course 1 & applications (pp. 1-28)

7/31/2019 Course 1 & Applications (Pp. 1-28)

1/26

Chapter 1 Aspects of Modality in English

Pragmatics studies how the transmission of meaning depends not only onthe linguistic knowledge (e.g. grammar, lexicon etc.) of the speaker andlistener, but also on the context of the utterance, knowledge about thestatus of those involved, the inferred intent of the speaker, and so on. In thisrespect, pragmatics explains how language users are able to overcome

apparent ambiguity, since meaning relies on the manner, place, time etc. ofan utterance. The ability to understand another speaker's intended meaningis called pragmatic competence.

Central to discussions on modality are the notions of possibility, necessityand impossibility; logicians and philosophers, ever since Aristotle, havedefined these notions together with the relations which may be perceived toexist between them; such investigations provide the basis of modal logic,which today is one of the most pursued branches of logic.

The problem is that different disciplines have each approached the notionfrom different starting points, asking different questions on the basis ofdifferent theoretical assumptions; in each case, the nature of the questionposed and of the goals set have led to different answers, i.e. differentdescriptions.

A first attempt may be to consider the type of mental attitude andexperience that involves the notions of possibility, necessity andimpossibility. Michael Perkins says in Modal Expressions in English:

To put it quite simply, it would appear that such notions are conceptually

grounded on the fact that human beings often think and behave as thoughthings might be or might have been other than they actually are (or were).Such a worldview appears to constitute an essential part of the fabric of oureveryday lives. For example, the fact that it is raining, that the car hasbroken down and that I am late for work does not prevent me from imaginingmyself arriving at work on time [] in a quietly purring car in brilliantsunshine.

To talk about things being otherwise than they actually are is to talk aboutALTERNATIVE, about conceivable though not actual states of affairs; suchtalk is known in logical studies as talk about other possible states of affairs orother possible worlds.

It has been shown that the principles governing the use of modal expressionsin ordinary language differ from those on which the use of their logicalcounterparts is based. Although the modal systems used by logicians cannotadequately explain the behaviour of modal expressions in the language, theycan, nevertheless, serve as a basis for understanding how modality works innatural languages.

So, in Perkinss example above, the fact that it is raining, that the car has

broken down and that the speaker is late for work pertain to the actual stateoff affairs. A possible alternative course of events is a world in which the


2/26

Chapter 1

speaker conceives himself arriving in time, in brilliant sunshine, in a perfectlyfunctioning car. We can say that to conceive of something being otherwise isto conceive its being real in some non-actual world or in some state of theactual world at a point in time other than the present. M. Perkins remarksthat

broadly speaking, the actual world is itself just one of an infinite set ofpossible worlds and, as such, it is not exclusively significant. Talk aboutpossible worlds is noteworthy in so far as they are contrasted with andrelative to the current, actual world. To say that Mary ought to be a loyalfriend to Ann is to say that there is a state of affairs in which, according tothe principles of morality, when a person interacts with other people, she isloyal.

No need to stress the fact that what ought to happen is not exactly whatactually happens, which means that moral statements do not derive fromexamples, rather they are grounded on a system of duties which reside in

human reason.

Perkins shows that there are three general systems of principles that can beinvolved when one studies the modalities: firstly, there are the modalitieswhich conform to the rational laws of deduction. They are concerned with theinterpretation of the world via the laws of human reason and are known asEPISTEMIC MODALITY.

The term epistemic derives from episteme, the Greek word forknowledge. Perkins aptly points out that, in fact, the key concept whichunderlies modality is the state of lack of knowledge. To know thatsomething is the case means that it, actually, is the case; of course, thereare cases when one can know something and be mistaken, but then, onesknowledge is no longer knowledge. But to be certain (an epistemic modality)that something is the case does not mean that it really is the case.

The second set of principles concerning modalities is defined in terms ofsocial/institutional laws. These are of two general kinds: on the one hand, arethose laws explicitly involving some legal authority or institution; on theother hand, are the usually less formal laws relating to social status,according to which one person may be said to have personal authority over

another; in fact, there is no absolute dividing line between the two. Themodalities that conform to social laws regard the sphere of duty, compulsion,order, command, instruction, appropriateness, and are known as DEONTICMODALITY.

The third set of principles concerning modalities has in view the relationshipbetween actual (empirical) circumstances or states of affairs, and the statesof affairs that follow from them in accordance with natural laws (the laws ofphysics, chemistry, biology, anatomy etc.) These modalities define the notionof capacity (physical or intellectual) and are known as ABILITY/DYNAMICMODALITY.

The three general systems of principles (rational/the laws of reason,social/the laws of society, natural/the laws of nature) define three different


3/26

Chapter 1

types of states of affairs/worlds. There are three envisageable courses ofevents conceived as alternatives to the actual world; they form thetheoretical background against which the nature of the English modalexpressions will be determined.


4/26

Applications

Chapter 2 Context and Modality2.1. Context and ModalityLanguage production starts from an extra-linguistic real-world situation.When the situation eliciting language appears, the speaker performs a

speech act which involves a series of logical hierarchical choices of thelinguistic elements at his disposal, which will best suit his communicativeintentions.

Communication and language production being organically bound tohuman beings and extra-linguistic situations, any adequate description ofutterances should account for the relationships between the real-worldextra-linguistic context and the linguistic choices made by the participantsin the discourse.

The proper interpretation of utterances can be a very complicated matter,to determine their appropriate use and to provide adequate descriptionsand explanations, one must refer to many levels of language; not only thesuperficial (surface) syntactic environment and the logical semanticstructure, but also the social context in which the discourse occurs mustbe brought into consideration.

Many linguists have lately felt a real need for a theory of pragmatics inaddition to syntax and semantics, to maintain a proper balance betweenthe syntactic, the semantic and the pragmatic factors involved in the useof utterances in natural languages. In his study, Pragmatics and the

Description of Discourse, Charles Fillmore has defined syntax, semanticsand pragmatics and their interrelation as follows:

SYNTAX as form characterizes the grammatical forms that occur in alanguage: the structural organization of sentences and the co-occurrencepossibilities among lexical items in particular kinds of grammaticalconstructions.SEMANTICS as form+function relates the grammatical forms with theirpotential communicative functions, that is with what users of a languagecan do with these forms, in terms of the propositional content they can beused to express, as well as the speech acts they can be used to perform.PRAGMATICS as form+function+context is concerned with therelation between linguistic forms, their communicative functions and thecontexts/settings in which given linguistic forms have given functions.

