998) gives a brief review of the basic forms of the modal and then

considers their basic meanings in terms of epistemic and root modality, the core meaning

of each simple modal is also presented along with the effect of different contexts on the

interpretation of those core meanings In each case the distinct uses of related forms (for

example: could, may, might, would) are noted This is seen as a new explanation to

English modals as it partly mentions the role of context though the context here is simply

generalized

Especially recently there are some M.A thesis on the meanings of the modals such as

Huyen, DH (1999), gave systematic presentation of modal auxiliaries in expressing

modality in English and Vietnamese, and thereby providing a theoretical and practical

insight into systemic comparison of modality realized by modal auxiliaries Giang, HT (2001) also made a comparison between different types of modal expressions in

English and Vietnamese equivalents However, hers does not go further into meaning in

context

Chau, NDN (1999) set for the discussion on pragmatic interpretation of obligation

meanings expressed by English modals “must” “should” “have to”, she also indicates

criteria for realizing different types of speech acts involving those modal verbs…

Generally, such researchers mentioned above studied the meanings of modals from different angles and mostly either focus on syntactic and semantic features of English modal system or provide a theoretically general picture of modal verbs between the two languages, English and Vietnamese

1.2 Rationale

The literature review has revealed that though many works have been written about English modal system, it still remains a complicated and trouble- some area of language for linguists and learners of English As a learner, a teacher, and a neophyte researcher of English, the author finds there should be some further exploitation on modal and semi-

modal verbs in general and “be to”, “have to” in particular, for the following reasons First of all, most writers‟ attention is to syntactical and literal sense of semi- modals “be to” and “have to” As regards usage of these semi- modals, their modal meanings from

Functional and Cognitive Perspectives are still questionable

Modal auxiliaries have two aspects of functions: deontic and epistemic The basic meaning of modal auxiliaries in English typically conveys some indication of the speaker‟s perspective or attitude toward the situation or state of affairs being described Epistemic modality refers to the perspective that is personally determined in the situation, and deontic modality indicates what is socially determined But there is a close relationship between epistemic and deontic: the transfer of deontic function to epistemic function, and the metaphorical extension in the process by the force dynamic between them For instance,

“must” can be used to express epistemic modality as in “if you love me, there must be something left for me!” Normally, it could be read as: “by my judgment and reasoning, I conclude that is the case” But it is still wondered that whether “must” simply conveys the

idea of logical necessity like that or it may imply other sense in a certain context?

Besides, along with the process of teaching- learning, it is realized that the mastering of modals especially appear to be unsatisfactory due to the structural approach to grammar teaching Learners learn the meanings of modals as a list and usually fail to understand properly the functions and also the factors that affect the functions that each modal conveys, hence, the communicative competence might not be fully achieved

In addition, learners are often confused in choosing the appropriate modal to express certain notion of modality The mistakes made by students when using modals in general and semi-modals in particular are numerous This leads to a hypothesis that is it mother tongue that influences the use of these words?

Such linguistic and methodological viewpoints have shown that an investigation into

the modal meanings of “be to” and “have to” + lexical verb from Functional and Cognitive

Perspectives is necessary for learners of English as a second language This is the reason why we are interested in this topic and enter this area of research The present paper

discusses the rise of modal meanings more specially the cases of „be to‟ and „have to‟, two

members of the set of the so called “semi auxiliary verbs” (Quirk et al 1985:143), and their two aspects of function: deontic and epistemic So in the thesis, we define two functions in modal auxiliary verbs, and then further expound their scales of deontic function and

epistemic function of two semi- modals be to and have to respectively

2 Aims of the study

2.1 Objectives

This study is just an initial attempt to consider problematic aspects of “be to” and

“have to” with respect to their modal meanings from Functional and Cognitive

Perspectives It is aimed at:

- Studying some preliminaries and features of modals and semi-modals in English

- Analyzing the modal meanings expressed via “be to” and “have to”

- Analyzing the deontic and epistemic functions of “be to” and “have to”

- Offering some suggestions for the application of the study to the teaching –learning of

English modals and semi- modals in general and of “be to”, “have to” in particular to

Vietnamese learners of English

2.2 Research questions

This paper is intended to study and analyze the modal meanings expressed by “be to” and

“have to” so that four questions are raised to achieve those four aims mentioned above:

1 What are the main features of modals and semi- modals in English?

2 What are the features of modal meanings expressed by be to and have to?

3 In what ways do be to and have to convey the notions of deontic and epistemic

modality?

