An analysis of modality in some commentaries on global financial crisis 2008 2009

ABSTRACT
This study focuses on analyzing how two types of modality manifested in
some commentaries of Mr. Rogoff on the Global financial crisis 2008-2009.
To fulfill these goals, the study first presents the major theory on discourse
and modality: notions of discourse and modality, types of modality and how
modality is expressed.
The main part of the study concentrates on analyzing how modality
manifested in separate parts of the commentary texts and in types of modality:
epistemic and deontic modality.
The conclusion is the review of the study in general and gives the
application to English teaching and learning and some suggested exercises for
practice. The author hopes to gain the concerns from the readers.

i


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The thesis could not be completed without the great support from my
lecturers, my family and my friends.
First, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor,
M.A. Le Thach Anh for his readiness at all time to give me precious advice,
valuable materials and enormous corrections without which the thesis would
have never been completed.
I am also grateful to all my lectures from Department of Foreign
Language, Vinh University for their valuable lectures, which help me much in
orienting the topic.
I wish to thank my loved family and good friends who love, care, support
and encourage me much during the process of the thesis.
Finally, I am all too aware that despite all the advice and assistance, I
feel that the thesis is far from perfect; it is therefore, my sole responsibilities
for any inadequacies that it may be considered to have.

Vinh, May 15th 2010
Tran Thi Thu Hue

ii


TABLE OF CONTENT
Pa
ge
ABSTRACT......................................................................................................i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS...............................................................................iii
LIST OF TABLES AND ABBREVIATIONS.............................................vi
PART A: INTRODUCTION..........................................................................1
1. Rationale.......................................................................................................1
2. Aims of the Study.........................................................................................2
3. Scope of the Study........................................................................................2
4. Methods of the Study...................................................................................3
5. Design of the Study......................................................................................3
PART B: DEVELOPMENT...........................................................................5
CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ......................................5
1.1.

Discourse and Discourse Analysis..........................................................5

1.1.1. Definition of Discourse......................................................................5
1.1.2. Discourse and Text.............................................................................5
1.1.3. Spoken and Written Discourse...........................................................7
1.1.4. Discourse Analysis.............................................................................8
1.2. Discourse – Context...................................................................................9

1.2.1. Definition of Context ........................................................................9
1.2.2. Context vs. Co-text...........................................................................10
1.3. Concept of Modality.................................................................................11
1.3.1. Definition of Modality in Discourse................................................11
1.3.2. Modal Meanings...............................................................................12

iii


1.3.3. Types of Modality............................................................................13
1.3.3.1. Epistemic Modality..................................................................14
1.3.3.2. Deontic Modality....................................................................17
1.3.4. How Modality is realized.................................................................18
1.3.4.1. By Modal Auxiliary Verbs.......................................................18
1.3.4.2. By Lexical Words Carrying Modal Meanings.........................20
1.3.4.3. Other means: Tenses, Mood and Particles...............................21
CHAPTER 2: AN ANALYSIS OF MODALITY IN SOME COMMENTARIES
ON GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS 2008 - 2009........................23
2.1. General Definition of Commentary in English........................................23
2.2. General Information of Analyzed Data...................................................23
2.3. Modality in Parts of Commentary Texts.................................................23
2.3.1. Title.................................................................................................23
2.3.2. Introduction Part...............................................................................24
2.3.3. Body Part..........................................................................................25
2.3.4. Conclusion Part................................................................................26
2.3.5. Concluding Remarks .......................................................................26
2.4.