Fillmore has emphasized an idea which is old in anthropology andphilology, namely the necessity to contextualize, to anchor utterancesin some social system as a condition for understanding how they can beused, under what circumstances, the role they can play in on-goingconversations, etc.

It is in the discourse context that one can best see what the participantsare doing and what they are experiencing. The discourse rules, a subset of


5/26

Applications

which is referred to as conversation rules, govern the conditions underwhich it is appropriate to perform one type of illocutionary act; also, theydetermine what answers qualify as appropriate responses to a certain act.Therefore, the concepts of pragmatics and contextualization have greatrelevance for the applied linguist, for the contrastive analyst, for second

language teaching/learning and also for translation and interpretation.

If one is to teach/learn second language use successfully, one must:- identify the situation in which certain forms and syntactic configurationare usable in his language.- determine the means by which the target language makes thesedistinctions, and- pair the two, although in terms of surface syntax the two languagesmight appear very different.

Similarly, a translators task is compound: in addition to merely translatingwords and ideas, he must transpose contextual social and culturalconcepts, contexts that are strictly speaking extra-linguistic.

To be more specific, besides syntactic and semantic elements, pragmaticfactors are clearly involved in the use and choice of modal expressions.The rules that enable one to define and classify them, to account for theiroften peculiar behaviour, to tell whether they are appropriately used anddetermine that use, are also to be found in the area of pragmatics, in thereal-world context of the utterance.

Consequently, one has to know:- the syntactic features and semantic values- the social position assumed by the participants in the discourse- the relationships between the speaker and the addressee/surfacesubject

- the source and the goal of modality- the contextual assumptions shared by the participants in the discourse- the impression the speaker wants to make on the hearer etc.

The problem of the equivalence or synonymy between two modals,between a modal and a lexical/cognate verb or between a modal and an

idiom/apparent paraphrase is a good example to consider.

MUST and SHOULD in their epistemic sense are often taken togetherunder the label probably/likely and are assumed to be semanticequivalents; yet, the parallelism is not complete and the explanation ispragmatic, not syntactic or semantic; although the concept of probabilityis present in both, there are environments in which only one is possible orappropriate. Notice that in the following sentences only one Romanianmodal corresponds to the two English verbs:


6/26

Applications

You must/*should1 be out of your mind! Trebuie sa fii scrantit/ca nu estiintreg la minte!We should/*must get there before dark. Ar trebui sa ajungem la cabanainainte de a se intuneca.

Both CAN and MAY partake of the notion of possibility, yet what isdescribed as possible by the former is different from what is described aspossible by the latter. They are not exact, interchangeable equivalentsand there are contexts where the use of one is appropriate, while theothers is not. Can is closer to logical possibility and is paraphrasable inEnglish by it is possible for to, while may is closer to epistemicpossibility corresponding to may: a avea posibilitatea, a-ti fi posibiland a fi posibil/cu putinta, poate (ca), respectively:

I can be there in time It is possible for me toI may be there in time It is possible thatPot sa fiu acolo la timp Am posibilitatea/Imi este posibil sa

- Este posibil sa/Poate ca

Another intriguing relationship is that between English modals and theirparaphrases. Until recently, they were regarded as perfect synonyms, theparaphrases existing only to fill the syntactic gaps where the simplemodals were not available. But, if we consider the following sentences, weshall easily notice that there are semantic distinctions and differences indistribution and use between them.

a) You may smoke.b) You are allowed to smoke.a1) Poti fuma/Iti dau voie sa fumezi.b1) Iti este permis sa fumezi.c1) Ti se da voie sa fumezi/Ai voie sa fumezi.

In a) the speaker himself is giving permission or indicates his approval ofit; in b) he merely reports that the subject has permission, but the speakermay be opposed to the idea.

In Romanian the modal a putea does not make the performative/non-

performative distinction; the phrase a da voie, a-ti fi permis is chieflyused to report the existence of permission; it can also be used to givepermission, as in a1), or to report permission, as in c1); the otherparaphrase, a avea voie, may also be used both performatively, ai voie(de la mine) sa fumezi and non-performatively, ai voie (de la tataltau) sa fumezi.

Consider also:You must go now. Trebuie sa pleci acum.You have to go now. Trebuie sa pleci acum

Youve got to go now. Trebuie sa pleci acum1incorrect


7/26

Applications

Sentence a) may be used when the speaker himself sets the obligation; b)is apt to be used when, say, the addressee needs to catch a train; c)seems closer to b). Romanian uses one modal, a trebui, for all the modalexpressions used in the above English sentences, and does not make the

distinction between obligation imposed by the speaker and obligationderived from other constraints.

In conclusion, from the modal expressions available to him, a speaker willchoose what will best suit his communicative intentions in a particularcontextual situation. Hence the importance of pragmatic elements, inaddition to the syntactic and semantic ones, for an adequateinterpretation of modal expressions.

2.2. Expressions of Modality. Some ExamplesAt the level of linguistic manifestation, one can identify a set of modalexpressions on the basis of their shared semantic characteristicspreviously discussed; in point of their syntax, the different modalexpressions belong to different syntactic classes and have widely differentsyntactic properties:

- nouns: allegation, hypothesis, prophecy, proposal, command, instruction,invitation, request, assumption, certainty, doubt, expectation etc.- adjectives: sure, certain, possible, necessary, probable, compulsory,imperative, lawful, legal, permissible etc.- adverbs: allegedly, apparently, certainly, evidently, hopefully, likely,

necessarily, obviously, perhaps, possibly, presumably, probably,seemingly, supposedly etc.- verbs: assume, believe, fancy, fear, feel, guess, hope, imagine, presume,suspect, think, trust etc.- modal verbs: can, may, must, will, shall, could, might, ought to, would,should, need, dare.

