The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries 1138989983, 9781138989986

Citation preview

THE SEMANTICS OF THE MODAL AUXILIARIES

CROOM HELM LINGUISTICS SERIES Edited by John Hawkins

The Semantics of Determiners Edited by Johan Vander Auwera Binding and Filtering Edited by Frank W. Heny Thirty Million Theories of Grammar James D. McCawley Complementation in Middle English and the Methodology of Historical Syntax Anthony R. Warner The Development of Word Order Patterns in Old English Marian C. Bean Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation Tanya Reinhart Word Meaning and Belief S.G. Pulman Hierarchies, Targets and Controllers: Agreement Patterns in Slavic Greville Corbett Causality in Linguistic Theory Esa ltkonen The Passive: A Comparative Linguistic Analysis Anna Siewierska Dependency and Non-linear Phonology Edited by Jacques Durand Anaphoric Relations in English and French: A Discourse Perspective Francis Cornish Basic Word Order: Functional Principles RussellS. Tomlin

c

The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries JE~NIFER COATES

CROOM HELM London • Sydney • Dover, New Hampshire

39259

©1983 Jennifer Coates Croom Hehn Ltd, Provident House, Burrell Row, Beckenham, Kent BR3 lAT Croom Hehn Australia Pty Ltd, Suite 4, 6th Floor, 64-76 Kippax Street, Surry Hills, NSW 2010, Australia Reprinted 1985 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Coates, Jennifer The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. - (Croom Helm linguistics series) ·1. English language - Verb 2. English language Modality I. Title 425 PE1315.M/ ISBN 0-7099-0735-4

Printed and bound in Great Britain by Billing & Sons Limited, Worcester.

CONTENTS

Editorial Statement Acknowledgements 1. Introduction 1.1 1.2 1.3 ~ .4 1.5

The Data A Corpus-based Approach Assessnient of Research Goals and Techniques The Modal Auxiliaries Notation

2. Theoretical Considerations 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5

Monosemy versus Polysemy A Model for Modal Meaning Indeterminacy Epistemic and Non-epistemic Modality Corpus Analysis

3. General Findings and Semantic Clusters

3 3

4 6 9 9 10 14 18 22 23

3 .1 The Modals : General Findings

23

3 .2 Semantic Clusters

27

4. The Modals of Obligation and Necessity: MUST, NEED,

31

SHOULD and OUGHT

4.1 MUST

31

4.2 NEED 4.3 HAVE GOT TO and HAVE TO 4.4 SHOULD 4.5 OUGHT 4.6 SHOULD and OUGHT: Further Issues

49 52

5. The Modals of Ability and Possibility: CAN and COULD 5.1 CAN 5 .2 COULD 5.3 BE ABLE TO 6. The Modals of Epistemic Possibility: MAY and MIGHT 6.1 MAY

58 69

77 85 85 107 123 131 131

Contents

vi

6.2 MIGHT 6.3 Epistemic COULD 6.4 Summary of MIGHT and COULD 7. The Modals of Volition and Prediction: WILL and SHALL 7.1 WILL(including 'll and won't) 7.2 SHALL 7.3 BE GOING TO 8. The Hypothetical Modals: WOULD and SHOULD 8.1 8.2 8 .3 8.4

WOULD SHOULD and Hypothetical Meaning The Modals in Real Conditions The Modals in Unreal Conditions

9. Conclusions 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4

Re-appraisal of Certain Issues Patterns Revealed by the Data Summary of Main Findings Conclusion

146 165 167 169 169 185 198 205 205 221 223 228 231 231 23 7 244 24 7

Appendix

249

Bibliography

250

Index

255

It is the mark of the educated man to look for precision in each class of things just as far as the nature of the subject matter admits. (Aristotle)

In general, complexity and precision bear an inverse relation to one another in the sense that as the complexity of a problem increases, the possibility of analysing it in precise terms diminishes. (Zadeh 1972)

