possibility

AsfarasBiberetal.(1999)areconcerned,modalverbsare

employedtoconveyaspeaker’sorwriter’sview,expressingeitherthe

degreeof(un)certaintyoftheproposition,ormeaningsuchaspermission,

obligation,ornecessity.

Palmer’sClassification

Fromthetypologicalcategory,Palmer(2001)collectsandanalyzes

morethan70kindsoflanguagesandclassifiesthemintodifferent

ingtohisperspective,modalityisacross-language

classifiesmodalityinEnglishintotwotypes:propositionalmodalityand

merisaboutthejudgmentofthepropositions’

possibility,whilethelatterrelatestothestatementofanunredeemed

ssificationcanbeshownasfollows:

epistemicmodality

propositionalmodality

evidentialmodality

modality

deonticmodality

eventmodality

dynamicmodality

Figure2.1Palmer’sClassificationofModality(2001)

Specifically,thepropositionalmodalityisdividedintoepistemic

lly,epistemicmeanscognitive

anditisaboutthespeaker’sunderstandingorjudgmentoftherealityof

thegivenproposition(Palmer,2007).Heputsforwardthatepistemic

modalityimployedtoestimatethetruevalueofthegivenproposition,

stsituationisdeductive

modality,anditisudfordescribingthespeaker’sinferencefroman

ondoneisforconveyingthespeaker’suncertainty

oftheproposition,rd

typeisforshowingthespeaker’sunderstandingofsomethingknown,and

eetypesofepistemicmodalitycouldbe

moreexplicitwiththefollowinginstances:

(1)Lucymustbeintheclassroom.

(2)Lucymaybeintheclassroom.

(3)Lucywillbeintheclassroom.

Inthefirstntence,itispossiblethatthespeakerhastheevidence

showingthatLucyisintheclassroom,andthisisthefirstsituationby

econd

ntence,thereisnoevidenceforinferring,sothespeakerisnotsure

hirdntence,thespeaker

couldinferthatLucywillgototheclassroombadonhisorher

experience,micmodalityconveysthe

speaker’smentalactivity,whileevidentialmodalityprovidevidenceor

informationforjudgingthenecessityorimpossibilityofthegiven

propositions.

Eventmodalitycanbedividedintodeonticmodalityanddynamic

cmodalityreferstothepossibilityofthematterthathas

outthespeaker’sjudgmentonthepossibilityof

ferencebetweenepistemicmodalityanddeontic

stemic

modalitydealswiththerealeventandthespeaker’sjudgmentonit,while

sthat

dynamicmodalityissimilartodeonticmodality,becaubothofthemare

,deonticmodalityis

withrespecttoexternalpossibilityoftheeventcontrolledbyexternal

surroundings,whiledynamicmodalityresultsfromthecontrolofthe

tosay,oneofthemixternal,whiletheotheris

internal.

Mindt’sClassification

Badontherearchandanalysisofmillionsofword,Mindt(1995)

summarizes17kindsofmeaningsofmodalverbsbyusingtheinductive

oneofthemostreprentativeandconcreterearches

onmodalmeanings.

The17kindsofmeaningsareshownasfollows:

ility:theeventthatpeoplethinkprobablytrueormighthappen.

nty:theeventthatpeoplearesureof.

y:thecapacityofpeopleindoingsomething.

eticalaction:somethingthatisbadonpredication.

:somethingthatisdoneregularly.

nce:tomakeajudgmentaccordingtothespeaker’xperience.

tion:somethingthatyouareresponsiblefor.

bility:suggestion.

ity:somethingthatthespeakerneedstodo.

ness:toexpresssomethinginaeuphemisticandgentleway.

t:toagreeonsomething.

nthepast:somethingthatwasrealinthepastandkeptthesame

foralongtime.

sion:toallowsomeonetodosomething.

e:todaretodosomething.

tion:somethingthatthegovernmentorauthoritymakes,such

aslawsandrules.

nce:todosomethinginarudeway.

gness/Intention:tobewillingtodosomething.

Coates’Classification

Oppositetotheotherrearchesonmodalverbs,Coates(1983)

believesthatthereisindeterminacybetweenepistemicmodalityand

indeterminacycanbeclassifiedintogradience,ambiguityandmerger.

Sheemphasizesthattherearenoevidentlimitationsbutgradience(the

processthatthemeaningofawordchangesslowly)amongthedifferent

nthefuzzytofZadeh,sheputs

ntsoutthatthemeaningof

ically,

epistemicmodalsrelatetothetruthvalueofaclauandrootmodals

explaintherelatedelementsofanactivityandthemodalxpress

permission,sacoremeaningandsome

ningsofthemodalverbstretch

ningsofamodalverbare

alwaysambiguousbecauitisdifficulttodeterminewhichmeaningis

y,thereisamergeron

theperipheryoftwodifferentmodalmeaningsintermsofambiguity.

Coatexplainsthemeaningofthemodalverb“can”withthefollowing

figure:

PermissionAbility

Possibility

Figure2.3AFuzzySetReprentationofMergersbyCoates(1983)

Biber’sClassification

BadontheLongmanSpokenandWrittenEnglishCorpus,Biber

(1999)soffrequency

andmantics,modalverbsaredividedintothreegroupsrespectively.

ThedetailsaredemonstratedinTable2.2andTable2.3.

Table2.2Biber’sClassificationofModalAuxiliariesintermsof

Frequency

Centralmodalauxiliaryverbscan,could,may,might,must,shall,

should,will,would

Marginalauxiliaryverbsdare,need,oughtto,udto

Semi-modalshaveto,hadbetter,havegotto,be

suppodto,begoingto

Table2.3Biber’sClassificationofModalAuxiliariesintermsof

Semantics

permission,possibility,abilitycan,could,may,might

responsibility,necessitymust,should,hadbetter,haveto,

needto,oughtto,besuppodto

volition,predictionwill,would,shall,begoingto

SimilartoCoates’distinctionofmodalauxiliaries,Biberetal.(1999)

propothateachmodalcanhavetwodifferenttypesofmeanings,which

sicmodalityreferstoactionsandevents

ndofmeaningincludespermission,

sicmodalityreferstothelogicalstatusof

eventsorstates,

meaningxpressingpossibility,necessity,orpredictionbelongtothis

sicmeaningisalsocalleddeonticmeaning,whilethelatteris

tforwardtwofeaturesthatwecan

utodistinguishintrinsicmeaningsfromextrinsicmeanings:(1)the

subjectoftheverbphraisusuallyahumanbeing;(2)themainverbis

usuallyadynamicverb(anactivitythatcanbecontrolled)(Biberetal.,

1999).