All these lexical items have been termed modal expressions in virtue ofthe fact that they appear to express the same type of meaning, realizingthe conceptual sphere of the three systems of law discussed above:rational, social and natural.

Chapter 3 Modal Verbs

3.1. Syntactic BehaviourFrom the point of view of their surface syntactic behaviour, the Englishmodals do not constitute a uniform class; a sub-class of what might becalled pure/syntactic modals includes such items as CAN, COULD, MAY,MIGHT, WILL, WOULD, SHALL, SHOULD and MUST.

Some grammarians also consider a class of modal candidates involving

such verbs as seem, tend, happen and, possibly, believe, know,insist, advise, as well as cause and make. The subcategory of modals


8/26

Applications

that is intermediate between the pure modals and the modal candidates isgenerally referred to as quasi-/semi-modals/modal paraphrases andtraditionally includes items as dare, need, ought to, have to, be to,be going to, be about to, be able to, used to.

The syntactic modals exhibit the following idiosyncratic features or, veryoften called unverblike properties, which has been used as an argumentto characterize them as auxiliaries or semi-/quasi-auxiliaries. It has beenassumed, among other things, that the English modals are main verbs inthe deep structure and this unverblike behaviour is due to what E. Baracalls history-specific development of the English language.

These features are:- they do not take the concord morpheme s on the 3rd person, singular,present tense (do not participate in number agreement);- they do not have non-finite forms (infinitives, participles);- they occupy the leftmost position in the verb phrase (may leave, mustbe reading, will have been told);- they do not co-occur in constructions like *must can, *will may, *shallmust

However, the grammaticality of the following examples shows thatconcepts such as possibility, obligation, permission, ability are notnecessarily mutually exclusive: You may need to/have to call again, wheremay signals epistemic possibility and need/have to deontic necessity. It ispossible, therefore, to have a combination of modalities in a sentence, but

they cannot, in general, be both expressed by syntactic modals.

- they do not allow do-support;- they invert with the subject in interrogation;- they can be directly negated by not;- they are complemented by a verb in its infinitive form.

The treatment ofought to, be to, have to, used to, dare and needvaries from author to author; however, here are some of their mostimportant features:

OUGHT TO is considered not to belong to the true verb category in thesurface structure because it cannot pass the test for verbs, being asyntactic modal with idiosyncratic surface behaviour. In present-day(American) English, ought to is very often reduced to otta, mainly but notexclusively, in the spoken language.

BE TO, in almost all respects, behaves like the syntactic modals. Unlikethem, it exhibits person and number agreement (am, is, are, was, were),has past tense syntax and may appear in the infinitive and not occupy theleftmost position in the VP: Worse still may be to come.


9/26

Applications

HAVE TO agrees in person and number (have, has) and has past tensesyntax. In interrogation, it may both invert with the subject, like thesyntactic modals, or allow do-support, like true verbs: Have you (got) toleave right now? Do you have to leave?

In negation also, have to is either directly negated by not or allows do-support: Hadnt you got to do it? Didnt you have to do it?

USED TO is in present-day English a very defective verb, having one pastform for all persons, two possible negative forms (usedn/t to, didnt useto), two possible interrogative forms (used you to?, did you use to?). Notethat the forms with do-support seem to be more common.

DARE, as well as NEED, displays a formal behaviour that is characteristicof both syntactic modals and ordinary verbs, without any significantdifference in meaning. The most common terms used for them arepseudo-/quasi-modals. Their use as syntactic modals is relatively rare inBritish English and even more restricted in American English.

a) dare behaves like a regular verb in the affirmative (dare/dares in thepresent, dared in the past). It should be pointed out that it is not muchused in the affirmative except, perhaps, in the expression I daresay, onlywith the 1st person singular. In the negative and interrogative it mayappear either as an ordinary verb or a syntactic modal: Do you/does hedare? Dare you/he? Negative and interrogative forms with do/does/did arein theory followed by the to-infinitive, but in practice the to is often

omitted: He doesnt dare (to) say it right (in)to my face.

*Note that when it is used with the meaning to challenge, dare is anordinary transitive verb: I dare you to fill in for me and see how hard it is.

b) need may also occur either as an uninflected syntactic modal or as aninflected regular verb: in positive statements the true verb is commonlyused, while in negations and questions both forms are possible: Ineed/needed to go. They need not go/dont need to go. Need you go?/Do/Did you need to go?

*Notice that the complement verb following need may be used either inthe long or the short infinitive, except after the inflected forms needs andneeded, when the to-infinitive is always used. When need is used withthe meaning to require, it is a perfectly regular transitive verb: He needsall the support he can get. He doesnt need our pity.

3.2. Modals and TensesThe distinction between the sometimes called primary modals (can,may, must, will, shall) and the secondary modals (could, might,

would, should) as seen by such grammarians as O. Jespersen, G. Leech,F.R. Palmer is based on a semantic dimension of meaning present in the


10/26

Applications

secondary modals and possessed only to a minimal degree by the primaryones.

Some grammarians speak of a common hypothetical meaning shared bythe secondary modals (Leech), others of a formal/tentative meaning

(Palmer), while most traditional ones view it simply as a problem of pasttime reference (Jespersen). But speakers of English seldom recognizethem as an indication of past time. They are rather felt as markers ofsome kind of remoteness from the reality immediately perceptible at themoment of encoding.

Tentativeness, for example, is understood as a more remote possibility, amore tentative probability, a lower degree of certainty: They might betelling the truth (although I very much doubt that).

A special type of remoteness is unreality or counterfactuality: I toldyou time and time again not to drive so fast; you might have had anaccident.

*Notice that, taken out of the context, might have had is ambiguous; itcan express both tentative possibility and counterfactuality (contrary-to-reality).

Nevertheless, there are cases when these forms may be used to expressearlierness in time. This happens when the time sphere is past and isindicated by a deictic marker or an introductory verb in the past tense, in

which case the sequence of tenses occurs. We shall not insist on thisaspect, though a very important one, because it will be furthered in thechapters dedicated to each modal.

