Chapter 1. The Concept of Modality: Its Types and Defintion

YEREVAN STATE UNIVERSITY

Faculty of Romance and Germanic Philology

English Philology Chair

English Language and Literature

BACHELOR’s DEGREE THESIS

Means of Expressing Modality in English

STUDENT: Manya Vardanyan

SUPERVISOR: Naira Martirosyan

YEREVAN – 2016

Contents

Introduction. 3

Chapter 1. The Concept of Modality: Its Types and Definition. 6

Chapter 2. An Overview of the Ways of Expressing Modality. 25

2.1. Phonological and Grammatical Means of Expressing Modality. 27

2.2. Lexical and Lexico-grammatical Means of Expressing Modality. 34

Conclusion. 52

Bibliography. 54

Introduction

The current research is devoted to the study of ‘Modality’ in English and particularly ‘Means of Expressing Modality’. Much attention was paid to this sphere of language in different periods of time. It is important to mention that modality is used in various sciences ranging from logic and linguistics up to philosophy. Many scholars, such as Jesperson, M. A. Blokh, F. R. Palmer, E. V. Gordon, I. B. Morozova, N.M. Rayevska, Lewis, Erhart, Sh. Ballie, Quirk, Coates and others studied the problem of modality, each suggesting their own theories and bringing arguments to prove their views to be true.

Modality is an essential topic in the study of meaning, it comprises the most significant elements in human language and contains people’s perception of everyday items, phenomena, notions, etc. it is referred to the modal meaning in the sentence structure. The study of Modality focuses on touching upon the problems like the ‘What is Modality?’, ‘Types of Modality’, ‘Means of Expressing Modality’, etc.

Modality is an essential component of the language, and though its definitions are different, they all have something in common. Modality reveals the very many relations that the speaker (writer) expresses while uttering a statement. It is much more than mere structure based on grammatical rules. It is a whole new phenomenon in speech, which is both out of grammar and at the same time twisted with it. Modality is the inseparable part of our everyday speech, as it is the main device for expressing attitudes, relations, commitment on this or that subject when we express ourselves. Being such a rich field, it has become one of the most intensively discussed topics among the linguists and the topic of the current thesis.

In this paper we are going to discuss the types of modality, the classifications made by many scholars. But the main focus is on the means of expressing modality, which are absolutely diverse and interconnected within each other.

The research comprises two chapters:

Chapter 1. entitled “The Concept of Modality: Its Types and Definition” is aimed at studying the definitions of modality and the various viewpoints of linguists, their theories, contrasting ideas, etc.Then we pass on to the classification of types of modality. Being a quite complex and rich field for study, it is divided into several types. Various divisions were suggested by many scholars, but the two main divisions are ‘epistemic’ and ‘deontic’ modality. These, also, in their turn, have their subdivisions, which are quite complex and may serve as potential fields for further analysis.

Chapter 2. entitled “An Overview of Ways of Expressing Modality” reveals the four main means of modality expression, when talking about these means, we come across different classifications among the scholars. Modality can be expressed with the help of different means: modal words, modal verbs, sometimes just with the help of intonation and mood.

1. Phonological means

2. Lexico-grammatical means

3. Lexical means

4. Grammatical means

This chapter comprises two sub-chapters:the first subchapter entitled “Phonological and Grammatical Means of Expressing Modality” starts with the proper description of phonological means: the description of modal intonation. The expression of modality by modals and adverbs, individually or in combination relates to the linguistic category of intonation. Then as we go further we come across the grammatical means of expressing modality, namely mood. In this part we study mood and modality, which are sometimes used interchangeably and there arises confusion, this is because of their connection. Mood and modality are separate spheres in grammar, but they are related in origin and even in meaning. Indicative, Imperative and Subjunctive moods are singled out and discussed.

The second sub-chapter entitled “Lexico-grammatical Means of Modality Expression” involves the description of modal words: modal nouns, modal adjectives, modal verbs, modal adverbs, etc. These are the most important means of expressing lexical and lexico-grammatical modality. Modal words comprise a large range of words which belong to different parts of speech, but their meanings allow them to express modality.

The investigation in the second chapter is completed with the study of modal verbs, the basic and the most wide-spread means of expressing of modality in English. Modal verbs fall under the type of lexico-grammatical means of modality expression. It is common knowledge that modal verbs express various meanings:ability, permission, possibility, decision, future, offer, etc.

All of the above presented sections that are in this investigation are to enrich one’s knowledge about modality in English and why not serve as a basic knowledge for further studies in this sphere.