Modality Manifested in Some Commentaries on Global
Financial Crisis 2008-2009 as Seen in Types........................................27

2.4.1. Deontic Modality..............................................................................27
2.4.1.1. Marked by Lexical Words Carrying Modal Meanings............27
2.4.1.2. Marked by Modal Auxiliary Verbs..........................................28
2.4.2. Epistemic Modality..........................................................................30
2.4.2.1. Marked by Modal Auxiliary Verbs..........................................30
2.4.2.2. Marked by Lexical Words Carrying Modal Meanings............31
2.5. General Remarks......................................................................................37

iv


CHAPTER 3: SOME APPLICATIONS OF MODALITY IN
ENGLISH TEACHING AND LEARNING.......................39
3.1. Some Suggestions for the Learners..........................................................40
3.2. Some Suggestions for the Teachers..........................................................40
3.3. Applications of Modality in Teaching Speaking Skill.............................40
3.4. Applications of Modality in Teaching Writing Skill................................42
3.5. Suggested Exercises for Practice..............................................................42
PART C: CONCLUSION.............................................................................46
1. Review of Major Findings..........................................................................46
2. Suggestions for Further Works..................................................................47
REFERENCES
APPENDIX

v


LIST OF TABLES
P

age
Table 1.1: Spoken and written language7
Table 1.2: Types of context...........................................................................10
Table 1.3: Major meanings expressed by modal auxiliaries..........................19
Table 2.1: General statistics of the selected data...........................................23
Table 2.2: Statistics of bodies of selected commentary texts........................26
Table 2.3: Modality in parts of selected commentary texts...........................27
Table 2.4: Epitomical modal auxiliary verbs.................................................31
Table 2.5: The rate of occurrence of four items expressing epistemic
meanings..........................................................................................................31
Table 2.6: Survey results in two types of modality.......................................38

ABBREVIATIONS
e.g.

:

for example

etc.

:

et cetra

esp.

:

especially

i.e.

:

that is to say

ibid.

:

in the same reference/ in the same place

S

:

speaker/ sender

vs.

:

versus

vi


PART A: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale

It is obvious that in our daily life, people always have needs of
communication. However, many people fail to interpret speaker’s messages.
Nowadays, the Internet has become more and more popular as a means of
communication. Many people search webs to find information, others give
information and news. Many of them even give their comments on the things
in life, which they interest. Online commentary in some websites or forums
are said to be a useful and typical demonstration of modality. It is where the
authors often express their opinion, stances and attitude toward the
mentioned event.
As we can see, global economy has been in a badly difficult period. This
is the consequence of global financial crisis which initial cause is American
financial crisis at the beginning of 2008. Not only economists and leaders
investigate the issue but also we who are suffering from its negative effects.
Yet there are many famous professors and prestige economists who are
working hard to solve the issue. They investigate and give their point of
view, opinions, ideas toward what is going on with the global economy via
their research; commentaries which are update each hour on internet- a
modern and useful media. We may read those commentaries to understand
more what happens around the global economy in general and our country's
economy in particular or we may be interested in linguistically aspect of
those commentaries as a means of learning and studying English. In
linguistic view, the author is interested in the way economists; professors
express their attitude, opinions, feeling toward the issue is modality.

1


For all the reasons above, we have decided to choose “An Analysis of
Modality in Some Commentaries on Global Financial Crisis 2008-2009” to
be the theme of the thesis.

2. Aims of the Study
The study is carried out with the following purposes:
- To emphasize the important roles of modality in getting a successful
communication.
- To analyze and give descriptions of modality used in English
commentaries.
- To suggest some practical applications of modality in teaching and learning
English.
3. Scope of the Study
Modality is all-pervasive in spoken and written languages; however our
research deals with modality manifested in written language only.
There are two main types of modality: epistemic modality and deontic
modality. Each type of modality is expressed in all means of communication:
word form like noun, verb, adjective, and adverb, a large number of modal
auxiliaries; by tenses, mood, and particles also. However, with the limit of the
thesis, we only work with 4 word forms and 10 modal auxiliary verbs; others are
out of the scope of the thesis.
The data analyzed in this thesis belongs to Mr. Kenneth Rogoff. Mr.
Rogoff served as Economic counselor and director, research department of
the International Monetary Fund from August 2001 to September 2003. He
had his PhD in economics from the Massachetts Institude of Technology, a
professor in the Department of Economic at Harvard University. Mr. Rogoff
has published extensively on policy issues in international finance, including
exchange rates, international debt issues and international monetary policy.