The perfect marker have-en can also indicate counterfactual possibility:The car is in such a bad condition that you might have got into trouble butfor the safety belt.

It is generally claimed that forms like could, would, might, should,ought to, neednt + have-en never occur as deontic and abilitymodalities; they can only appear with epistemic meanings. This is because

epistemic modality is related to speaker-now and does not have tenseitself. One exception may be deontic must which has no correspondingpast/oblique forms: Applicants for this position must have obtained adiploma in the past five years.

*Note that the construction expresses a present requirement (must)concerning a past process (have obtained).

In conclusion, when simple epistemic modals combine with the perfectmarker on the complement verb (perfect infinitive) it is the latter which

signals past.


11/26

Applications

Things are different with simple deontic or ability modals. We cant say:She can have smoked and mean She was able to smoke.

When have-en co-occurs with past/oblique forms of the modals, itindicates past time, thus permitting the modals to signal tentativeness orunreality/non-fulfillment.

*Note that neither dare not nor used to can occur with this construction,whereas need can: I neednt have invited him over; hes such a bore.

The progressive marker be-ing can combine with modals, but withcertain restrictions referring to those verbs that cannot be usually used inthe progressive aspect (know, resemble, understand etc.)

Sometimes the be-ing morpheme may distinguish between possible andpermissive MAY: I think they may be visiting some relatives in Bucharest;thats why we couldnt find them home. (=possibility). I think they maytravel abroad since they have their passports on them. (permission)

There are, however, contexts which allow deontic uses of modals to occurwith the be-ing marker: I shouldnt be talking to you. I dont even knowyou.

To conclude, the preferred or dominant interpretation in this combinationis the epistemic reading, but it is by no means the only possible.

Chapter 4 Meanings and Uses of the English Modal

Verbs

Before dealing with each of the modal verbs previously mentioned, wefeel bound to sum up the basic meanings they occur with:

- logical/epistemic modalities expressing possibility, probability,virtual certainty;- deontic modalities signaling permission, obligation, necessity;- ability/dynamic modalities expressing potentiality, capability.

In actual use, however, the modals appear with many overtones, shadesof meaning and degrees of intensity that can only be identified in thediscourse context. The meanings of the modals will be distinguished fromthe speech acts they may be used to perform. Thus, with the literalmeanings mentioned above they may appear in direct speech acts suchas statements, questions, negations of possibility, probability, certainty,obligation, etc. In addition, they often participate in indirect speech actswhose illocutionary force differs from that of the direct act suggested bytheir surface structure: offers, invitations, requests, orders, suggestionsetc.


12/26

Applications

4.1. CANLike all the other modal verbs, can is considered by traditional studies apolysemous word having three different senses: the ability sense (bothphysical and mental), the permission sense (replacing may in everyday,colloquial language) and the possibility sense.

Other grammarians consider that the polysemy of can is, in fact, afunction of the contexts in which it occurs. Thus we come to distinguishbetween ability can (dynamic modality), possibility can (epistemicmodality), and permission can (deontic modality).

4.1.1. ABILITY CANHe doesnt trust too many people, but he cannot resist his little grandson.Can you feel the tension between them? The present study is meant toshow evidence that infants can and do solve problems at a relativelysimple perceptual level. They cant speak a word of English but they canmake themselves understood.

The subject of all these sentences is animate, as questions of ability riseonly in connection with animate creatures. In all these examples, can maybe replaced by be able to. There is no such perfect equivalence betweenthe two, but it has been claimed that there are conditions that favour theuse of be able to rather than can.

As given by F.R. Palmer, these conditions are:

- since can has no non-finite forms, only be able to is available after

other modal verbs: might be/should be/has got to be/must be ableto etc.;

- be able to is a little more formal than can, and its occurrence is muchgreater in written texts;

- be able to is preferred if the TR (time reference) of the sentence ispresent, to indicate that the subject accomplishes the task: In this way weare able to carry out our research.

If the TR is past and if the situation is a single accomplished occurrence,

only be able to is used: I ran and was able to catch (not could) the train.

*Note that in the negative, the sentence I ran fast but couldnt catch thebus is correct.

As the examples indicate, can and be able to are not always freelyinterchangeable. What it should also be remembered is that if there is anintention to specify that the task is accomplished, be able to is used.

Consider also the following examples: Ken is driving. Ken can drive.

In the first one, a process is going on; it can be rephrased as Look! Ken isable to drive. So, according to Palmer, is able to says can and does.


13/26

Applications

In the second sentence, no process is going on; the speaker merelyassumes some circumstances, a previous occasion on which Kendemonstrated his ability to drive, and that a similar occurrence mayhappen again. So, again according to Palmer, can says can and will do.

Taking some more examples as: She can tell awful things sometimes. Hecan lift that huge suitcase. Our local team can beat yours. Joan of Arc canhear voices telling her to save France, we can conclude that, instead ofdifferent senses of the modal can, we can speak about different possibleenvironments of it. The contribution of can to the meaning of thesentence seems to be to relate the event referred to to some externalcircumstance which is not explicitly identified, but the existence of whichis assumed, and which is such as not to preclude the event fromoccurring.

At the pragmatic level, we shall remark that can may be used to indicatedifferent speech acts. Consider some examples in which can is usedcontextually to indicate that action should be taken:

- with 1st person pronouns, I or exclusive we, can is used to make anoffer: We can also give you a copy of the document if you wish. I can tellyou the truth if you will hear it.

- with 3rd person pronouns, where the speaker speaks on behalf ofsomeone else, but it is not clear if the initiative is his or not: Ill send him

to see what he can do and then he can call you.

- with a 2nd person pronoun it suggests that action be taken by theperson addressed: You can certainly give me a call back tonight.

If the context is an interrogative one, then can with you does not functionas a question about the addressees capacity to carry out the action, butas a request that he do so: Can you hold on? Can you give me a hand withthis?

Ifwe is used inclusively, it combines offer and suggestion: Do come early

and we can have a drink.