The thesis is completed with conclusion, where the final results of the paper are expressed, discussed and explained carefully. The most important of those results is probably the one that modality is a concept with multiple disciplines, which in linguistics expresses different types of relations.

And finally, the bibliography which not only consists of books of many scholars and linguists, but also the internet sources and sources of language data that provided this investigation with vivid and expressive examples from fiction.

Chapter 1. The Concept of Modality: Its Types and Defintion

Modality is a category of linguistic meaning having to do with the expression of possibility and necessity. A modalized sentence locates an underlying proposition in the space of possibilities. The term ‘modality’ derives from the postclassical Latin word ‘ modalitas’. This term was very rare at that time, it was borrowed from French ‘ modalité’. In the Middle English scholars used ‘modus’ (meaning measure, method, shape)in various senses and one of those senses is associated with ‘modality’.

In Germanic and Romance the term ‘modality’ is related to the term ‘mood’, in some languages these two terms are not related. In English modality tends to be considered something like equivalent with the modal auxiliaries, the reason for this is that they are the most grammaticalized ways of expressing modality in English and they form a complex system, where various modal meanings are in contact with each other through complex links.

Modality is an essential topic in the study of meaning, it comprises the most significant elements in human language and contains people’s perception of everyday items, phenomena, notions, etc.

The study of modality is called ‘Tropology’. The problem of modality was studied by such researchers as Sh. Ballie, M. A. Blokh, F. R. Palmer, E. V. Gordon, I. B. Morozova, N.M. Rayevska, Lewis, Jesperson and even Aristotle. They studied the problem of modality from different aspects: some of them examined the peculiarities and the functions of modal verbs, others studied ways and means of expressing modality.

Thus, the studies on modality occupied many linguists since the 20th century. They mostly focused on syntactic construction and the expression of verbal mood. Matthew (2005: 228) defines modality as 'a category covering either a kind of speech act or the degree of certainty with which something is said.' Another linguist Erhart (1984: 116) defined modality as a category, and Palmer holds with him partly: it is possible to recognize a grammatical category of modality (which is similar to aspect, tense, number, gender, etc. (1986:1). Ďurovič (1956: 9) considers modality a main constitutional factor of a sentence.

There were different views when first attempts were made to define modality. Thus, the interpretation of modality is unusual in modern linguistics, because it is not easy to find two authors, who comprehend and define modality in the same way. This is the reason that different definitions exist for modality. In the Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary modality is defined as a functional – semantic category which expresses different types of relations between utterance and reality and different subjective relations which are contributed by the author. In other words, modality is all about encoding of different degrees of subjective response in the viewpoint of the writer or speaker.

Quirk (1985:219) defines modality as the “manner in which the meaning of a clause is qualified so as to reflect the speaker’s judgment of the likelihood of the proposition it expresses being true”.

According to Lyons and Palmer, modality is a category of meaning which deals with “the status of the proposition”. Semantically, modality is marked with modal verbs, non-verbs. Lyons also discusses two notions: ‘factuality’ and ‘non-factuality’, and according to him, they should be considered along with modality. Palmer argues with this point of view bringing various arguments and one of them is that the terms (‘factuality’, ‘non-factuality’) chosen to name such division are not proper and do not transfer the meaning fully (Lyons 1977, Palmer 2001).

In his book, Palmer treats modality as a grounded grammatical category that, along with tense and aspect, is concerned with the event or situation that is transferred through connection. However, he says that unlike tense and aspect which are categories associated with the nature of the event itself, modality is concerned with the status of the proposition that describes the event. Palmer (1986) defines modality as semantic information associated with the speaker’s attitude or opinion about what is said. Bybee (1985) gives a broader definition: that modality is what the speaker is doing with the whole proposition.

Though these definitions differ basically, they have one thing in common: modality concerns entire statements, not just events or entities, and its domain is the whole expression at a truth-functional level. Grammatically speaking, modality is associated with the sentence more than its constituents, unlike aspect, for example, which is predictably found with verbs as events.

According to Sh. Baillie in any utterance one can single out two things: basic concept (dictum) and modal part (modus), where the speaker’s intellectual, emotional attitude is preserved. German scholars support this consideration. Other authors mark modality as the meaning of reality/non-reality, possibility/impossibility, certainty/uncertainty. Hence, modality is the speaker’s cognitive, emotive, volitive attitude toward a state of affairs, his commitment or detachment of events or his attitude to the things being otherwise.