4 What are the solutions to make teaching and learning process better so that a learner‟s errors in using English modals and semi- modals can be avoided?

3 Scope of the study

This study is confined to the modal meanings of “be to” and “have to” in English, their morphological, syntactic and semantic features English modals and semi- modals are

widely utilized in both spoken and written discourse and cover various functional styles It would be interesting to investigate their uses in them all However, in order to make our tasks manageable in keeping the aims of the study, within the time allowance, it is intended

that the most attention is paid to written discourse

4 Methodology

A combination of different methods of analysis will be used in this study The first is

the descriptive method English semi- modals be to and have to will be described in turns

in order to find out their semantic features

However, the major method utilized in this case study is experimental research (qualitative and quantitative investigations on specific learners of English- Vietnamese learners) To

apply these methods and to achieve the study goals, textbooks Lifelines Pre-intermediate

and English tests will be chosen

5 Design of the study

The study is composed of three parts

Part A is the introduction which presents literature review, rationale, aims, scope of the study as well as the methodology for the research

Part B is the main part which consists of three chapters

Chapter one is about the theoretical background for the research This chapter is aimed at establishing the framework of investigation It chiefly deals with modality, semi-modality, modals and semi- modals and their features in English

Chapter two is focused on investigating the modal meanings expressed via “be to” and “have to” and their semantic blend between deontic and epistemic modality

Chapter three deals with the applicability of the study results to the teaching- learning of English modals and semi- modals to Vietnamese learners of English

The final part is the conclusion which presents a recapitulation of the study and provides possible concluding remarks and suggestions for further research

PART B: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

1.1 Theory of Grammar

1.1.1 Definitions

There have been many different concepts about grammar Some linguists understand the grammar of a language as a book written about it and believe that grammar is found only in written language – spoken language has no grammar or a least fluctuate so much that they are only partially grammatical In fact, grammar exists in both written and spoken forms as language users need grammar to organize their transforming structures There are also beliefs that some languages have grammar while the others do not However, it is common to know that every language has its own grammar whose factors that make language differ from the others Thus, a question about how to understand the term grammar properly is raised

F Palmer in his book Grammar defines grammar, in the widest sense, as a complex

set of relations that link the sounds of the language (or its written symbols) with the meanings, the messages they have to convey Then, he also states another definition which describes the grammar of a language is “a device that specifies the infinite set of well- formed sentences and assigns to each of them one or more structural description.” This means that grammar tells us what are all possible sentences of a language and provides us with a description of those sentences Palmer continues with the statement that within linguistics, the term „grammar‟ was understood as a technical tool to distinguish it from phonology – the study of sounds, and semantics with the syntax as the centre concept

Quirk et al share this point of view when he states in A Grammar of Contemporary English (1987) that grammar is a complex set of rules specifying the combination that

words make when forming lager units

1.1.2 Schools of grammar

1.1.2.1 Functional Grammar

Functional Grammar (FG) –a new but dominant school of grammar is based on the traditional functional linguistics This theory of grammar is based on the background that looks at how language works in terms of the functional relationships in its constituent parts, and the system of choices which language users make whenever language is used and has been rapidly developed recently by Halliday and many other scholars

1.1.2.2 Halliday‟s Functional Grammar

From systemic theory of language, which serves as scale and categories of grammar, Halliday develops into his own functional grammar and makes it the most influential approach recently Concerning with this type of grammar, Halliday does not state a concrete definition of the term directly but splits the term into smaller parts and explains each of those parts respectively He clarifies that it is “functional grammar” because the conceptual framework on which it is based is a functional rather than a formal one; and

that it is functional in three distinct although closely related senses: in its interpretation „of text‟, „of system‟, and „of the elements of linguistic structures‟ (Halliday 1994)

