MODALITY (Seminar Semantics and Pragmatics)

Andrew McIntyre
1 Introduction
Modal expressions indicate the attidude of the speaker towards the proposition expressed by the VP
and the subject.
(1) Egbert should have left.
(2) Egbert probably left.
2 Deontic and epistemic modality
Deontic interpretations of modals express notions like duty, obligation, permission, forbidding.
They evaluate a proposition according to some moral code or someones opinion about whether
the situation is desirable or not. (deontic is from a Greek word meaning duty.)
Epistemic interpretations of modals comment on the degree to which the speaker is willing to
vouch for the truth of the proposition. epistmic is from a Greek word meaning knowledge.
Epistemic modals invoke the speakers knowledge of the facts in forming a judgement of the
probability of a situation occurring.
(3) Egbert should be here by dinner time.
(a) Egbert is obliged/required to be here by dinner time.
[deontic]
(b) It is likely that Egbert will be here by dinner time.
[epistemic]
(4) She must be good, to get such a scholarship.
(a) It is required that she be good (in order to get such a scholarship)
[deontic]
(b) It is evident that she is good (since she got such a scholarship)
[epistemic]
A. Work out whether the following uses of modals are deontic, epistemic, or ambiguous between
either reading, and describe what the senses are. (In some cases, the auxiliary expresses future
tense, and it is a matter of debate whether it expresses modality.)
1. John can go to the beach today.
2. Mary could leave work early today.
3. Stan might not leave the office before six today.
4. Stan may not leave the office before six today.
5. She must be insane.
6. She must go home fairly quickly.
7. You shall go home now.
8. [Early Modern English] Thou shalt not commit adultery.
9. Mavis should leave at six oclock.
10. We will go home.
11. John will be home by now.
12. You will be home by twelve oclock tonight, or I wont let you go out again for three weeks.
13. He would have done the work by now.
14. Mary ought to be at home by now.
15. Mary has to/has got to be in her office now: she has her consultation hour.
3 The strength of modals
Both deontic and epistemic modals can be classified in terms of what might be called their stength.
We must distinguish at least between necessity and possibility. The strength of modals combined
with the deontic-epistemic distinction comes close to expressing the possible meanings. Examples:
(5) John may have a driving licence.
(a) Deontic reading (=he is allowed to have a licence):
POSSIBLED [JOHN HAVE LICENCE]
Judging by what is appropriate (i.e. by law), it is possible for John to have a licence.
1

(b) Epistemic reading (=maybe he has a licence):

POSSIBLEE [JOHN HAVE LICENCE]
According to the available evidence, it is possible that John has a driving licence.
(6) John must have a driving licence.
(a) Deontic reading (=he is obliged to have a licence):
NECESSARYD [JOHN HAVE LICENCE]
Judging by what is appropriate, it is necessarily the case that John has a driving licence.
(b) Epistemic reading (=he surely has a licence):
NECESSARYE [JOHN HAVE LICENCE]
According to the available evidence, it is necessarily the case that John has a licence.
Comments:

The notation used above is a simplification of the more complex notations used elsewhere. The
subscript D stands for deontic, and subscript E for epistemic. (Ch. 3 of Kearns 2000 gives more
details.)

Most modals have both deontic and epistemic readings. This suggests that the modals differ
from each other only in their strength, i.e. in what stands in the place of NECESSARY or POSSIBLE
in the formulae.

We probably need more degrees of strength than merely necessity and possibility. For instance,
the conditional forms of modals weaken the modal:
(7) She may go
is stronger than
She might go.
4 Interplay between negation and modals
Interaction with not sometimes seems to give unpredictable meanings to modals, a problem for
language learners. However, these turn out to be derivable from the scope of the negation. Contrast
the following sentences:
(8) You need not go home.
NOT[NECESSARYD [YOU GO HOME]]
It is not deontically necessary that you go home
(9) You must not go home.
NECESSARYD [NOT[YOU GO HOME]]
It is deontically necessary that you do not go home
Note that the first sentence (unlike the second) does not forbid the addressee from going home.
An example of negation of both the modal component and the proposition itself:
(10) You cant not go home on your mothers birthday.
NOT[POSSIBLED [NOT[YOU GO HOME]]]
Here is an example where only the stress determines the scope:
(11) We could not go
a. It would be possible for us not to go
POSSIBLED [NOT[WE GO]]
NOT[POSSIBLED [WE GO]]
b. It would not be/was not possible for us to go
B. Determine whether the modal verbs are in the scope of negation in the following sentences:
1. John can go to the beach today.
2. Mary ought not do that.
3. John cannot go to the beach today.
4. Mary couldnt leave work early today.
5. Stan may not leave the office before six today.
6. You dont need to talk to your boss about the problem.
5

References

Frawley, W., 1992. Linguistic Semantics. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Kearns, K., 2000. Semantics. London: MacMillan.