There is an essential consideration in the study of modality. In different academic literature modality is too closely associated with the category of mood. In the second edition of “Mood and Modality” Palmer draws clear distinction between mood and modality. (Palmer 2001)

When communicating, the speaker himself chooses the lexical patterns that are to be applied in his speech. This choice naturally is made, unconsciously, depending on the situation. It is the situation that provides the speaker's attitude, his choice of certain structures. The concept of modality has various aspects that is why it is often viewed from different viewpoints. For instance mood is the grammatical means of expressing modality, the area which has been studied thoroughly.

While studying the nature of modality one may come across various definitions, types (narrow, broad), markers of modality, etc. one may get lost in the labyrinth of modal meaning, especially when taking into consideration all of its factors.

In a narrow sense, according to Erhart (1984:117), modality is the combination of the grammeme: statement (realized as a declarative), question (interrogative forms) and wish (imperatives and exclamations). This definition of modality covers modal auxiliaries, adverbs (possibly, probably).

In a broad sense, modality is the realization of the utterance. This definition covers the expressions of interpersonal content.

Intonation patterns cover both of these definitions. Intonation is very significant and it shapes the modality of the utterance.

Modality is a relatively vague area in linguistics and many attempts were made to reach some kind of definiteness and this fact naturally gives rise to speculations. The modal meaning can be expressed in a variety of ways. The narrow definition of modality refers to the grammatical category of mood, which will be thoroughly studied in the next chapter. The broad definition refers to the syntactic constructions and lexical items: imperatives, interrogatives, negation, modal adjectives/adverb, evaluatives and modal words.

Negation should be separated from interrogatives and imperatives as they are different fields of investigation referred to as basic modality. In fact, negation is the denial of affirmation: the speaker's negative attitude of expressed affirmative statement. Some authors such as Kášová classify negation in the group of peripheral modality markers (2006:41). Negation is the syntactic means of expressing disagreement, absence of like. Some authors accept the treatment of modality in the broad definition, others however, don't. Some scholars consider negation as a part of modality. This is explained by the fact that when for instance we talk about things/events/affairs that do not exist, we talk about things which are not real. Therefore, negation is a category of non-reality.

According to D. Cameron, “modality is what makes the difference between a factual assertion like ‘unicorns never existed’, and a more guarded view, such as it seems likely that ‘unicorns could ever have existed’ or a bolder claim like the ‘existence of unicorns must always have been a myth’ (Cameron 2007). Modality, then, is a resource speakers and writers use when they are staking claims to knowledge: it allows them to formulate different kinds of claims (e.g., assertions, opinions, hypotheses, speculations) and indicate how committed they are to those claims.’

Modality comprises the speaker’s/writer’s attitudes (mode of reassurance, possibility, obligation, necessity, prediction, willingness, permission, volition, ability), which can be contradictory. By means of modality the speaker interferes into the speech act and adds something to the statement from his part. In other words, the speaker presents his/her level of truth.

Traditionally modality in English is expressed with the help of modal verbs: must, can, could, may, might, will, would, shall, should. The function of the modal verbs is to reflect our judgment about whether what we say or write is true.

Apart from modal verbs, there are other linguistic means that express modality: modal adverbs (surely, definitely, clearly, necessarily, perhaps, maybe, obviously), modal adjectives (possible, probable, certain, necessary, compulsory, sure, likely), nouns, verbs, expressions (be able to, be allowed to, be bound to, etc.) etc.

Modality in Modern English has to do with the world, not so much the way it is as the way it might potentially be. This may revolve around people’s beliefs about it or around their potential actions in it. By modal concepts are meant the concepts of what is possible, necessary, probable, conceivable and the like. The idea of modality is an old one, going back to classical Greek philosophy. Aristotle attaches particular importance to the notion of possibility and necessity. The emergence of such notions seems to be due to the fact that human beings frequently think and behave as if things might be other than in point of fact they are. In recent decades philosophers and logicians have attempted to analyse modal notions by construing them as statements about possible worlds (Niels Davidsen-Nielsen 1990:43). Possible worlds may be divided into different types (called modalities) according to the conceptual framework within which an event or proposition is considered real or true. A number of linguists are of the opinion that there are three basic modalities:

1) A modality which is concerned with rational laws or influence and deduction.

2) A modality which is concerned with social or constitutional laws.

3) A modality which is concerned with the relationship between empirical circumstances and the states of affairs which emanate from them, that is, with natural laws.