First, FG is functional in the sense that it is designed to account for how the language

is used According to Halliday, everything that is said or written unfolds in some context of use Moreover, through centuries of using language as a tool to express every need that human had or desired to have in life, they regularly shaped language in a system that could best satisfy those needs It means that language had been set functionally with respect to

human‟s needs Therefore, functional grammar can be said to be “essentially a „natural‟ grammar, in the sense that everything in it can be explained ultimately, be reference to how language is used” (Halliday 1994)

1.1.2.3 Cognitive Grammar

Cognitive Grammar (CG) is the name which Ronald Langacker has given to a theory

of language which he has been developing since the mid-1970s Initially, Cognitive Grammar occupied a very marginal place in the theoretical linguistic landscape Over the years, as the theory has developed and become more widely known, it has attracted increasing numbers of adherents and sympathizers There is now a sizeable literature which has applied the theory of Cognitive Grammar to a wide range of linguistic issues, in

a variety of languages

Cognitive Grammar is driven by the idea that language is essentially and inherently symbolic in nature Language is systematically grounded in human cognition, and cognitive linguistics seeks to show exactly how The conceptual system that emerges from everyday human experiences has been proved in recent researches to be the basis of natural language in a wide range of areas

Linguistic expressions symbolize, or stand for, conceptualization John R Taylor

refers to this basic assumption as the symbolic thesis Although not uncontroversial, the

symbolic thesis actually amounts to little more than the claim that language is in the essence a means of for relating sound and meaning

According to the symbolic thesis, any linguistic expression, whether this be a single word, a morpheme, a phrase, a sentence, or even an entire text, has the organization of phonological structures, semantic structures and symbolic relation between them Cognitive Grammar makes very strong claim that a language can be exhaustively described

in terms of these three kinds of entities alone

1.2 Concept of modality and semi- modality in English

1.2.1 Definition of modality

Modality in language, according to Von Wright (1951), Lyon (1977), Givon (1989), Palmer (1990), Sweetser (1993), is the speaker‟s attitude to the proposition of the utterance, of the utterance context and to the reality Lyon (1977: 454) says modality is associated with the speaker‟s view and attitude Sweetser (1993: 49-75) once confirms that modality is subjective Bybee (1985) gives a broader definition: Modality is what the speaker is doing with the whole proposition Palmer (1986) defines modality as semantic information associated with the speaker‟s attitude or opinion about what is said In point of fact, modality concerns the factual status of the proposition

The notional content of modality highlights its association with the entire proposition The speaker is presenting the content not as a simple assertion of fact, but colored rather by personal attitude or intervention

For example, if the speaker says “It must be raining”, he is not committing himself

wholeheartedly to the truth of the proposition but is rather modifying their commitment to

some degree by expressing a judgment of the truth of the situation or by saying “I must leave now”, the speaker intervenes directly in the speech event itself The semantic field of

modality has widened to cover such attitudinal notions as: possibility, probability, volition, obligation and permission

1.2.2 Types of modality

Types of modality is classified differently according to different linguists Von

Wright (1951: 1-2) in “Studying modal logic” distinguishes 4 types: Alethic, Epistemic,

Deontic and Existential Rescher (1968), apart from these types, refers to one more type it

is temporal modality Leech and Svartvik (1985: 219-221) suggest 2 types Intrinsic and Extrinsic modality

However, the classification made by Sweetser and Palmer, in my opinion, seems the most acceptable for its clarity and generalization which can be applied to the linguistic study from different angles: semantic, logic and pragmatic They are Epistemic & Deontic (called root) modality Deontic is objective, and epistemic is subjective Modality can be both epistemic and deontic (Palmer 1979, 1986, 1990, 2001, 2003) Epistemic modality indicates the means by which speakers / writers express judgment on the truth of the propositions they utter / write Deontic modality is concerned with the criterion by which the speakers / writers decide which future events are necessary, possible, desirable, etc Most modal expressions can be used in both ways For example, there are ambiguities in

the interpretations of the sentence “Peter must have a bath every day.”