EDITORIAL STATEMENT

CROOM HELM LTD publish a Linguistics· Series under the chief editorship of John Hawkins. The editor and publisher wish to draw this series to the attention of scholars, who are invited to submit manuscripts or book-proposals to: John Hawkins, Max-Planck-Institut fi.ir Psycholinguistik, Berg en Dalseweg 79, NL-6522 BC, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, or Department of Linguistics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1693, USA; or to Jonathan Price, Linguistics Editor, Croom Helm Ltd, Provident House, Burrell Row, Beckenham, Kent, BR3 lAT. The series does not specialise in any one area of language study, nor does it limit itself to any one theoretical approach. Synchronic and diachronic descriptive studies, either syntactic, semantic, phonological or morphological, are welcomed, as are theoretical 'model-building' studies, and studies in sociolinguistics or psycholinguistics. The criterion for a work's acceptance is the quality of its contribution to the relevant field. All monographs published must advance our understanding of the nature of language in areas of substantial interest to major sectors of the linguistic research community. Traditional scholarly standards, such as clarity of presentation, factual and logical soundness of argumentation and a thoroughly reasoned orientation to other relevant work, are also required. Within these indispensable limitations we welcome the submission of creative and original contributions to the study of language.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost I should like to thank Geoffrey Leech, whose comments and criticisms have played a vital part in the development of this book. My interest in the modals is the result of his appointing me to work on his SSRC project comparing the modals in British and American English, using the Lancaster and Brown corpuses. I should also like to thank Professor Randolph Quirk for allowing me .such generous access to the Survey of English Usage files, and for his unfailing interest in my wo!f. I am very grateful to the staff at both the Lancaster University Computer Laboratory and the Liverpool University Computer Laboratory for their assistance. In particular I want to thank Dr Mike Coombs for his invaluable help in introducing me to Cluster Analysis and in clarifying many issues- particularly fuzzy sets. Finally I should like to thank Paul, my husband, for his help in drawing the diagrams and my parents who stimulated my interest in language in the first place - I therefore dedicate this book to them, in spite of their belief in Fowler!

1

INTRODUCTION

This book is a report of an investigation into the meanings of the modal auxiliaries in modern British English. The investigation took the form of a large-scale corpus-based project, looking at modal auxiliaries in both written and spoken language, and taking account of ·stylistic variation.

1.1 The Data The data was provided by two corpuses. Written (printed) material was taken from the 1,000,000 word Lancaster corpus (now superseded by the Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen (LOB) corpus - see Johansson 1978). This consists of 15 genre categories (the number of texts -in each categ 76

-Root meaning +Root meaning (80 Lancaster)

Only two associations are given here, but the distinction between Root and non-Root meaning is clear-cut, as the associations listed for Epistemic meaning will show (see 7.1.2.3). In other words, the many

The Modals of Volition and Prediction

177

100 per cent co-occurrence relations for Epistemic WILL have negative significance for Root WILL. It cannot co-occur with an Existential subject, with Progressive aspect, with Perfective aspect, with a stative verb, with passive voice or with a quasi-modal.

7.1.2 Epistemic Meanings 7.1.2.1 'Predictability'. Examples which can be· assigned to this category mean something like 'I (confidently) predict that it is the case that p'. Like Epistemic MUST, Epistemic WILL expresses the speaker's confidence in the truth of the proposition; unlike Epistemic MUST, the speaker's confidence is not based on a process of logical inference. Instead it is based on common sense, or on repeated experience. Epistemic WILL therefore relates to the habitual in a way Epistemic MUST does not. Epistemic WILL expresses confidence where Epistemic MAY expresses doubt. The following examples illustrate this meaning; (21) A commotion in the hall/ . .. /"That will be Celia," said Janet. (LanclS-K)