Can occurs with verbs of mental cognition like understand, remember,think, stand, bear, be bothered: He can never really believe that whensomebody takes a drug it is actually going to harm him. What you canremember out of his speech is what really matters. Can you see mewearing something like that?

Such examples represent contextual extensions of ability can, possibleenvironments of it.


14/26

Applications

Syntactic behaviour1. NegationUsually only the modal verb is negated; with be able to either theauxiliary be is negated or unable is used instead: We have to take intoconsideration the fact that they werent able/were unable to elaborate on

the matter at stake.

But Palmer shows that it is also possible to negate the event by usingemphatic not: We can/cant not go. Such forms are a little more naturalwith always, just, simply: We can always/simply/just not go, cant we?

2. Interrogation both can and be able to occur in interrogativesentences.

3. Past time reference - As already stated, the affirmative past tenseform for accomplished tasks is was/were able to. Nevertheless, Palmerdiscusses some cases in which could is used instead:- when an accomplishment is a matter of potentiality, not of realized task:In the state she was she could actually kill someone.

- in contexts in which a habitual, recurrent event is intended, could is therule: I could stand up and tell them my opinion whenever I wanted to.

- couldnt occurs in all types of negative contexts to indicate that anevent was not accomplished: Only when he died, his wife realized shecould not live without him.

A negative meaning of the entire context favours could with the sameinterpretation of non-accomplished task: He could hardly breathe, letalone speak. One moment she seemed to be everything to him, and thenall he could think of was his career.

Could is also used with negative items like hardly, scarcely,little,nearly which create an overall negative context: Little could he make outof the text he was given for analysis.

The past time reference ofcan with sensation verbs is formed by usingcould: From where I stood, I could see the moon. I could understand all hesaid.

4. Future time referenceCan, as shown above, does not indicate an event that takes place now; itmerely indicates that circumstances are such as not to preclude such aneventuality: Youll go to Ireland any time you like as long as you can get agood job there. Therefore, the temporal sphere of can is present andextended present. The modal verb can be marked as future by will/shallbe able to: When youre in your eighties youll be able to say that you

are old and wise. Well be able to save an awful lot of money by livingthere.


15/26

Applications

Provided that the possibility is timeless, can may relate to a specificfuture event. In sum, the distinction between present ability and futureability can be clearly seen in the following examples: He will be able to runfaster next year (future ability). He can run faster next year

(inappropriate). Their team can win the Cup next year (present ability tobe actualized in the future).

In conclusion, the differences between can and be able to are:- in the present tense, be able to indicates an accomplished task, unlikecan;- be able to is mandatory for past time reference to indicate theaccomplishment of an event;- there where the ability is with the subject rather than the circumstances,be able to is preferred;- a distinction is to be drawn between present ability that can accomplishsomething in the future (can), and future accomplishment (be able to);- be able to is more common in writing than in speech.

4.1.2. PERMISSION/DEONTIC CANSince about the 18th century, it has been possible to use can in the senseof permission. Consider the following examples: You can go now. Can Iborrow your car; mine is broken. If you dont eat your meal, you canthave any cake. Residents can use the car-park without a ticket.

In all these examples, the system of laws relative to which the statementsare made represent the laws of society/social laws/institutional laws, andinvolve either a person/an institution which creates permission. This use ofcan is relatively recent and it is a case when can encroaches upon maysdeontic territory. Until quite recently it has been fashionable for populargrammar books to state that it is incorrect to use can in contexts in whichpermission is given. Perkins gives the following example in this respect:Jack: Can I go out?Mum: Not can, may.Jack: Ok, may I go out?Mum: Sure you can.

Many an English schoolchild has been rebuked for saying Can I? instead ofMay I?. Yet, in fact, can is more widely used than may as an auxiliary ofpermission in colloquial English, having the less specific meaning youhave permission rather than I give you permission.

On the other hand, can tends to be avoided in formal and polite usage inboth written and spoken English, where may is felt to be the morerespectable form. Nowadays can is no longer regarded as incorrect, butmerely as a less polite version ofmay. This use ofcan may be extended

from permission to strong recommendation as in: You can forget aboutyour pocket money this week. Well, if he doesnt like it he can always


16/26

Applications

lump it. Here the speaker is being ironical, offering somebody the choiceof doing something that cannot be avoided, or of something no one wouldchoose to do. If the context is such as to give rise to a sarcastic attitude inthe speaker, then permission can is extended to mean quite the reverseof permission, approaching a brusque and somehow impolite command:

You can leave me out of that silly list of yours, thank you very much.

Syntactic behaviour1. Negation when in the negative, can refuses permission, in the samemanner as may not. Remark that mustnt and shant negate thesituation i.e. they lay an obligation that a situation will not take place.There is also a possibility of negating the situation i.e. of giving permissionnot to act, as in You can NOT come, but this can be ambiguous unlesscleared up by the context: You can come or you can not come, as youwish.

2. Interrogation in interrogative sentences, can is used to ask if theperson addressed gives permission, being in some cases simply a matterof courtesy: Can I get you a drink? Can I ring you back?

A further contextual extension of permission is one in which the personaddressed should act in order for the event to take place: Can I have thesalt, please?

3. Past time and future time reference

As a past form, could may occur in reported speech since it is evidentthat one cannot give permission in relation to past events: He said I couldleave the next day.

Could in the following examples is not a past form but a more polite wayof asking for or granting permission: Could we go on to talk aboutmodernist novels?

For similar reasons, there can be no future expression of permission.Palmer shows that we can indicate that permission will be given by usingthe verb to permit: I shall permit you to.

4.1.3. POSSIBILITY/EPISTEMIC CANCan is said to have a possibility interpretation when it indicates that,according to the laws of reason/rational laws, circumstances are such asnot to preclude the truth of the asserted sentence: There can be only oneoutcome of nuclear war. Cigarettes can seriously damage your health. Hecant be working at this late hour.

Remark that can would not be used to refer to a sentence in the present

which is known to be untrue: This can be a Toyota. *This can be a Toyota,but it is a Mercedes.


17/26

Applications

Possibility can is more frequent in non-assertions i.e. negative andinterrogative sentences, while in affirmative ones may is preferred: Thismay be true. Can this be true? This cant be true.