There are degrees of certainty, probability, or obligation in modal operators respectively They are called values, and these can be classified into high, median, and low values, as shown in the following table of modal operators

Table 1: Values in modality

High value must, should, ought to, need to, has to, is to

Median value will, would, shall

Low value may, might, can, could

he is using deontic modality

According to Trask, deontic modality is “concerned with obligation and permission” Lew (1997) also shares the similar idea, that deontic modality “involves the issuing of directives and is associated with notions of such as permission or obligation”

Linguistically, these two main meanings of deontic modality are the basis to define prohibition and exemption Prohibiting means „being obliged not to do something‟; and exempting means „permitting not to do something‟

The following examples illustrate types of meaning of deontic modality:

- Obligation: You must leave now

- Prohibition: You mustn‟t leave now

- Permission: You may leave now

- Exemption: You may not leave now

Some types of deontic modality, in the wide sense, are often expressed in lexical

verbs, for examples, the verbs of hoping and wishing in English, as in: I hope you will come or I wish you would come

1.2.2.2 Epistemic modality

Unlike deontic modality, which relates with actions, epistemic modality is concerned with belief, truth, knowledge, etc in relation to proposition by others or by the speaker himself Considering the status of subordinate clauses in following sentences:

I regret that he read the letter (1)

I believe that he read the letter (2)

The first is “factive” in that the speaker is committed to the truth of the proposition

In other words, the speaker is certain about his reading the letter The second is factive” represents the speaker‟s point of view In example (2), he expresses his uncertainly by using the verb “believe” In English, commitment to the truth of a proposition is expressed in different levels: from less to more (un)certainty, for example:

“non-likely > probable > possible (>: “more certain than”)

To sum up, linguistic discussions recognize two broad kinds of modality: epistemic and deontic modality Epistemic modality deals with the degree of speaker commitment to

the truth of the proposition embedded under the modals Deontic modality is concerned with the necessity or possibility of acts performed by morally responsible agents, and thus with obligation and permission

1.2.2.3 Types of modality in Halliday‟s view

Halliday‟s view on types of modality could be summed up as follow:

“Polarity is the choice between positive and negative, as in is/isn‟t, do/don‟t… However, the possibilities are not limited to a choice between yes and no There are intermediate degrees: various kinds of indeterminacy that fall in between, like “sometimes” or “maybe”

These intermediate degrees, between the positive and negative poles, are known collectively as MODALITY” (Halliday, 1994: 85-86)

He further expresses the commodity exchanged & the speech function and the types of intermediacy in this chart:

Table 2: Modality and Modulation

Commodity

Information Proposition Statement

question Modality

Probability (Possible probable/certain) Frequency (sometime/ usually/always)

Good & services Proposal

Command

Modulation

Obligation (allowed/

supposed/required)

Offer

Inclination/ willing/anxious/ determined (Halliday 1994: 87)

As can be seen from the chart, in a proposition, the meaning of positive and negative

poles is asserting “It is so” in the positive and denying “It isn‟t so” in the negative He

observes two kinds of intermediate possibilities: (i) degree of probability (possible 

probable  certain) which are equivalent to may be “yes”, may be “no” with the different

degrees of likelihood attached and (ii) degree of usuality (both yes and no) (e.g sometime

“yes” sometime “no”), with different degrees of ofteness attached The term MODALITY

strictly belongs to these scales of probability and usuality

In a proposal, the meaning of the positive and negative is prescribing and proscribing

“do it” in the positive and “don‟t do it” in the negative There are also two kinds of intermediate possibility and they depend on the speech function (i) in a command, the intermediate points represents degrees of obligation and inclination a MODULATION, to distinguish them from MODALITY in the sense above

Halliday (1970) also shows that modal auxiliaries in English are used to express two types

of modality, the first is the speaker‟s attitude towards the content of what he is saying, whether he considers it possible, probable, certain etc., the second type is the expression of

the factual conditions on the process as perceived of by the speaker The condition is expressed in terms of obligation, permission, willingness, etc Later on, Halliday (in Kress 1976:199-200) distinguishes the first type from the second as follow: it is not true

modality, it is a kind of quasi- modality because it has nothing to do with the speaker‟s

assessment of probabilities

According to Halliday, these two types of modality have origins from different functions of language The first type is related to the speaker‟s own communication role he takes up a position in regard to the contents and gives his indication of the degree to which

he considers it to be true This type belongs to the interpersonal function of language The

second type of modality is related to the content of the statement expressing the speaker‟s

experience of the real world This type of meaning derives from the ideational function of

language These two types of modality are termed by Halliday, respectively, MODALITY and MODULATION