/i

(22) jKipler# fin 'his ttme# said. a ./what have understood#. am- am jno one can . will be :able to take in at the :m6ment# (T.5.2.41) The crucial feature of Epistemic WILL is that the speaker makes a claim about the present (in other words, the time reference of the main predication is present). In (21) the speaker is saying that she is confident that the noise is Celia; in (22) Kepler is reported as saying that he is confident that no one is able to understand his work. Example (22) is particularly interesting because of the speaker's anacoluthon. He started to sa¥ no one can take in at the moment, i.e. 'no one is able to take in at the moment', but replaced this assertion with the strong prediction no one willqe able to take in at the moment, i.e. 'I confidently predict that no one is able to take in at the moment'. Note also that examples of WILL (='Predictability') typically have third person subjects. Clear examples of Epistemic WILL are more common in the written corpus (see Table 7.1 ), for the good reason that this sense 'is naturally suited to scientific or qU;asi-scientific statements' (Leech 1971: 79). Over a third (38 per cent) of examples in the Lancaster corpus occur in category J (learned/scientific). Typical examples are:

178

The Modals of Volition and Prediction

(23) the antibodies are naturally occurring and over 95 per cent of all recipients will have anti-A and/or anti-B in their serum. (Lanc15-979) (24) If the weights are clustered closely around the centre of gravity, it will be highly stable (Lanc-15 -99 5) Such scientific examples refer to a series of events, not a single one, and have the general meaning 'Whenever x, then it is predictable that y'. The main predication of these examples has iterative aspect, whereas the main predication of core examples like (21) and (22) refers always to a single event or state. Compare (a) and (b) below: (a) that will be Celia= {I predict [that is Celia]} (b) all recipients will have anti-A ={I predict [all recipients have anti-A]} While (a) refers to a single event (the arrival of Celia), (b) refers to a general truth (note the simple present tense of have in the main predication). However, statements like all recipients have anti-A are arrived at after a series of events, in each of which one individual is found to have anti-A. Similarly, a speaker will say that will be Celia because events in the past have led her to conclude that certain factors (such as noise in the hall) justify certain predictions. In other words, there is a clear relationship between these examples. There is also a gradient from 'confident prediction about present (or timeless) states and events to confident prediction about future states and events. Utterances that are clearly the latter h::!ve been classified as examples of WILL='Prediction', but there is large area of ove~lap between WILL='Predictability' and WILL='Prediction', as Figure 7.2 illustrates. A typical example from this area is the following:

a

(25) It is a fairly safe bet that one of the guests will want to take the empty flask home; they make delightful lamp bases. (LanclS-531) While this clearly means 'it is predictable t11at ... ', and the confidence of the prediction rests, like that of the scientific examples, on previous experience, nevertheless any guests who take a flask home will do so in the future. The construction WILL + HAVE is used with 'Predictability' when

The Modals of Volition and Prediction

179

the main predication refers to an event in the past. Such examples underline the non-future reference of 'core' examples of WILL= 'Predictability'. (26) and my /mother was n(Jt [/drunk#]#- /several 'people in the :hollse# will have "jsafa 'that to you# (T.11.1.41) (Paraphrase: 'I confidently predict that several people in the house have said that to you') The co-occurrence relationship of Perfective aspect with Epistemic meaning is given in 7 .1.2 .3 below.

7.1.2.2 'PredictionJ. Examples of Epistemic WILL='Prediction' can be par~phrased 'I predict that ... ' and the main predication always has future time reference. While in some cases, WILL (='Prediction') is little more than a marker of future tense (examples (27) and (28)), in others it may be tinged with uncertainty (examples (29) and (30)). (27) it will be /lovely to 'see you#

(S.7.2K.15)

(28) Plans for strengthening Britain's strategic reserve division will be announced by Mr. Watkinson, Minister of Defence, in the Commons this week. (Lanc15-91) (29) they'Jljprobably be 'bored with me~nyway# (S.4.16) (30) jwell l'Jl be back to,mdrrow [ /1 should thfnk#] #

(S.7.2A.4)

Note the modally harmonic adverb probably in (29) and the harmonic phrase I should think in (30). Full details of such harmonic combinations are given in 7 .1.2.5. Sometimes examples of WILL='Piediction' are tinged with 'Volition', as (31) and (32) illustrate. (31) /Raymond 'Baxter and 'I will des:cribe the scene# (T.10.7B.11) (32) !will decide what to do with her later, he imagined (Lanc15-1155) As these last two examples show, where the two volitional meanings