2


In 10 commentaries analyzed in the thesis, he discusses the later period of the
crisis that is its effects and how different economic leaders deal with this

tragedy. With each commentary, he uses a certain types of modality and its
markers.
All these commentaries are taken from the website: http: // www.poject syndicate- org/commentary/shiller67.
4. Methods of the Study
The thesis is finished based on the following methods:
-The data - commentaries on global financial crisis 2008-2009- are
collected.
- Analysis and synthesis of selected data.
5. Design of the Study
There are three main parts in the thesis:
Part A: Introduction
In this part, the rationale, aims, scope, methods and design of the study are
introduced.
Part B: Development
This part consists of three chapters:
Chapter 1: Theoretical Background
This part will review theoretical background of the study including theory
of discourse analysis and modality.
Chapter 2: An Analysis of Modality in Some Commentaries on Global
Financial Crisis 2008-2009.
This is the focus of the study. This part shows how modality is manifested
in 10 commentaries made by the economist Kenneth Rogoff. The statistics of
the data analyzed are also stated.

3


Chapter 3: Some Applications of Modality in English Teaching and
Learning.
Some applications for English teaching and learning are the focus of this

chapter.
Part C: Conclusion
In this part, major findings of the study are summarized and some
suggestions for further study are also presented.

4


PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
1.1. Discourse and Discourse Analysis
1.1.1. Definition of Discourse
Since discourse analysis is seen as a branch of linguistics, the term
“discourse” has been defined in many different ways.
Discourse can be defined as a stretch of language consisting of several
sentences which are perceived as being related in some ways. In terms of the
ideas they share and in terms of the jobs they perform within discourse- that
is their functions (Nunan, 1993)
According to Barbara Johnstone (2002), “Discourse usually means actual
instances of communication in the medium of language.”
While Crystal (1992, cited in Nguyen Thi Van Lam and Ngo Dinh Phuong,
2007, p.5) suggests: “Discourse is a continuous stretch of (especially spoken)
language larger than a sentences, often constituting a cohesive unit, such as
segments arguments, joke or narrative.” In this thesis the notion of Cook (1995,
p.198) who sees discourse as a “stretch of language perceived to be meaningful
unified and purposesive” seems to be the best to adopt.
1.1.2. Discourse and Text
There are some linguists who consider the terms “discourse” and “text”
are referred to one.
For some linguists, the two terms seem to be used almost interchangeable

as they state:
(1) A text, or a discourse, is a stretch of language that may be longer than a
sentence.
(Nunan, 1995, p.1)

5


(2) A text may be spoken or written, prose or verse dialogue or monologue. It
may be anything from a single proverb to a whole play, from a momentary
cry for help to all day discussion in a committee.
(Crystal, 1992, p.72)
Meanwhile, other linguistics consider these two terms separating from
each other.
Widdowson (1979) suggests that:
One way sees it [language beyond the limit of sentence] as a text, a
collection of formal objects held by the pattern of equivalence, or
frequencies, or by cohesive devices. The other way sees language as
discourse, a use of sentence to perform act of communication which cohere
into larger communicative units, ultimately establishing a rhetorical pattern
which characterizes the pieces of language as a whole as a kind of
communication.
(Quoted in Nguyen Thi Phuong Ngoc, 1999- MA thesis)
This distinction of two terms is some how similar with Brown and Yule
(1983, p.6). They state that using text as a technical term to refer to the verbal
record of a communicative act; and that of Crystal, (1992, p.25) defining
discourse as “a continuous stretch of (especially spoken) language larger than
a sentences, often constituting a cohesive unit, such as segments arguments,
joke or narrative” and text as “a piece of naturally occurring spoken, written
or signed discourse identified for purpose of analysis. It is often a language

unit with a definable function, such as a conversation, a poster.”
This thesis supports the distinction of Raphael Salkie (1993) suggesting
that the term “text” is best used to refer to any written record of a
communicative event and discourse, on the other hand, to the interpretation

