MODAL VERBS

1.
He wrote it himself.
He must have written it himself.
• unmodalized sentence: speaker committed to
the factuality of the proposition
• modalized: speaker’s commitment is qualified,
proposition is inferred
• unmodalized sentence: stronger claim
• knowledge by deduction is weaker than
knowledge by direct experience
 Lexical verbs Auxiliaries have, be Modal verbs
q DO-support ü X X
NICE properties:
Negation
Inversion
Coda
Emphasis
• modals + past tense:
She could play the piano as a child.
• past tense only in indirect speech:
The boss said she might leave immediately.
• no past tense:
The boss said she must leave immediately.
• epistemic: speaker’s attitude to the truth-
value, factual status of the proposition
(propositional modality)
• root: non-actualized, potential events (event
modality)
(Palmer)
• root meaning – derived from initial OE
meaning = grammaticalization (bleaching)
• can < cunnan OE (know)
• ! cunnan OE > know
• specific features of meaning drop off, leaving a
semantic core: root possibility (Middle
English)
(Bybee )
core meaning:
• necessity: must, need, have to, have got to,
should, ought to
• possibility: can, may
• epistemic < Gk. knowledge
• belief-sets of the speaker, the speaker’s mental
representation of reality
• inferential processes
• meta-representation of reality
• qualifications concerning the speaker’s
knowledge: inference, assumption, speculation,
deduction
• epistemic modality = speaker-oriented

He must/might have overheard.

• root modality: subject-oriented, Agent-
oriented
qdeontic
qdynamic
• deontic < Gk. binding => obligation,
permission
• deontic modality: conditioning factors are
external to individual
• possibility/necessity of acts performed by
Agent
• external deontic source

You must do you duty.

You may leave early.
• dynamic modality: internal factors, properties
and dispositions of individual: e.g. ability,
willingness

She can sing beautifully.

Will you help me?
 ambiguity - contextual
a. You can open it. – deontic/dynamic
b. She can speak French. – dynamic/deontic
c. He may come. – deontic/epistemic
• root modals: selectional restrictions on subject
Ø no expletives:
a. It may rain. = epistemic
b. There must be a demonstration. = epistemic
Ø inanimate Su:
c. The train must be early. = epistemic

q BUT:
d. There must be discipline. = deontic
e. The dirt must be shoveled into the hole. = deontic
(Agent identified pragmatically)
usituation-type:
• individual-level states force epistemic reading
a. He must have green eyes like his mother.
b. They may be native speakers of Dutch.

• state predicates coerced into achievement or activity

reading: root reading becomes available:
c. I must be the best chess player there is.
d. You must be honest.
e. You must believe in God or they’ll burn you at the
stake.
f. The new professor must be a native speaker of
Finnish.
g. I must know.
• limited with epistemics: interrogatives, conditionals ->
one does not normally question one’s own set of beliefs
a. May the race start? (= deontic)
Ø exceptions: rhetorical questions
b. Might/must John be a liar?
c. ?? If he must/may have left early,… (epistemic)
vs. deontic:
e. If John must leave, then I will go too.
f. If money may rule, then there is no justice.
• dynamic modals resist passivization:
a. The doctor can examine John. (shared
argument structure)
≠
b. John can be examined by the doctor. (DP:
argument of lexical verb, not of modal
c. The doctor is able to examine John.
d. *John is able to be examined by the doctor.
• deontic modals: past tense
a. She could stay up late when she was a child.
• past tense only in indirect speech:
b. She said he might leave immediately.
c. She said he must leave immediately.
• deontic modals allow passivization
a. You can speak Romanian at the conference.
=
b. Romanian can be spoken at the conference.

DP ‘Romanian’ = argument of lexical verb only

 Root-epistemic distinction:
²contextual: semantic pragmatic component
(Papafragou 2000, Kratzer 1981)
• unitary semantic approach: common core
• interpretations: context-dependent
• modal expressions = propositional operators
which quantify over a set of possible worlds,
identified by the proposition (the VP)
• express different types of commitment to the
truth of the p: the speaker’s attitude
< contextual and pragmatic info
a. All Maori children must learn the names of their
ancestors.
b. The ancestors of the Maoris must have arrived from
Tahiti.
(Kratzer 1977)

• the modal base:

a. tribal duties
b. general knowledge
• must -> logical operator: = ‘necessity’
• modal operators express different types of
commitment to the truth of the proposition
• modal operator: context of evaluation
• modal base: inferred from the context
• modal expressions: system-neutral,
underspecified with respect to content

Sentence: modal operator + modal base +

proposition (VP)
Þambiguity : two different modal domains
available for one and the same sentence

‘I have a good dentist but I can’t see him.’

‘See, that is the problem with invisible dentists.’
‘No, every time I go to the dentist somebody dies.’
 The scope of the perfect
She [could have] passed the test if she had studied.
= past possibility
She [should have] studied. = past necessity

• root (dynamic, deontic): perfect takes scope over modal

• counterfactual
 The scope of the perfect
He must [have left]. = it is certain that he left
He may [have left]. = it is possible that he left
ST anteriority
• epistemic: modal takes scope over perfect
He needn’t have told her
• ‘It isn’t necessarily the case that he told her’
(epistemic-internal perfect)
• ‘he wasn’t obliged to tell her (but he did)
(deontic-external perfect)
a. She could have told him.
b. He might have remembered.
= counterfactual: dynamic possibility; external
perfect
= internal perfect: epistemic possibility
a. If you want to study linguistics you must first
[have graduated] in a foreign language.
b. Students must [have taken] calculus by the start
of their senior year.
c. You must [have left] by the time we arrive.

• future-shifted
• deontic modal scopes over perfect
• hypothetical situation
• VP: ET before RT, RT after ST
(Avram 2011)
 The scope of negation
• external: negation takes scope over modal:
I [cannot] swim.
= lack of possibility
Unicorns [needn’t] exist.
= lack of necessity
 The scope of negation
• internal: modal takes scope over negation:
You should[n’t giggle] in class. = should [not VP]
=it is advisable [not to giggle]
deontic necessity
It should [not snow] any more. = should [not VP]
=it is predictable [that it will not snow]
epistemic necessity
He [can’t ] have read it
=It is [not possible] that he has read it
He [can’t] [not have read it].
=It is not possible that he didn’t read it
a. You [cannot] shout if your throat hurts.
b. Can you [NOT shout]?
c. He can’t [NOT shout].
d. You can [NOT shout], can you?
• necessity modals scope over negation
• possibility modals scope under ‘not’
Exceptions:
• may: root = external negation/ epistemic =
internal negation
• necessity modal need = negative polarity item

Cormack and Smith (2002)