1.2.2.4 A cognitive approach to modality

Grounding is “[a] semantic function that constitutes the final step in the formation of

a nominal or finite clause With respect to fundamental “epistemic” notions (e.g definiteness for nominals, tense/ modality for clauses), it establishes the location vis-a`-vis the ground of the thing or process serving as the nominal or clausal profile” The ground is

“the speech event, its participants, and its immediate circumstances” (Langacker 1991:

548) For Langacker, the English modals are “grounding predications” (1991: 271)

According to Langacker (1991: Chapter 6) grounding in the verb phrase is affected

by tense or modality Tense and modality are complementary, although in the expression

of the future, which in English is expressed by means of modals there is some interpenetration of modality and tense If the grounding operation is affected by modality,

it is not affected by tense On the other hand, if it is affected by tense and if in addition there is an expression of modality which combines with it, then tense has the modality in its scope (In traditional grammar, futurity, modality and aspects are closely related Quirk

et al 1972)

Both tense and modality can be regarded as grounding operations Tense places the predication over which it has scope in known reality (as a rule, though not always, by marking it as either simultaneous with the moment of speaking, i.e as Present, or as

preceding the moment of speaking, i.e as Past) Modality places it in “irreality”; modality creates some sort of epistemic distance

These different modalities can often be understood in terms of some notions of force, e.g force dynamics (Talmy 1981, 1988, 2003:409) The „strength‟ of the force, and hence also of the modality can vary

Taking a force dynamic account of modality, Sweetser (1990) extends Talmy‟s proposal by arguing that modal verbs do not have two separate unrelated senses, but rather show an extension of the basic root- sense to the epistemic domain Therefore, the following correspondence is defined:

further insight into force- dynamic properties is another modal, must, or its regular surrogate have to, as exemplified in the following examples:

(a) The boy had to stay in and do his homework (or else get punished)

(b) The fugitive had to stay in hiding (or risk capture)

(c) I had to get to the bank before 3:00 (or have no cash for the evening)

The sentences here are on the semantic continuum In (a) there is an implicit sentient external authority that wants the boy to act in the way stated and that threatens to produce consequences unpleasant for him if he doesn‟t In (b) there is an implicit external authority that threatens consequences, but it is unaware of the fugitive‟s stated actions and would not want them if it were so aware In (c) there is no external authority at all, merely worldly exigencies (Talmy, L 2003: 409)

The traditional distinction between the „root‟ (or „deontic‟) uses of the modals, and

their „epistemic‟ uses, has to do with the source of force The root modals construe the

force as emanating from the law of the physical world, from the psychological world of

intentions, desires, and plans, or from the psychological world of norms, laws, regulations,

and moral values In You must do it this way, the necessity may derive from the nature of

the world, from a previous agreement, or from prevailing customs In their epistemic uses,

the force derives from the logic, reasoning, and common sense The necessity in He must

be there by now is a „logical‟ necessity; given what we know, we can infer with a high

degree of certainty that „he is now there‟

1.2.2.5 Summary

In a nutshell, functional and cognitive approaches to modality often do not aim to provide a „serious‟ semantic theory In the cognitive semantic approach to modality, it has been argued that deontic modal meanings are metaphorical extensions of the force dynamic concepts, and the same analysis presumably can be extended to the domain of epistemic modality However, crucially the view cannot explain the non-actuality of modality, a core property inspiring possible world semantic analysis of modality in the first place Neither can it provide analysis of the nature of force dynamics of authority, desire, evidence, etc., which relate to hypothetical situations In addition, cognitive – functional criticism against formal semantic analyses of modality either does not hold or simply arises from misunderstanding Furthermore, functional and cognitive approaches to (inter)subjectivity

of modality do not have as much advantage as they have traditionally claimed over formal approaches