6


of the communicative event in context. This indicates that any commentary
taken for analyzing in this thesis is best seen as a text or a discourse unit.
1.1.3. Spoken and Written Discourse
Spoken and written discourses simply mean speech and writing. It has
been widely agreed by linguists that there are common features as well as
different one, between these two forms of language.
Although spoken language emerged before written language, written
texts are much more than merely “talk written down”. According to Halliday
(1985b) writing emerged in societies as a result of cultural changes which
created new communicative needs. These needs could not be readily met by
the spoken language. He also suggested that written language is used for
action (for example, public signs, product labels); for information (for
example fiction books, poetry and drama, newspaper features)
There is a brief distinction between spoken and written language as the
table below:
Criteria

Spoken language
-

are

chained

Written language
in -are more complex

additive manner

(with more subordination)

(more co-ordination)
- contain information -contain more information densely into
loosely presented in complex clause
sting of clauses.
Syntax -

- are more active -are more passive declarative forms

clauses

declarative forms
- are unedited and - are edited
contain

incomplete

sentences.

7

-fewer lexical words -there are more lexical words per
per clause

clause

Lexical

- there is a tendency

density

to

use

verbs

in -nominalization tends to be used

simple clauses
- there is a common

- there is no common situation for the

situation for the

reader and writer

speaker and the
hearer

- situation is obvious
Situation

- situation is inferred from text

- some shade of

-all shade of meaning are conveyed in

meaning are

words

conveyed by nonverbal behavior
-negotiation of

-no negotiation of meaning is allowed

meaning is allowed
Table 1.1: Spoken language and written language
To sum up, the differences between spoken and written language are not
absolute, and the characteristics that we tend to associate with written
language can sometimes occur in spoken language and vice versa. This
means that some spoken texts will be more like written texts than others,
while some written texts will be more spoken texts than others.
1.1.4. Discourse Analysis
Discourse is a new branch of linguistics which grew out of the work different
disciplines in 1960 and early 1970s, including linguistics semiotics (the study of
signs and symbols in language) psychology, anthropology and sociology.
All linguists are concerned with identifying regularities and pattern in

language. However in the case of discourse analyst, the ultimate aim of this
analytical work is both to show and to interpret there relationship between

8


those regularities and the meanings and proposed expressed through
discourse.
Discourse analysis covers an extremely wide range of activities, from the
narrowly focused investigation of how words such as “oh” or “well” are used
in casual talk, to the study of the domination ideology in a culture as
represented for example, in its educational or political practices when it is
restricted to linguistic issues, discourse analysis focus on the record (spoken
or written) of the process by which language is used in some context to
express intention.
(Yule, 1996, p.83)
In short, discourse analysis is concerned with the study of the
relationship between language and the context in which it is used, which is, it
involves the study of language in use: written text of all kinds and spoken
data from conversations to highly formal forms of speech.
1.2. Discourse - Context
1.2.1. Definition of Context
A well-known property of lexical items in natural language is that they
are capable of conveying different meanings in different situations of
utterances. See the example below:
(1) The heart-attack mustn't be moved.
(2) Your ten-thirty just cancelled.
(3) All couple of rooms has complained about the heat.
It is useful to know that a hospital is the context for (1), a dentist's office
for (2) and a hotel reception is the context for (3).

(Yule, 1996, p.22)
Context is certainly necessary element, which needed to understand
thoroughly any discourse. According to David Nunan (1995): “Context refers

9


to the situation giving rise to the discourse, and within which the discourse is
embedded.”
(Cited in M.A. Nguyen Thi Van Lam & Ngo Dinh Phuong Ph.D., 2007, p.6)
There are two types of context: linguistic and non- linguistic. They are
compared as in the table below:
Context
-

Linguistic
surrounds

Non- linguistic
or - within the discourse takes place include the type of

accompanies the piece communicative event, the topic, the purpose, the
of

discourse

analysis

under event, the setting and physical aspects of the
situation; the participants and the relationships

between them, and the background knowledge and
assumptions underlying the communicative event.
Table 1.2: Types of context