The notional concept of modality marks its association with entire statements. Thus, ‘modality concerns the factual status of information, it signals the relative actuality, validity or believability of the content of an expression’ (Frawley 1993:385).

Modality includes the ways in which language is used to encode meanings such as degrees of certainty and commitment or alternatively vagueness and lack of commitment, personal beliefs against generally accepted or taken for granted knowledge, facts, etc. Modality affects the overall assertability of an expression and thus, takes the entire proposition within its scope. As such, modality evokes not only objective measures of factual status, but also subjective attitudes and orientations toward the content of an expression by its utterer.

There are logical, grammatical and semantic approaches to modality, but the phenomenon generally seems to point also into the field of pragmatics, since modality operates above the level of pure proposition.

Linguistic features which express modality occur at different levels of language: individual lexical items, illocutionary forces and propositions. A major problem among most linguists has been that of accepting several dimensions, namely:

1) a semantic classification of the modal auxiliaries under such notions as necessity, permission, various degrees of possibility etc.

2) the fact that even with such a classification indeterminacy arises

3) the relationship of the modal auxiliaries proper to other ‘quasi-modals’ such as have to, be able to, and also to other carriers of modal expressions such as adverbs (probably) and adjectives (possible).

4) the prosodic features displayed by modal verbs

5) pragmatic features displayed by modal verbs, for instance ‘May I ask why you did not come yesterday?’ is not a request for permission but a ‘hedged performative’ where the speaker avoids making a categorical command.

6) a realistic account of the distribution of modal auxiliaries according to stylistic parameters to express irony, tact, condescension.

Modality is the category by which speakers express attitudes towards the event contained in the proposition. The attitude may be that of assessing the probability that the proposition is true in terms of modal certainty, probability or possibility. All modal expressions are less categorical than a plain declarative. For this reason modality is said to express a relation to reality, whereas an unmodalised declarative treats the process as reality.

With the help of the means of modality expression speakers can intervene in speech event, by laying obligations or giving permission. Closely related to these meanings are those of ability and intrinsic possibility. The modal auxiliaries in English express both types of modal meaning, which have in common the fact that they express the speaker’s attitude to a potential event.

From a semantic point of view, in making an assertion such as ‘It’s snowing.’, speakers express a proposition and at the same time commit themselves to the truth of that proposition. In ordinary subjective terms, it should be said that speakers know the truth of their own assertion. For this reason, an utterance such as ‘It’s snowing but I don’t believe it’ is semantically unacceptable since the second part contradicts the categorical assertion expressed in the first. If on the other hand, speakers say ‘It may be snowing’, ‘It can’t be snowing’, ‘It must be snowing’, they are not committing themselves wholeheartedly to the truth of proposition. They are not making a categorical assertion, but are rather modifying their commitment to some degree by expressing a judgement or assessment of the truth of the situation. This is an important choice which faces speakers every time they formulate a declarative clause: to make a categorical statement or to express less than total commitment by modalising.

A different kind of modification is made when the speaker intervenes directly in the speech event itself, by saying, for example, ‘I must leave now’, ‘You’d better come too’, ‘ The rest of you can stay’. Here the speaker makes use of modal expressions to impose an obligation, to prohibit, to express permission to the action in question.

From these considerations, modality is to be understood as a semantic category which covers such notions as possibility, probability, necessity, volition, obligation and permission. Recently the concept of modality has been extended to cover other notions such as doubt, wish, regret and desire, and temporal notions such as usuality. The projection of any of these notions onto the content of the proposition indicates that the speaker is presenting this content not as a simple assertion of fact, but coloured rather by personal attitude or invention.

Generally modality is referred to the modal meaning in the sentence structure. As it was mentioned above, the area of modality occupied many scholars and in the course of time many theories appeared. In his book, Palmer states two distinctions in how languages deal with the category of modality. The distinctions are Modal Systems and Mood. He is sure that languages can basically be defined through one or the other. But he also claims that typology of modality may be different because of the complexity of linguistic differences in various languages.

Coates (1983) categorizes modality into Epistemic (extrinsic) and Root (intrinsic). Other terms are ‘ extrinsic’ and ‘ intrinsic’. Quirk (1985:219-20), in his turn, differs extrinsic-intrinsic types. In his book “Mood and Modality” 2001, Palmer prefers the word ‘deontic’ instead of ‘root’ modality. On the other hand, Coates (1983: 20) prefers ‘root’ to ‘deontic’, because it is not limited in expressing obligation and permission. Root modality comprises ‘deontic’ and ‘dynamic’ modality. By means of these two main kinds of modality speakers are enabled to carry out two important communicative functions:

a) to comment on and evaluate an interpretation of reality

b) to intervene in and bring about changes in events.