1.2.3 Concept of semi-modality

From the Cognitive perspective, modality differs along the palpability gradient The visual modality can exhibit all levels along the palpability gradient except perhaps the most abstract But we can briefly note that each sensory modality may have its own pattern of manifestation along the various palpability- related parameters adduced For example, the kinesthetic modality, including one‟s sense of one current body posture and movements, may by its nature seldom or never rank very high along the palpability, clarity, and ostension parameters, perhaps hovering somewhere between the semiconcrete and the semiabstract level The modality of smell, at least for humans, seems to rank low with respect to localizability And the modalities of taste and smell, as engaged in the ingestion

of food, may range more over the content / structure parameter (Talmy, L 2003: 159- 160) In specific treatment, according to Quirk R et al (1985) and Biber D et al (1999,

2002), semi- modality is the mixture between lexical verb in terms of syntactic features and modal meanings

Table 3: Semi- modality distinction

Modal meaning

*Further distinction between: - Objective obligation

Negative: doesn‟t have to don‟t have to didn‟t have to

Question: do/ does….have to?

Did………have to?

Do you have to go?

You don‟t have to go She didn‟t have to sit for

the entrance exam

- Subjective obligation: She has to be quiet

They didn‟t seem to be intimidated

(also He seems not to be afraid) <modal

1.3 Modal and semi- modal verbs in English

1.3.1 Concepts of modal and semi- modal verbs

1.3.1.1 Definition of modal verbs

Language is not always just to exchange information by making simple statements and asking questions Sometimes we want to make requests, offers, or suggestions, or to express our wishes or intention We may want to be polite and tactful, or to indicate our feeling about what we are saying We can do all these things by using a set of verbs called modals

Lyons (1977:452) states: “Modals are related to the speaker‟s opinion or attitude towards the proposition that the sentence expresses or the situation that the proposition describes”

Palmer (1986: 16) considers that “modals are concerned with subjective characteristics of an utterance, and it could be further argued that subjectivity is an essential criterion for modality”

Modal verbs, semantically, allow the speaker to express a personal interpretation of the non-factual or non- temporal elements of the event In other words, modals are one way for a speaker to encode modality into what he/she says such notions as: possibility, necessity, obligation, etc

1.3.1.2 Definition of semi-modal verbs

English verb phrases can be marked for either tense or modality, but not both These phrases, although not conforming to the same criteria that core modals do, are to varying

degrees more like auxiliaries than main verbs These expressions are called semi- modal

verbs or semi- auxiliary verbs (Other terms used for these expressions are „quasi-

modals‟ and „periphrastic modals‟.) Semi- auxiliaries are those that combine with other verbal forms with regular rules of co- occurrence

„Semi- modals are multi- word constructions that function like modal verbs‟ (Biber

et al 2002: 174)

Phrasal or periphrastic expressions which convey the meaning of commitment

(epistemic: how much you know about it) and various degrees of obligation (deontic: your

duty, a stronger modality) but act more like regular verbs than modals

Quirk et al (1985) propose a gradient in which core modals form the auxiliary end of the scale and main verbs with a modal meaning the other:

Table 4: The auxiliary verb- main verb gradient

c) MODALS IDIOMS had better, would rather/sooner, be to, have got

to, etc

d) SEMI-AUXILIARIES have to, be about to, be able to, be bound to, be

going to, be obliged to, be supposed to, be willing

to, etc

e) CATENATIVES appear to, happen to, seem to, get +-ed

participle, keep + ing, participle, etc

(Quirk et al 1985:137) The terms that Quirk et al propose in Table 2, although illustrative as far as terms go, have not established themselves in any wider context, and it is roughly the categories of marginal modals, modal idioms and semi-auxiliaries that the term semi-modal tries to cover Thus, it is not a very precise term, and many others have been proposed (see e.g Leech et al 2009, Biber et al 1999) Whatever term is used, however, it “refers to loose constellation of verb constructions which, according to many commentators…, have been

moving along the path of grammaticalization in recent centuries”

1.3.2 Morphological, syntactic and semantic features of modal verbs

1.3.2.1 Morphological, syntactic features of modal verbs

Modal verbs share with other auxiliary verbs BE/HAVE the so called “NICE” properties

„NICE‟ is an acronym which comes from the initial letter of four properties that English modals share:

(a) N for Negation- modals take n‟t to form the negative (e.g He can‟t come)

(b) I for Inversion- modals can come before the subject in certain types of sentence, such

as questions (e.g Must he come?)