1.2.2. Context vs. Co-text
It is necessary to distinct these two terms context and co-text from one
another.
In the following example we can see that, while the phrase “the cheese
sandwich” stays the same, the different co-texts in (4) and (5) lead to a
different type of interpretation in each case (i.e. “food” in (4) and “person” in
(5)
(4) The cheese sandwich is made with white bread.
(5) The cheese sandwich left without paying.
It is obvious that co-text helps us know what the cheese sandwich in (e)
is.
Yule (1996, p.21) states, “Co-text is just a linguistic part of the
environment in which a referring expression is used. The physical

10


environment, or context, is perhaps more easily recognized as having a
powerful impact on how referring expressions are to be interpreted.”
According to Brown and Yule (1983), any sentence other than the first in
a fragment of discourse will have the whole of its interpretation facility
constrained by their co-text.
In short, both context and co-text are important in discourse
interpretation, but they clearly differ from one another. Context is concerned
with non-linguistic elements while co-text refers to linguistic ones.
1.3. Concept of Modality

According to Nguyen Hoa, (2001, p.117) modality or interpersonal
meaning is one of four meanings of sentences: structural meaning,
representational meaning, interpersonal meaning and textual meaning.
1.3.1. Definition of Modality
Discourse analyses have demonstrated that modality is fundamental in
the creation of discourse; all messages choose some degrees of modality,
even if it is only to make a neutral assertion. For example:
(6) “The cat sat on the mat.” as compared with the heavily moralized: “I
suppose it is possible the cat just may have sat on the mat.”
Interestingly, the concept of modality has been revived and developed in
much recent research with in linguistics field. Therefore, the term
“Modality” is defined in many different ways.
Modal expressions allow us to talk (and modal concepts allow us to
think) about states of affairs which are not present in the current situation and
may never occur in the actual world.
It is clear that each language processes its own system of modality. In
such languages as English modality is expressed by process called
grammaticalization (in the form of mood) and lexicalization (by means of

11


lexical items like modal verbs and modal adverbs or some other lexical
verbs)
(Nguyen Hoa, 2001, p.112)
Whatever languages it belongs to, the concept of modality in different
languages share some commons.
According to Dowing and Lock, modality is semantic categories by
which speakers express their attitudes toward the event contained in the
proposition as possibility, probability, necessity, volition, obligation,

permission, doubt, wish, regret, design, and temporal, notions such as
usuality(1995, p.382).
This thesis supports for the definition: “Modality is described as the
expression of the S’s attitude, opinion toward the content of proposition that
the sentence expresses or the situation that the proposition describes.”
1.3.2. Modal Meanings
As we have defined the term “modality” in the previous part, modality is
described as the expression of the S's attitude or opinion toward the content
of proposition. Moreover, that it is obvious all messages choose some degree
of modality even if it is only to make a neutral assertion.
Some major modal meanings include degree of certainty, possibility,
volition, permission, obligation, etc. There are various other meanings such
as doubt, wish, regret, design, temporal, notions of usuality.
These wide ranges of modal meanings follow by:
+ Uncertainty (unlikely, uncertainty, seem, perhaps, doubt, considerable, etc.)
toward certainty (certainly, in fact, exactly, the fact that, etc.)
+ Impossibility (impossible, unable, improbable, etc.) toward possibility
(possible, able, may, look like, etc.)

12


+ Unvolition (unexpectedly, unfortunately, unluckily, etc.) towards volition
(expectedly, fortunately, luckily, etc.) so on.
These modal meanings are expressed in particular types of modality as we
will show in the following part of the thesis.
1.3.3. Types of Modality
Many linguists classify modality into many types basing on different
criteria.
One of those linguists, Fairclough (2001) divides it into 2 types. The first

type is relational modality, with different participants processing certain
levels of authority. The second one is expressive modality, which indicates
the evaluation of the speaker toward the truth or probability of a
representation of reality.
(Quoted in Nguyen Thi Huyen Le – B.A. thesis)
Long time before Fairclough, Jerperson (1924, p.320) realizes modality
into two sub-categories:
- One of them contains an element of will: hortative, precative, advisory,
obligative, permissive, optative (realiable) promissive, intentional.
- The other named “no element of will”: necessitate, assertive, presumptive,
dubitative, potential, hypothetical, concessional, apodictive, conditional.
However his proposal are judged to have so much limitation esp. containing
little of theoretical significance, except for his recognition of two types and its
terms are used to realize “deontic” and “epistemic” modality then.
Von Wright (1951) classifies modality into four types: epistemic
modality, deontic modality, and another main area of modal meanings is
often recognized dynamic modality. This includes the rational categories of
real-word ability, possibility, and intention/ willingness. The last is alethic