Palmer (1990:837) agrees that the distinction of ‘epistemic’ and ‘root’ modality is more proper and clear. According to Coates (1983:18-20), ‘Epistemic’ modality is subjective, because it involves human judgment and expresses the speaker’s attitude towards the proposition. Lyons says that ‘epistemic’ modals lack the past tense form and are not affected by negation and aspect. ‘Root’ modality on the other hand involves human control that is why ‘root’ modals are more difficult to characterize, though they can be identified with the use of such features as occurrence with animate subject, and stress and intonation (Coates, 1983:20, 21). Other authors claim that there is a clear difference between the terms ‘deontic’ and ‘root’ modality, though that difference in some studies may not be clear, and these terms may be used interchangeably. The use of the term ‘root’ emphasizes the aspect of modality.

Palmer distinguishes two types of modality: Propositional Modality and Event Modality. They also in their turn have their own subdivisions.

Propositional Modality describes a speaker’s attitude to the content of the statement. It comprises:

I. Epistemic modality – speaker expresses his/her judgment about facts, affairs, etc.

a) Speculative modality – speaker expresses uncertainty

b) Deductive modality – speaker expresses his judgments based on his/her sources of information

c) Assumptive modality – speaker’s assumptions are based on general knowledge

II. Evidential modality – speaker gives evidence for the facts in the sentence.

a) Reported modality – this is the evidence accumulated from others

b) Sensory modality – this is the evidence accumulated through human senses, e.g. see, hear.

Event Modality refers to events which are not actualized. It comprises:

I. Deontic modality – speaker expresses conditioning factors that are external to the relevant individual.

a) Permissive modality – permission is given based on some rules, laws or the speaker.

b) Obligative modality – obligation is laid on the addressee on basis of some authority

c) Commissive modality – the speaker takes the responsibility to do something, this may be promise or threat

II. Dynamic modality – speaker expresses conditioning factors that are internal to the relevant individual.

a) Abilitive modality – expresses ability to do something

b) Volitive modality – expresses willingness to do something

Each modal verb in sentences expresses either epistemic or deontic modality. In addition there are some differences, for instance deontic ‘must’ and ‘may’ can be negated, whereas epistemic ‘must’ and ‘may’ cannot be, and if ‘may’ and ‘must’ are followed by ‘have’ in a clause, they express epistemic modality.

Modality is concerned with the speaker’s assessment or attitude (certainty) to a state or affairs. Hence, modality deals with different worlds. In a sentence like, ‘He must be right’, we deal with the world of knowledge and reason. This type of modality is known as epistemic modality. It is the expression of speaker’s confidence and it may be expressed with tags: I think, I guess and I believe.

e.g. I think Nicole is less sick than anyone thinks – she only cherishes her illness as an instrument of power. (F. S. Fitzgerald, p. 259)

There must be many who’d jump at the chance. (F. S. Fitzgerald, p.169)

There is an interesting theory that epistemic modality is dependent upon the deontic one. From diachronic viewpoint this theory is proved to be true. Synchronically deontic and epistemic modality are related by means of a subsumption relation. Modality can be studied in connection with tense and aspect. As a matter of fact modality and tense are interconnected as both categories have predications and they clearly interact with each other. Obviously, the category of aspect is connected with the category of tense, therefore these three categories of modality, tense and aspect are closely related.

Epistemic modality is the type of linguistic modality which deals with the speaker's degree of comprehension/judgment or trust about certain affairs, i.e. epistemic modality describes the way the speaker communicates his/her doubts, certainty, thoughts, beliefs, opinions etc. Thus, it does not describe the facts, furthermore the speaker’s perception of reality may not be quite right. It estimates the likelihood, possibility, certainty of the things and affairs that may or have or will happen in a possible/certain point in the universe.

In speech epistemic modality is realized: lexico-grammatically: through modal verbs (may, might, can, could, should, will, must, ought to), these modals express various meanings ranging from possibility to certainty, grammatically: through moods, lexically: through adverbials or special intonation patterns.

Deontic modality is also a type of linguistic modality, which indicates what is necessary or possible according to certain/ accepted norms, standards, expectations, necessity i.e. deontic modality expresses that the things in life do not coincide with the accepted social or personal standards and ideals.