180

The Modals of Volition and Prediction

overlap with 'Prediction', there is merger. There is no conflict between the two meanings, and there is no problem of interpretation. As discussion of other Epistemic modals has established, co-occurrence with aspect (both Progressive and Perfective) is criteria! for Epistemic meaning. When used with WILL='Prediction' progressive aspect has an important disambiguating role. Consider the contrast between the following: (a) Will you come to the party tomorrow? (b) Will you be coming to the party tomorrow? The first is an invitation - it consults the wishes of the addressee; this is an example of Root meaning. The second is a request for information about the addressee's future actions; this is an example of Epistemic meaning. Suitable answers to (a) and (b) illuminate the contrast. For the first you would expect Thank you or I'm sorry - I'm afraid I can't; for the second a yesjno answer is all that is required. In other words, in such utterances progressive aspect seems to be used specifically to mark their Epistemic nature. This is particularly · true of spoken language, where the impact of progressive aspect is to mitigate the sense of intention which might have been construed. Examples (33) and (34) illustrate this use of progressive aspect: (33) cos I'll tell you now I won't be seminaring tomorrow (S.1.7 .64) (34) B: jas !long as I 'know you're : [ cdming] I :shan't go oUt# A: jy'~s# /I'll be c6ming# (S.7 .2M.5) There are five examples of WILL + Progressive aspect ·in the Survey material, six examples in the Lancaster material, all with 'Prediction' meaning. This is not a high proportion, but indicates, I feel, an important tendency towards neutralising the Root meaning of WILL. Speakers avoid committing themselves unnecessarily by opting for the more neutral form. Note the significance of the two different forms of leavetaking: (Root) I'll see you (tomorrow) I'll be seeing you (Epistemic)

a promise - neutral

In conjunction with Perfective aspect, Epistemic WILL='Prediction'

The Modals of Volition and Prediction

181

conveys the 'future perfect', that is, a prediction of what will have happened at a certain point in the future. (Compare this with an example like (26).) (35) Well maybeyou'fl have heard next week

(S.7.2H.18)

Such examples are rare (one weak, one strong Epistemic in the Survey sample, two weak Epistemic in the Lancaster sample). 7.1.2.3 Epistemic WILL and Syntactic Co-occurrence Patterns. It is one of the justifications for considering examples of WILL='Prediction' to be Epistemic, even when the sense of prediction is extremely weak, that WILJ_,='Predictability' and WILL='Prediction' share quite distinct synt~ctic co-occurrence patterns. The Root-Epistemic distinction seems to be as clearly defmed with WILL as it is with MUST and MAY. The following associations were established for both corpus samples: Existential subject Progressive aspect Perfective aspect Stative verb Passive voice Quasi-modal

::::>100 ::::>100 ::::>100 ::::>100 ::::>100 ::::>'1.00

+ Epistemic meaning + Epistemic meaning + Epistemic meaning + Epistemic meaning + Epistemic meaning +Epistemic meaning

The feature Inanimate subject is also highly correlated with Epistemic meaning, but examples like (8) are possible. Apart from passive voice, these are the syntactic features we have found associated with other Epistemic modals. Examples to illustrate these associations are given below. Existential Subject (36) I fmean there'!!. be his !mdther.J!nd# and fgrdndad# so we fwon't be able to 'do anything exciting# (S.4.3.71) Progressive Aspect Perfective Aspect Stative Verb

see examples (33) and (34). see examples (26) and (35).

see examples (23) and (24).