13


modality, this has been the traditional concern of logicians and philosophers
and deal with absolute or logical necessity, or possibility.
Finally, it is acknowledged that modal expression may be used to
communicate at least two broad clusters of meaning; epistemic modal
meanings, which roughly deal with the possibility or necessity of an
inference drawn from available evidence, and deontic modal meanings
concerned with the necessity or possibility of acts performed by morally
responsible agents: obligation and permission.

These two types of modality share the same features: subjectivity i.e. the
involvement of the speaker and non- factuality.
1.3.3.1. Epistemic Modality
According to what appears to be a robust cross-linguistic generalization,
epistemic modality historically developed from items that originally encoded
other types of modal meanings (mostly volition, obligation and permission)
this development has been linked, in other words, the development of a
grammatically identifiable expression of speaker belief or speaker attitude to
Finally, it is widely acknowledged that modal expression may be used to
what is said.
(Anna Papafragou, 2000, p.145)
The term “epistemic modality” is derived from the Greek word meaning
“understanding” or “knowledge” refers to the type of modality that indicated
the degree of commitment by the speaker to what he says. For example, if
someone says:
(7) She must be in love with him.
(8) She may be in love with him.
(Nguyen Hoa, 2001, p.112)

14


What we see in (7) is a very strong commitment by the speaker as to the
truth of what he or she is saying. The speaker is quite sure that it is the case
that “she” is in love with someone else. This shows a high degree of
certainty. Whereas, a weak commitment was shown by the speaker in
sentence (8) the degree of certainty is low. The speaker thinks, but she/he is
not sure about what he/she is saying.
Epistemic expressions are markers of a logical relation between the
complement of the modal and the set of the speaker's beliefs. Consequently,

the appropriate use and comprehension of epistemic crucially presupposes
the ability to conceive of evidential relations between propositions which
form the content of beliefs and thus linked to the human capacity to
metarepresent.
(Anna Papafragou, 2000, p.7)
In short, epistemic modality is concerned with belief, truth or
knowledge.
Epistemic modality itself has two types: evidential and judgments.
According to Quirk's classification:
This type of modality falls into sub. groups
+ Evidential
The sender expresses comment on the extent to which he believes that
what he is saying is true. There are three instances:
i. They express primarily a subjective view on the truth of what is said:
certainly, admittedly, surely, undeniably, undoubtedly, unquestionably, etc.
Eg. (9) Certainly they can do it if they like.
(I am certain that they can do it if they like)
ii. Markers of degree of convictions as open to objective evidence:
clearly, evidently, obviously, plainly, etc.

15


Eg. (10) Obviously, they can do it if they like
(It is obvious that they can do it if they like)
iii. Markers of reality or lack of reality in what is said: actually,
officially, technically, theoretically
Eg. (11) Actually, they can do it if they like.
(Quoted in Nguyen Hoa, 2001, p.115)
+ Judgments

The second type expresses comment other than on the truth-value of
what is said.
- They can convey the attitude of the speaker without any necessary
implication that the judgments applies to the subject of the sentence or indeed
to the speaker.
Eg. (12) Fortunately, Mary has the house insured against fire.
The implication might be that Mary was fortunate in doing so, or
someone else was fortunate as a result of Mary's action.
Other markers include annoyingly, curiously, funnily, enough, happily,
hopefully, luckily, naturally, surprisingly, etc.
- Additively, they can convey the speaker’s attitudes with an implication
that the judgment applies to the subject of the sentence. Consider:
(13) Wisely, Mary has the house insured against the fire.
The implication here is definitely that Mary was wise in doing so. Some
other markers of this type are “rightly, wrongly”
There are a number of modal auxiliary verbs conveying judgments about
a situation, whether the situation is certain, probable, possible or impossible
for example: might, must in the following sentences:
(14) She must be very beautiful that he loves her so much.
(15) An asurb expectation, one might think.