Deontic modality has the features of obligation/ permission. Expressions of permission, obligation, are more complicated because they both involve the assessment of the degree of moral acceptability of and its translation into action terms.

Another subcategory of deontic modality is ‘directive’ modality. Directive modality is used to refer the means that the speaker uses to direct someone else’s behavior. Modal auxiliaries are especially important in this regard, they are used to order, reproach, insist, suggest, permit, etc. By the way, the same modal may appear in different types of directives.

e.g. If you want to keep a dog in your house, you should take care of it. (obligation)

You should hear my story first and then draw conclusions. (suggestion)

In speech deontic realisation can be made with the help of: grammatical moods: imperative mood: e.g. Go away!!, modal verbs: I shall help you, other verbs: I hope to finish my paper soon., adverbials and other constructions.

Deontic modality is contrasted to the alethic and epistemic modalities. The relations of deontic modal concepts are studied by deontic logicians. Deontic modals differ with their relations to normative and evaluative concepts (reason, virtue, value, etc.)

Epistemic and deontic modality are connected with each other (concern themselves with the notions of possibility or necessity). Epistemic uses comprise information linked with the speaker's knowledge about the situation. In deontic uses we come across obligation, prohibition, permission, etc. (Huddleston 1998: 78). 'Epistemic' modality informs us about the speaker's understanding and knowledge. It refers to the reason of the speaker, while deontic modality has in it a bit of will.

According to Palmer deontic modality has the meaning of futurity, whereas epistemic modality contains the speaker’s attitude to the truth of the past, present or future. According to Coates epistemic modality is the speaker's proportion of conditions and circumstances of reality. He claims that epistemic modality shows speaker’s commitment or knowledge. He refers to the speaker’s own judgments, the speaker’s (lack of) commitment to the truth of the proposition expressed.

The three meanings (epistemic, deontic, dynamic) in different academic literature may be named differently. For instance, dynamic modality is also called facultative/inherent. It is described as the attribution of the subject i.e. subject can perform the action expressed by the main verb.

Thus, there are four major types of epistemic modal markers in English: modal auxiliaries (may, might, can, could, must, etc), lexical modal verbs (seem, appear), modal adjectives/adverbs (likely, probably, etc.).

Speculative modality concerns with what is possible, speaker thinks a statement to be true, though it may not be true. Along with the study of speculative modality, some authors refer to potential, dubitative types. This distinction helps to differ indicative and subjective moods in Romance languages. In his turn, Palmer employs the term speculative for epistemic possibility. And speculative includes dubitative and probable domains (Palmer 2001). On the other hand this can be very controversial, because dubitative is used when the speaker has doubts about the statement. And in contrast to speculative modality these doubts contain some negativity.

e.g. “Tommy wants his pistol back. He might need it again. (F. S. Fitzgerald, p. 60)

She knew how shy Walter was and she could believe that the fear of a scene, and the dread of public attention, might have influence upon him... (W. S. Maugham, p.30)

The other class, who might be called exploiters, was formed by the sponges, who were sober, serious people by comparison, with a purpose in life and no time for fooling. (F. S. Fitzgerald, p. 83)

In case of deductive modality speaker may not know if the given proposition is true, but he/she can suppose and reach some conclusion. The deduction depends on the circumstances and the speaker’s senses (auditory/visual).

e.g. Kitty, unmoved, wondered what exactly his wife had told him about her. He must have asked. (W. S. Maugham, p. 20)

Assumptive modality supposes speaker’s judgments based on the facts they are sure to be true. Common means to express such certainty is through the use of the verb ‘know’. The assumptions are not only made by the speaker, the speaker may likewise describe someone else’s assumptions/knowledge.

e.g. Once I knew a man who worked two years on the brain of an armadillo, with the idea that he would sooner or later know more about the brain of an armadillo than anyone. (F. S. Fitzgerald, p. 131)

The phenomenon of evidentiality is discussed with epistemic modality. It is the denotation of information sources of the speaker, which he supposes to be true. It shows the origins of the information.

There are different views on evidentiality. And one of them is that evidentiality is distinct from epistemic modality. Naturally the relation between epistemic modality and evidentiality is problematic. There is a logical connection between them referring to the fact epistemic judgments maybe based on the evidence. Besides, evidential categories may suggest some degrees of probability. Let's admit that hearsay information does not seem so truthful as the direct one, and therefore, the direct one implies more definiteness.