Leech points out that it is not always easy to distinguish betweenpossibility can and ability can since ability implies possibility. There arehowever some syntactic markers present in the context which lead to oneinterpretation rather than the other:

CAN in the ability interpretation requires a human or at least an animatesubject; the possibility interpretation is also available in those contexts inwhich the subject is inanimate: Lightning can be dangerous (thepossibility is stated positively). Lightning may be dangerous (or not) (bothpossibilities are open);

Passive sentences constitute another context that favours theinterpretation towards a possibility sense. Contrast the followingsentences: This game can be played by young children. (a clear possibilityinterpretation due to the passive construction) Young children can playthis game (ambiguous between a possibility and an ability interpretation)

Constructions with impersonal subjects favour an epistemic reading forcan: You can get quite lost in that metropolis.

The interpretation of circumstantial possibility is more appropriate if there

is a clear indication of the circumstances in which an event is possible:You can only get a job if youre good at it and you really want it. If theygive you the sack, you can always come and work for me.

The progressive aspectual form is a marker for epistemicinterpretation: Shes pulling your leg; she cant be working at this hour.Its such a fishy situation that you can be standing on a bomb; so, handleit with care.

Palmer distinguishes between She cant come (ability) and She cant becoming (possibility). With 2nd and 3rd person subjects, it is familiar

though tactful imperative: Jack and Jill, you can be standing over there;and you, dear, can sit right beside me. It can be contrasted with theundemocratic, coercive shall.

The perfect infinitive form is another marker of epistemicinterpretation: Can I have made such a mistake? He can have been hidingfrom you at that time.The interpretation of possibility for can may be further extended incolloquial language to express a suggestion for future action: We can seeabout that tomorrow.


18/26

Applications

Syntactic behaviour1. Negation cant negates the modality (=it is not possible that), whilemay not negates the complement verb (=it is possible that not):

He cant be at home (=it is not possible that he is).He may not be at home (=it is possible that he is not).

If you saw a woman in front of the house, it cant have been Jennifer(it is not possible that it was Jennifer).

They came back so quickly from their honeymoon that they canthave been too happy there.

2. Interrogation the epistemic interpretation is frequent, indicatinguncertainty, bewilderment: Can it have been love that she was talking soexcitedly about? Who can it be that bosses everybody around?

3. Past time reference can + perfect infinitive. Note that the perfectinfinitive does not generally co-occur with deontic or ability modals: Hejust cant have made such a fool of himself.

4.1.4. RECURRENCE CANCan is often used to denote recurrence, the fact that a tendency in aperson or thing is apt to manifest itself occasionally. Consider thesentences: Curiosity can kill. She can be so obliging when she chooses to.

The examples above can have indicative paraphrases with adverbials likeat times, sometimes, etc. Closest in meaning to the occasional can is

characteristic will and customary, habitual would: She can/will/wouldspend hours on the internet. None of them refers to a specific time;however, while will and would imply regular/habitual activity, cansuggests occasional behaviour. Note that can also occurs in certainadverbial clauses of degree which have the value of a superlative: She isas happy as can be (= very happy). The duty of a president is to serve thepeople as best he can.

CONCLUSIONSIn sum, the above analysis shows that the question about whetherparticular instances of can should be interpreted as ability,

permission or possibility can be resolved by postulating an invariantcore sense which may contextually interact with one or more of the threedifferent systems of laws in which the circumstances are such as not topreclude an event (in the ability and permission interpretation) or thetruth of a sentence (in the possibility interpretation).

4.2. GENERAL NOTES ON THE SECONDARY MODALSAs briefly mentioned before, some grammarians speak of a commonhypothetical meaning shared by the secondary modals, others of a

formal/tentative one, while others view it simply as a problem of past timereference:


19/26

Applications

O. Jespersen remarks that the modals could, might, would, should,ought to are identical in formal realization with the past tensecounterparts of the primary modals, can, may, must, will, shall. Hisposition is that the secondary modals do not indicate past time; instead,

they indicate, what he calls, unreality, impossibility, improbability which,in his opinion, constitute an imaginative use of the past unreal,hypothetical tense which is thus devoid of temporal connotations (1931:112, 114);

G. Leech discusses the secondary modals as sharing a hypotheticalmeaning not present in the same degree in the primary ones. Accordingto him, this meaning extends over three different areas: hypotheticalpermission (could, might)/volition (would)/possibility (could, might).He also establishes a connection between this hypothetical sense and theformal, polite use of the secondary modals (1971: 117).

F.R. Palmer characterizes the common, unifying semantic feature of thesecondary modals as tentativeness, saying that the secondary modalshave a more tentative epistemic or deontic interpretation than theirprimary modal correlates (1974: 127, 1979: 48);

M. Perkins objects to all the above mentioned proposals and offers aunifying denominator for hypothetical, imaginative past,formal/polite, tentative, under the term conditional, which, hethinks, subsumes all these distinctions and points out the fact that the

secondary modals presuppose the existence of a conditioningenvironment overtly marked, i.e. conditional clauses, indirect speech, pasttime reference. In his own words:

Sometimes the condition will be realized formally as a conditional clauseand sometimes it will be merely left implicit in the context of utterance;but no matter what its formal status might be, such a condition mustalways be present in some way or another. (1983: 51)

4.3. COULD

The interpretations ofcould are essentially the same as those ofcan, thedifference being one of conditionality:

- ability could. Could may have an ability interpretation if it is thesystem of natural laws that is taken into consideration and, under aconditional reserve, the circumstances are such as not to preclude theoccurrence of the event: I couldnt endure such behaviour. He could do itwith the right moral support. If she tried harder, she could certainly do it.

Note that the present conditional of a putea is the usual form in

Romanian for these weakened modalities.


20/26

Applications

In all examples, can may be substituted for could, the difference residingin the conditionality sense ofcould. As already stated, could can be usedto indicate habitual ability, general possibility that resulted in a singleoccurrence, when be able to is preferred in statements while the rule ismore relaxed in the negative or with verbs of perception: I could stand up

and tell them my opinion whenever I wanted. He read the message butcould not understand it.