16


1.3.3.2. Deontic Modality
As we mentioned in 1.3.3, deontic modality is used to refer to the type of
modality that contains an element of will. This type of modality is concerned
with action. For example:
(16) You must work harder.
(17) You ought to work harder.

(18) You need to work harder.
(Nguyen Hoa, 2001, p.113)
Although the degrees of urgent is not the same, three sentences in some
aspects perform an action that is “working harder” rather than express the
belief that something is so.
In this type of modality, the sender is not committed to the truth or
factuality of some proposition like epistemic one, but to the necessity of
some course of action.
According to Kratzer (1981a), whereas epistemic modality is possibility –
based, deontic necessity – based.
Deontic modal meanings concerned with the necessity or obligation of
acts performed by morally responsible agents, Eg. obligation and permission
(Cited in Anna Papafragou, 2000, p.3)
Here are some examples:
- Necessity:

(19) It is necessary to talk to him.

- Possibility:

(20) It is not possible to get a refund for used beddings.

- Obligation:

(21) Employees must feed the animals twice a day.

- Permission:

(22) Whoever has finished may go.

From those meanings, we divide deontic modality into subdivided:
- Directives (possibility and necessity)
- Commisives (promises and undertakings)
- Others: volitives, evaluatives

17


1.3.4. How modality is realized.
Modality is often thought of as the province of the closed class of modal
auxiliaries (must, can, will, may, shall, could and others). However, modality can be
realized by a large number of lexical words (nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs)
which carry the same or similar meanings to the modal auxiliaries, even carry a
various meanings, for example: unfortunately, wisely, indeed, in fact, etc.
This is a brief introduction of modal realization:
1.3.4.1. By Modal Auxiliary Verbs
10 modal auxiliaries are considered pure deontic meanings but then some
of them express other meanings, epistemic meanings: can/ could, will/ would,
shall/ should, may/ might, must and ought to.
Eg.
(23) Steps must also be taken to recapitalize and re-regulate the financial
system. (Deontic)
(Inflation is now the lesser evil)
(24) You must be very tired. (Epistemic)
(Nguyen Hoa, 2001, p. 21)
Via two examples above, it is commonly the case in English that a single
modal expresses both deontic and epistemic modality. Therefore, in some
cases we confuse between two meanings: deontic and epistemic because
many modal auxiliary verbs have different meanings in different contexts as
the following example:

(25)

You must be very careful.

It can be “You are obliged to be very careful.” or “I conclude that you are
very careful.”
An other case also happens with may as in the sentence below:
(26) He may go home.

18


It can be “He is allowed to go home.” or “It is not certain if he leaving.”
As Joos’s words (1964, p.195) within the modal system, English does not
distinguish between duty and logic.
The table below presents major meanings in both deontic and epistemic
modality expressing by modal auxiliaries:
Types of

Modal

can/

may/

will/

modality

should

must

ought

meanings could might would
to
Obligation
x
x
x
Deontic
Request
x
x
Ability
x
modality
Permission
x
x
Epistemic Possibility
x
x
x
x
modality Certainty
Table 1.3: Major modal meanings expressed by modal auxiliaries
Among them may and can are typically used to communicate two distinct
types of possibility: may expresses factual possibility and can theoretical

possibility. Epistemically, may and may not are all used while can does not
concern at all, only can not has epistemic meanings as the following
example:
(27) *Tom can be home.
Tom cannot be home. (epistemic)
≈ It is possible that Tom is not home.
In her “Modality: Issues in the Semantics- Pragmatics Interface” (2000, p.
88) Anna Papafragou mentions negation in modality expression. She shows:
“It is often pointed that epistemic modals, unlike root (deontic) modals,
always scope outside negation” Let’s see some examples:
(28) You may not enter. (deontic)
‘You are not allowed to enter.’
* ‘You are allowed not to enter.’

19