(c) C for „Code‟ – modals may occur „stranded‟ in cases where a main verb has been omitted to avoid repetition

E.g He will come and so will she In this example, the modal will stands for the whole

code = verb phrase

(d) E for Emphasis – modals can be used for emphatic assertion with the accent upon the

modals (e.g He mays come or I cans do it)

By applying the “NICE” properties, we end up with a list of modal verbs: will,

would, can, could, shall, should, may, might, ought to and, to a lesser extent, dare and

need There is one point to be made, namely that of “may” “May” conforms to all the

“NICE” properties with the exception of negation It would be grammatically incorrect,

then, to say * He mayn‟t come; while He may not come would, of course, be acceptable

Thus, further criteria for distinguish the modal verbs from other auxiliaries are needed, and

these are provided by Biber et al (1999: 483) In addition to the „NICE‟ properties, modal

verbs:

(e) do not inflect This means they have no “-s” form in the third person singular (e.g She

can swim very well (NOT: She cans…)

(f) precede in negations: the negative particle not and do not require do support in

questions (e.g He may not do it instead of * He doesn‟t may do it)

(g) precede the subject in yes/no questions (e.g Can he do it? )

(h) are succeeded by a verb without the to particle (e.g He would do it instead of * He

would to do it)

(i) can not co-occur in Standard (British or American) English (e.g He may will come

etc.)

1.3.2.2 Semantic features of modal verbs

The semantics of the modal auxiliaries is a highly complex matter, and the subject of

a large literature The primary semantic characteristics of modals are that they allow the

speaker to express an attitude to the non-factual and non-temporal elements of the

situation This means she/he can introduce elements of modality such as possibility,

necessity, desirability, morality, doubt, certainty, etc The two most centre notions in

modal logic are possibility and necessity, known as epistemic and deontic:

Epistemic Deontic

Possibility i You may be under a misapprehension ii You may take as many as

you like Necessity iii You must be out of your mind iv You must work harder

(Huddleston 1984: 167)

In making such a statement as “Mr Wilkins must be the oldest person in the village”,

the speaker not only gives the fact about Mr Wilkins, but also indicates how certain he is

about the truth or correctness of the information through the use of the modal must In the

case of a question, the listener‟s opinion is involved, as well as the person obviously

referred to by the sentence “What should I do?” for example, is clearly about the speaker,

but more than that it involves in the listener‟s judgment

In the consideration of meanings of modals, Palmer (1979) assumes that this is a messy area While dismissing the idea of the search for a “basic meaning” attributed to each individual modal, he believes that it is possible to search for a set of closely related meanings: “(This) must not be taken to imply that we cannot look for a fairly generalized common meaning or a set of closely related meaning for each modal It is only when precision is demanded or invariance postulated that the notion of a basic meaning becomes unrealistic”

In another approach to modal semantics, Dixon (1991:170) points out that each modal has a fair semantic range, extending far beyond the central meanings that are indicated There is in fact considerable overlap between modals For instance, the central

meaning of can refers to inherent ability, e.g John can lift 100 kilos, and of may to the possibility of some specific event happening, e.g We may get a Christmas bonus this year But both modals can and may refer to a permitted activity, e.g John can/ may stay out all night and to some possibility, e.g The verb „shout‟ can/ may be used both transitively and intransitively

The best approach to meaning of modals, according to Lewis (1990: 103) is to look for a single central meaning while at the same time accepting that this may involve recognizing a number of marginal examples

In a nutshell, though modal meanings share some common characteristics as indicated above- the specific meaning of each one in expressing speaker‟s or listener‟s judgment provide us with a quite messy area as Palmer once assumed

1.3.3 Morphological, syntactic (inflectional) and semantic features of semi- modals 1.3.3.1 Morphological, syntactic (inflectional) features of semi- modals

