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

6


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

7


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


8

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


9

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








10

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.


11

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.


12

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?


13

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.



14

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.


15

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


16

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.


17

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
(Halliday 1994: 362; Tatsuki 2006: 76)
1.2.2.1. Deontic modality.
Deontic modality is concerned with „influencing actions, states, or events‟ (Palmer,
1990); in other words, it is oriented towards performing speech acts- doing things with
words, as Austin would say. When the speaker says, “Jim may go home now” to give Jim
permission to leave, or when the speaker advises, “Helen should go home. She looks tired”,
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.


18

- 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 “non-
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:
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:


19

Table 2: Modality and Modulation
Commodity
exchanged
Speech function
Types of intermediacy
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

20

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


21

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:
ROOT EPISTEMIC
obligation necessity
permission probability
ability possibility
Sweetser‟s basic idea is that our reasoning processes are subject to obligations, permissions
and abilities, just as our real world actions are subject to modalities of the same sort.
Though modals have been investigated from many perspectives, there has been
general inattention to what appears to lie at the core of their meanings, namely, force
opposition. Force dynamic functions extensively in the domain of discourse. Offering
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


22

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,


23

2002), semi- modality is the mixture between lexical verb in terms of syntactic features
and modal meanings.
Table 3: Semi- modality distinction.
Semi-
modality
expression
Grammaticalization
Lexicalization
Have to

Have got to
Syntactic features of lexical verb

(inflection)
Positive: has to
have to
had to
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.

Be to
I‟m to go.
She is to take the exam.
*Futurity (+ modality)
We‟re to do this work
again.
Seem to V

He seems to be correct to stand when the
bishop entered.
They seem to
He doesn‟t seem to V
They didn‟t seem to be intimidated.
(also He seems not to be afraid) <modal
verbs>.
*appearance:
She doesn‟t seem to be
frightened.
We didn‟t seem to meet
any resistance.
Appear to V
The inheritance of leaf angle appears to
be polygenic.
She appears to like the
show.


24

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:


25

Table 4: The auxiliary verb- main verb gradient
(one
verb

phrase)
a) CENTRAL MODALS
can, could, may, might, shall, should, will, would,
must,
b) MARGINAL MODALS
dare, need, ought to, used to
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.
(two
verb
phrase)
f) MAIN VERB +
nonfinite clause
HOPE + to-infinitive
BEGIN + -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.


26

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.


27

(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


28

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)

29

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:
MODAL
SEMI- MODAL
Central meaning
will / would
be going to
prediction
(shall / should)


should
_______
obligation
ought to


must
have to
necessity

have got to

can / could

ability
be able to

be about to
imminent activity
be to
_______
scheduled activity
may / might
_______
possibility
_______
get to
achievement
_______
be bound to
inevitability

A modal must occur initially in such a chain- that is, it can not be preceded by any
other verb. Semi- modals behave like other Secondary verbs in that they can occur at the
beginning or in the middle of a chain, but not at the end. A verb phrase can contain only
one modal, but it may involve a sequence of semi- modals.
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,

30

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
tomorrow.
Each modal has a fair semantic range, extending far beyond the central meaning.
They differ in this from the semi- modals, which have a narrow semantic range. Not only
modal auxiliaries express semantic modality, the meaning of catenative have to and be to
(He has to/ is to leave tomorrow) overlap with must respectively.
Modals and semi- modals are grouped into three categories based on their meanings
and each category contains both personal / intrinsic and logical / extrinsic meanings.
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.