Hence, some authors evaluate the relations of these categories quite differently. For example Bybee and Palmer assume that evidentiality enters into the category of epistemic modality. Other authors do not really put them so close to each other, they just join them under the same modal subcategory. And some others relate them but admit that they are different categories. And not so many authors differentiate types of evidentiality. Inference is closely connected to epistemic modality rather than hearsay, but some authors insert inference in epistemic modality and exclude evidential categories, because inference and epistemic modality have at least one common feature, whereas evidentials do not. Inference also involves degrees: strong - clearly, obviously, logical, moderate forms - plausible, presumably, appear, weak forms - seem. Summing up this, we may say that evidentiality is not a very tight category. With epistemic modality the speaker expresses her/his judgments about the facts, whereas evidential modality indicates the evidence she/he has for its factual status.

Sensory modality is the one, when the speaker himself is the witness of some action. Hence, his speech, attitude is based on whatever he/she saw.

e.g. Her eye caught sight of a note lying on the top of a book. (W. S. Maugham, p. 7)

Another modal category is 'emotional attitude’ or boulomaic, it indicates the degree of speaker's liking or disliking of a situation or things, which are expressed with by the predicative adjective or adverb, etc.

e.g. Unfortunately, I can't accept your invitation, I don't have time.

Oh, honestly, don’t you two read? (J. K. Rowling, p. 175)

The soul, fortunately has an interpreter – often an unconscious but still a faithful interpreter – in the eye. (Charlotte Bronte, p. 280)

Reported or as it is commonly called ‘hearsay’ modality, appears when speaker expresses information, which he/she received from someone else. Speaker may also add personal judgments about certain proposition.

e.g. “I told Bartholomew that some categories died off like flies here – I told him the life of a suck was as short as the life of a machine-gunner in the war.” (F. S. Fitzgerald, p. 186)

This category has not been analyzed thoroughly in the range of modal notions. Probably the reason is that this meaning is not so vivid in the system of modal auxiliaries. Like deontic and epistemic modalities, it can be analyzed from both negative and positive poles, because it has an attitudinal character. In this sense volition can also fall into this type. When comparing volition to deontic modality, it is not always easy to recognize their limits.

Among other modal categories, descriptivity and performativity are worth mentioning. They are actually the speaker's evaluation. Performativity expresses the speaker’s attitude in the moment of speech and in descriptive type the speaker expresses, describes, points out some affairs, actions performed by someone else in some point of time.

Permissive modality expresses permission based on certain rules, laws. But these laws may be optional, not obligatory.

e.g. Let me be frank just this once father. I’ve been foolish and wicked and hateful. (W. S. Maugham, p. 143)

Obligative modality is concerned with the discussion of what ‘ought to’, it carries the meaning of duty. Modal verbs ‘must’ and ‘shall’ better express and emphasize obligation.

e.g. “You must go and see Doris’s boy. He’s a fine little fellow”. (W. S. Maugham, p. 141)

“You must make allowances for Mr. Waddington because two or three times when we had no money at all and did not know how we were to feed our orphans Mr. Waddington came to our rescue”. (W. S. Maugham, p. 67)

You must eat the Madeleines’, - said the Mother Superior, ‘because Sister St Joseph made them for you herself in the morning. (W. S. Maugham, p. 67)

Commissive modality connotes the speaker’s expressed commitment, as a promise or threat. Commissives are defined by Searle (1983:166) as ‘where we commit ourselves to do things. In English modal verb ‘shall’ (interchangeable with ‘will) is present in such propositions. The speaker himself guarantees that something will take place.

e.g. We shall be able to hold one another’s hands. (W. S. Maugham, p. 138)

“I shall see what I can do,” said Dick, and added, “but money will certainly have to change hands.” (F. S. Fitzgerald p. 326)

Dynamic (speaker/subject – oriented) modality expresses more than ability, need, necessity, it can be situational. Deontic and dynamic modalities refer to the events that have not happened, but potentially they can take place, that is why they are called 'event modality'.

There are two types of dynamic modality the first one expresses ability (can), the second one expresses willingness (will). 'Can ' is used both for epistemic and deontic modality, it may not only express physical or mental abilities but also circumstances where the person is involved.

e.g. You can stay as long as you like. (deontic)

You can easily beat everyone else in the club. (dynamic)

You can speak French. (not definite)

Dynamic modality is distinguished from epistemic and deontic modalities in two ways:

Firstly, dynamic modality concerns itself more with the subject's characteristics than the opinion or attitude of the speaker.