- permission could. It is frequent in 1st person requests as: Could I seeyour driving license? I wonder if I could borrow some money? Could wehave something to drink?

Sometimes could is used instead of could+perfect infinitive for pasttime reference, as in: She made a compromise. How could she do/havedone otherwise?

In all the examples but the last one, could may be replaced by can with adifference that Leech characterizes in the following manner: with couldthe speaker does not expect his plan to be granted, the negativeinference being but I dont suppose I may. Sometimes this negativeassumption is overtly expressed in requests where the conditionalitysense is explicit as in: I dont suppose I could talk to her.

By extension, could will be used out of habit of politeness even in casesin which the speaker does not expect his request to be complied with.

Notice that could may report both can and could used in direct speech:He said I could go can be the reported form of both You can go and Youcould go.

A past time sphere and the rules of the sequence of tenses are the mostcommon reasons for past-marking: He asked if he could use my phone.

- epistemic could: You could not be put to prison for speaking againstindustry, but you can be sent to an asylum for speaking like a fool. Whatcould have turned him so angry?

Leech remarks that it is difficult to see any difference in the use ofcouldand might in the epistemic interpretation, except in the negative formwhere couldnt is an instance of external negation and mightnt aninstance of internal negation: He couldnt have said that. (Its not possiblethat he said that). He mightnt have said that (Its just possible that he didnot say that)

*Remark that the time sphere of epistemic could is present/extendedpresent and future (polite suggestion for future action): There could betrouble at the Dinamo-Steaua match tomorrow. You could answer these

messages for me.


21/26

Applications

For past time reference, could+perfect infinitive is used: Could youhave left your umbrella on the train?

This construction can also lead to a contrary-to-fact interpretation or,also, complaint: They could have come when expected. You could have

told me in advance.

It should be pointed out that such statements can be ambiguous lestcleared by larger contexts as to the type of counter-factuality and thetime reference.

4.3.1. SUBSTITUTES FOR CAN/COULDBE ABLE TO its use is compulsory in the following cases:- to supply non-finite forms (infinitive, participles). Note that it almostnever has progressive and past forms, and it cannot be doubled bycan/could since it would be pleonastic;- to form compound tenses;- to avoid ambiguity for past time reference: He could have a picnic onFriday last (permission).

Remember that for past continuous ability only could is available: Shecould speak English and so was able to direct the stranger to his hotel.,while be able to is used to express an achievement, the result of aneffort; compare: He went up onto the roof and was able to see the lake inthe distance with From the window of his motel room, he could see as far

as the bridge (possibility, no effort)

MANAGE TO is often used to stress more effectively than be able to thenotion of overcome difficulty;

USED TO is preferred to could/was able to for habitual, frequent pastaction/state which no longer exists at the moment of speaking. It is morecolloquial than be able to;

ZERO CAN/COULD when followed by verbs of physical/mentalperception/activity or emotions, they often lose the notional content

becoming mere auxiliaries that should not be translated in Romanian: Icant understand what youre getting at. (Nu inteleg)

BE SUPPOSED TO can be one of the most subtle ways of expressinginterdiction in English: You are not supposed to enter this club if you arenot its member.

4.3.2. CAN & COULD - ROUNDUP

1. CAN


22/26

Applications

- present tense of modal can: ability characteristic capacity,competence, skill (exception recurrence can = sometimes it canbe/happen that); possibility, supposition, logical deduction (=MAY);permission (= MAY):I am told you can tame any animal. People can often be very unfeeling.

Can he belong to our group and me not having met him yet! Why cantyou take your pills in time for a change? Can I use your phone?

- past tense of modal can = can + perfect infinitive (true for anymodal) (=past time + doubt, uncertainty, contrary-to-factness):I dont think he can have been so thoughtful. You can have met him sometime ago; hes quite your age, isnt he? They cant have seen us in thatpub, can they?

- near future (as to the present, for ferm, precise statement or categoricalrequest; with could, the speaker is more hesitant, polite, diffident):Can/Could you come to/and have lunch with us, say tomorrow? Can/Couldyou repeat, please? When can/could you bring the articles to be reviewed?They can/cant come to the meeting tomorrow.

*Note that when the future moment is more remote, there is an adverb ofdefinite future time in the sentence (next week/month/year, when)and the future possibility depends on the ability, not on the circumstances(the ability has not yet been acquired), shall/will/ll be able to are theonly choices, can expressing permission:Shell be able to speak (not CAN) several foreign languages when she has

finished the interpreters course. Dont worry about her! When she hasbeen coached long enough, shell be able (not CAN) to pass the entranceexamination.

- future (as to the past should/would be able to)I knew I should/would be able to meet them again.

2. COULD- past tense of modal can only when it expresses: general past permission(informal alternative for may): She knew she could do whatever she liked.

- unfulfilled past possibility: He said he couldnt believe it when he wastold the news.- past occasional ability: She could be a charming person, in spite of themoments when she lost her temper. The drug can be very effective in thetreatment of pneumonia.

- past general physical/intellectual ability: When young, he could speakArabic like an Arab. Years ago, she could jog four miles in the morning,before going to work.


23/26

Applications

- present indicative (the sequence of tenses, especially in indirect style):At his party, he said we could make as much noise as we wanted to, andwe did.

- could (not) for all negative/interrogative/negative-interrogative

sentences with a past main verb.

- future in the past of modal can: They said they could help us move in onMonday.

- conditional/subjunctive moods: I could have told that myself. Hes put onweight, so he could take more exercise. If you could draw, you could haveyour name entered for the coming competition. I wish I could have hadthe chance to meet her.