It appears that the semi- modals are hybrid forms, combining characteristics of both

main verbs and auxiliary verbs It also appears that the category is defined by the semantic

functions of its members, not their formal qualities This is important because it suggests that there is no necessary main verb or auxiliary verb characteristic that all semi-modals must share In other words, one needs to calibrate the individual structural characteristics

of the semi- modals since the semi- modals has its own combination of main verb and auxiliary verb characteristics One also needs to learn when and how to substitute semi- modals for modal auxiliaries, and to be aware for the subtle changes of meaning the substitution sometimes indicate

Semi- modals are used in a number of situations when modals are not available They appear, that is to say, to fill gaps created by the peculiar morphology and syntax of the modals

The modal verbs have no non finite forms, no infinitives of the particles and also can

not co-occur Semi- modals, therefore, replace the modals in the following cases:

a) They must be able to come NOT They must can come

b) They may have to come NOT They may must come

In the examples, the modal „must‟ is used with the semi- modal be able to + V and may + have to + V

Semi- modal expressions differ from the modal auxiliaries in having the third person singular forms and being marked for tenses It means they inflect in accordance with

present V/ V-s and past V-ed1 and progressive „be+ V- ing +to V‟

E.g I have to work tonight vs Jim has to work tonight

Jin has to work tonight vs Jame had to work last night

These days Jim is having to work a lot vs last month Marc was having to work a lot

Many modal verbs can not be used in all of the tenses That‟s why we need to know

their meanings and the substitution for them Take the semi- modal have to as an example Have to frequently functions as an alternative to deontic “must” Have to means „it‟s

necessary‟ or “shows obligation and giving advice”

E.g You must study harder

= You have to study harder

Have to is preferred when the obligation is perceived to come from some external source

which the speaker can not control

E.g Excuse me I have to sneeze

I have to clean my room (My mother forces me to do it)

She has to finish the test before the bell rings (After the bell rings, she can‟t go on

answering the questions.)

1.3.3.2 Semantic features of semi- modals

There are two, syntactically different but semantically related, types, MODALS and what we can call SEMI- MODALS:

be about to imminent activity

E.g He has to be going to start writing soon

Modals and semi- modals in the same row of the table have similar, but by no means identical, meanings; combinations of modal and semi- modal are acceptable Thus, in place

of the ungrammatical *will can and could will, one might say will be able to and could be going to respectively

A semi- modal can occur in initial position; it does not then have exactly the same import as the corresponding modal Semi- modals often carry an „unconditional‟ sense and relate to the subject‟s involvement in an activity, while modals may indicate prediction,

ability, necessity, etc subject to certain specifiable circumstances Compare (1a) with

modal must and (1b) with semi- modal have to; (2a) with can and (2b) with be able to: (1a) You mustn‟t mind what he says when he‟s drunk

(1b) You have to watch out for muggers after dark in the midtown area

(2a) John can do mathematics, when he puts his mind to it

(2b)John is able to do mathematics, without even having to try

It is thus entirely appropriate for all semi- modals to include to in term of the meaning of

the modal (FOR) TO complement Just three of fifteen modals include to This is semantically appropriate with be to, a verb which most often has a human subject who is scheduled to become involved in an activity, e.g I am to call on the Vice- Chancellor

Have (got) to, must, should, need to, ought to, be supposed to: personal meaning:

obligation; logical meaning: necessity

1.3.4 Summary

In short, chapter 1 has briefly referred to the notion of modality and some other notions related to this Modality in language is the speaker‟s attitude to the proposition of the utterance, of the utterance context to the reality There are generally two types of modality: epistemic modality and deontic modality Epistemic modality is concerned with the matters as knowledge and belief, expressing judgments about states of affairs Deontic modality, on the other hand, is concerned with the necessity or possibility of acts performed by morally responsible agents Moreover, modality can be expressed by verbs and by other linguistic and paralinguistic devices Also, in this chapter, basic knowledge about modal and semi- modal verbs in English also provided It is this discussion serves

the groundwork for the study of conventional meanings of semi- modal verbs be to and have to and their semantic blend between deontic and epistemic modality in English in the

next chapter