Secondly, it concerns with the source of opinion or attitude, for instance dynamic modals 'can', 'would like' take subject which indicates the source of ability or volition, and in this manner a complete sentence can be produced. Abilitive statements suggest that a subject is able to do something. Volitive statements indicate the speaker’s attitude of hope, wish of the subject. Abilitives are expressed with ‘can’, volitives with ‘will’.

e.g. Often a man can play the helpless child in front of a woman, but he can almost never bring it off when he feels most like a helpless child. (F. S. Fitzgerald, p. 93)

“ Will you go out with me?” he demanded, with the air of having seats…

Dynamic modality lacks subjectivity. Both deontic and epistemic modality have subjective senses, so in this way, dynamic modality is different from other kinds of modality. Dynamic modal expressions describe a state or ability, opinion/attitude, volition of the subject. They are distinct from deontic and epistemic modal expressions, because they indicate the source of opinion or attitude to the sentence subject. However, epistemic and evidential modality are connected more directly, they are characterized as “Propositional modality” while deontic and dynamic modality as “Event modality”, in fact the modality is more modal, as it develops independently. (Palmer 2001).

Portner suggests another division of modal forms:

Sentential modality – it is the expression of modality at the level of sentence. It includes modal auxiliaries, modal verbs, modal verbs, conditionals, tenses, etc.

Sub – sentential modality – it is the expression of modality through predicate. It includes modal nouns and adjectives, propositional attitude verbs and adjectives (believe, hope, know, remember, etc.), verbal mood, infinitives, etc.

Discourse modality – it is expressed by evidentiality, clause types, etc.

Another notion is alethic modality, it was suggested by Wright, it is expressed in modal context. This notion is not frequently used in linguistic semantic analyses of modality. Distinction of alethic and epistemic modalities in some way shows the similarity between objective and subjective modalities, and also there can be found similarities between epistemic and dynamic/inherent modalities. In addition there is a distinction of likelihood:

objective truth – truth in the world

subjective truth – truth for a certain person.

Palmer criticized this distinction, he says that there is no distinction between what is generally true and what the speaker think to be true.

Fransis Cornishe’s differs four types of modality: inherent modality helps to determine the nature some affairs denoted by a simple clause, and has to do with the relations between a participant and the realization of that state of affairs (Djk 1997a: 242), objective modality objective modality specifies the speaker’s evaluation of the likelihood of occurrence of state of affairs, by means of comparison with what she/he already knows of a state of affair (Djk 1997a:242), subjective modality concerns the speaker’s relationship with the proposition, not the state of affairs it denotes and illocutionary modality is the speaker’s communicative intention in uttering the predication.

According to other theories objective modality may also be referred to inherent modality, thus, objective (inherent) modality is characteristic to the predication and it reflects the relationship between utterance and reality. Its purpose is to present the speaker's knowledge about the situation. It is the attitude of the utterance towards reality/unreality, possibility/impossibility, necessity, probability, etc. Objective modality specifies the relation of the situation to reality. This type of modality expresses the reality of the situation, and that reality depends on the participant. If the source of the modality is not the part of the situation then it is the speaker. Objective modality is expressed at the level of syntactic sentence division: with grammatical means of objective mood, intonation and others, while, subjective modality shows the involvement of the speaker in the utterance. It is the expression of speaker’s attitude towards the utterance.

Objectiveand subjective modalities have been argued a lot: epistemic modality can only be subjective, deontic modality can be either subjective or objective, and dynamic modality can only be subjective.

Subjective epistemic modality expresses possibility, certainty, probability. Subjective deontic modality expresses obligation. Objective dynamic modality expresses willingness, ability. Objective deontic modality expresses obligation, permission.

Unlike subjective deontic modals, objective deontic modality does not comprise the speaker's commitment to the obligation, but there is only a description about the existence of obligation.

The distinction of subjective and objective modality was first made by Halliday. Subjective modality represents some participation on the part of the speaker. And she/he has her/his own judgments.
Subjective modality involves epistemic category of probability/possibility and certainty.
Objective modality is contrasted to the subjective one: modal adjectives express objective modality and modal adverbs express subjective modality. Unlike objective modality which reflects a character of connections in reality, subjective modality does not reflect the reality. It only reflects the speaker’s commitment of reality. Subjective modality is not a part of the content of the sentence. The scholars note that objective modality is obligatory to any expression, but subjective modality is optional. To sum up, objective modality is something more ‘modal’ and subjective one is more ‘emotional’.