- could+perfect infinitive is used to express past ability not necessarilyused, or a possibility not put to the test: You could have finished the textbut insisted to leave. We could have offended them if we had omitted tosend an invitation.*Note that:- if there is no indication in the context as to the meaning ofcould, it canonly express permission;- if there is no indication of mood, it is considered to be a conditional;- the pattern I can do it has the past form I was able to do it; Icouldnt do it covers both the affirmative and the negative and can be

interpreted as both a negative conditional (future reference) and a pasttense (past reference); a larger context will clear the ambiguity;- when there is a specific past time adverbial (yesterday, two days ago,last week, at five oclock, then, when she saw them), be able to ispreferred: John was able to have a picnic on Friday last. (could wouldsignal permission)

4.3.3. EXERCISES MEANINGS AND USES OF CAN/COULD

I. Identify the meanings of can in the following sentences; choose

between:a) physical / mental ability;b) theoretical possibility;c) permission / prohibition;d) request, invitation, offer, suggestion (indirect speech acts).

You cant take these books home with you.She knows I cannot refuse her so she always asks for favours.Can it be true? It (simply) cant be true!What is done cannot be undone.

There can be only one possible and terrifying outcome of this imminentwar.


24/26

Applications

He cant have meant to hurt her feelings as I know they are the best offriends.Who can be ringing so late at night? Can it be Jim, whos just got backfrom the States?What can she mean by that?

Now I can understand what you mean to do.We can send you a confirmation of receipt, if you wish.The bus station is not very far; you can walk there; it takes you about fiveminutes.Can I have a look at those photos?You can call on me every time you feel like it.Im sorry I cant help you with your mathematics; I have no head foralgebra.You can certainly give me a ring back to tell me when you come by.She can spend day after day in the library searching more data for herresearch paper.Can you pass me the sugar, please?We already know she can be unfriendly when she wants to.He cant not answer their polite request to forward the necessary details.We can try to solve that now or we can put it off for later.You cant have rejected such an attractive proposal if you know whereyour interest lies.

II. Give reasons for using can/be able to in the followingsentences; refer to the course whenever you need:If he still is the person I have known him to be, Im sure he will to

provide quite decently for him and his family.I see her standing there alone, and I say that she felt embarrassed, to say a word.When she saw the bus, she ran as fast as she , but to get on.He made me so mad that in the state I was, I actually say things I knewI would regret later.However harsh they were, they still wanted their son to always be honestand speak up his mind; he stand up and tell them his opinion wheneverhe wanted to.There was very little I say or do about the whole situation. What hadbeen done be undone.

They were so shocked, they hardly utter a word.I understand what he meant, but that did not necessarily mean that I agree with him.Look! As I have told you I dont know how many times, I do it on myown.When you are in your sixties, youll to say that you have had enough.

III. Make sentences to illustrate the following meanings and usesof can-could/be able to:present physical/mental ability;

past physical/mental ability;present ability to be actualized in future;


25/26

Applications

accomplished task in the present;single accomplished past occurrence;single potential (not realized) task;habitual, recurrent past event;not accomplished past event;

timeless future physical/mental ability;physical/mental ability to be actualized at a specific future moment;description of present/past characteristic features of people/events;possible event/situation;asking for/granting present/past/future permission;strong recommendation;circumstantial possibility (if, you can)/(so that X can/could);present/past occasional, recurrent, habitual behaviour (the same asWILL/WOULD);past possibility not put to the test/unfulfilled past possibility;reproach for past actions;offers, requests, suggestions, invitations.

IV. Translate into English and give reasons for your choices:M tem c nu n eleg prea mult din ce spune; ori nu sunt n stare s urm resc nimic pentru c sunt obosit, ori vorbitorul nu i-a structurat prea bine discursul.Sunt nou n ora. Crede i c m-a i putea ajuta s g sesc sediul Institutului de cercet ri?Suger m s ne oprim deocamdat , dar am putea continua mine la aceeai or . Crede i c vom putea termina suficient de repede pentru a

trimite la timp documentele?mi amintesc c era o vreme cnd puteam petrece zile ntregi f r s obosim. S fie oare vrsta? Nu se poate!Am s fiu n stare s -l bat la table cnd voi avea mai mult experien . Putem s g zduim urm toarea conferin la Gala i, vara viitoare. Am putea s trimitem invita iile chiar s pt mna viitoare. Din fericire, mi-am f cut mul i prieteni de cnd m-am mutat n acest ora. tii ct de greu poate fi la nceput.Dac te concediaz , po i oricnd s vii la firma noastr . tiu ct de ncredere po i fi i chiar a dori s ni te po i al tura. n ce privete medicamentul acesta, se tie c poate fi foarte folositor n

tratamentul pneumoniei; nu se poate s fi refuzat administrarea lui.Iar i vorbete la telefon! Cu cine o mai fi vorbind i de data asta? A putea s pariez c e vreuna din prietenele ei cu care poate vorbi ore ntregi f r s se plictiseasc . Nu se poate s fi venit la ntrunire; a fi observat-o i sigur m-a fid us s vorbesc cu ea. tiu ct de jignit se poate sim i cnd nu este b gat n seam .Spune c ar putea termina lucrarea de ndat ce intr n posesia tuturor articolelor de specialitate care s-au publicat n ultimii doi ani.A spus c ar putea termina lucrarea de ndat ce intr n posesia tuturor

articolelor de specialitate care s-au publicat n ultimii doi ani.


26/26

Applications

Nu-mi dau seama ce urm rete; s-ar putea s inten ioneze s nfiin eze o societate de asigur ri.Dei poate fi nesuferit uneori, i-a cerut scuze c n-a putut ajunge la timp din cauza unui blocaj n traffic.Ai fi putut s -mi spui i mie despre brourile pe care le-ai luat de la

agen ia de voiaj; mi-a fi f cut o idee mai clar despre condi iile pe care le ofer .Vezi silueta acea care se apropie? Dac reueti s recunoti persoana, po i s -mi spui i mie cine este, pentru c nu v d nimic cu ochelarii tia noi; a fi putut la fel de bine s m lipsesc de ei. Po i s crezi c parlamentul ar fi putut vota o asemenea lege care s afecteze interesele bolnavilor?Dac au reuit s -i conving s intre n proiect, este pentru c ei chiar sunt n stare s -l duc la bun sfrit. Cercet torii din domeniu s-au str duit s ob in un nou medicament care s fie ct mai eficient, astfel nct bolnavii s poat spera ntr-o ns n toire rapid .

course 1 & applications (pp. 1-28)

Documents