182

The Modals of Volition and Prediction

Passive Voice v (3 7) and /his m6unt# . centre :circle#. will jnow be ridden by John "!Hatne# (V.4C.IA.18) Quasi-modal (38) in jorder to . com!pl~te it#- /I will !have to visit . the major# rejsources- in the Uhited Stdtes# (S.2.1.4)

7.1.2.4 Epistemic WILL and Negation. When Epistemic WILLis negated, it is the main predication which is affected; the modal predication is unaffected. Thus we have the potential contrast: Root:

/won't x

Epistemic:

/won't x

'I am unwilling to x' 'I don't intend to x' 'I (confidently) predict that . .. not x'

A sCientific example from the Survey illustrates negated Epistemic WILL. Note the harmonic adjective certain, which is commonly found in combination with Epistemic WILL. (39) jane 'thing is :c&tain# . in /these 'real circumstances# we jwon 't get 'large 'perfect !crystals# (V.1.2A.16) (Paraphrase: 'I (confidently) predict that . . . not . .. ') Another example, where future time reference is clearly marked, is: (40) so you /have -a bdby# in /something like 'nineteen 'seventy follr [/let's sdy#} # / ... /and I jwon 't 'finish my 'thesis :that qufck# (S.4.2.3 7) , (Paraphrase = 'I predict that . . . not ... ') In both (39) and (40) the context makes a Root interpretation implausible. The crucial disambiguating feature se~ms to be agentivity. As Table 7 .'2 shows, only a small proportion of Epistemic examples co-occurring with Negation have an Agentive verb. Table 7.2: Analysis of WILL and Negation (Survey Material) Agentive Verb Root Epistemic

100% 16%

Animate Subject 100% 68%

Total Numbers 5 19

The Modals of Volition and Prediction

183

The three examples involved- of which (40) is one -all involve a rather weak agentivity, in Cruse's (1973) 'volitive' sense. That is, just as there is gradience in the concept of ability (discussed in 5.1.2.1) fr·om the strongest sense, where the subject's inherent abilities alone are involved, to '3. weaker sense, where external factors also play a part, so there seems to be gradience in the concept of agentivity, from a strong sense, where the subject is fully in control, to a weaker sense where, again, external factors are also involved. In an example like (40) it seems to me, the agentivity of the verb finish is weak, since other factors besides the subject's will are involved. Root meaning ('Volition' or 'Intention') is unlikely when verbs of 'weak' agentivity are used. 7.1.2.5 Harmonic Combinations. Epistemic WILL co-occurs with a whole gamut of ·modal expressions, from those expressing certainty to those expressing less confidence. In a narrow sense, only the former are truly harmonic, in that Epistemic WILL is said to express the speaker's certainty. But clearly any utterance referring to the future may be tinged with doubt, and so I include ·more doubtful expressions as modally harmonic_ too. The list below gives the combinations found in the Survey sample, starting with the most confident. I'm (quite) sure (one thing is) certain bound to no doubt - almost defmitely I should think presumably probably maybe

4 1 1 1 1 1 4 1

7.1.3,A Comparison of WILL and MUST There is a (rare) use of WILL which can be compared with Root MUST. In declarative sentences, WILL sometimes has the feature Discourse Orientation (Palmer 1974) and is understood, pragmatically, as a command. An utterance like You will finish your homework is structurally parallel to a command like You must finish your homework, and pragmatically stronger (since WILL here implies the speaker's determination to see the action referred to in the proposition fulfilled). There is only one example in the corpus samples:

184

The Modals of Volition and Prediction

(41) Imperiously he cut her short. "We will diseuss this matter later,"

hesaid.

(Lanc15-P)

Epistemic WILL is again stronger, in pragmatic terms, than Epistemic MUST, since in everyday discourse assertion or prediction is taken as stronger than deduction. By using MUST, the speaker weakens his commitment to the factuality of the proposition expressed. As Lyons (1977: 808) puts it: 'It is a general principle, to which we are expected to conform, that we should always make the strongest commitment for which we have Epistemic warrant.' The 'Prediction' sense of WILL qualifies the speaker's commitment to the factuality of the proposition far less than the 'deduction' sense of MUST, which explicitly draws on the speaker's - perhaps limited -knowledge. In the special area of scientific language, however, this situation is reversed, for deduction is highly respected in the scientific world, and assertions or predictions unsupported by evidence will not have the same weight. 7.1.4 WILL and Stress

As Table 7.3 shows, WILL is only rarely stressed. In speech, WILL is frequently realised by 'll (the Survey contains twice as many 'll forms as will forms) and this form is never stressed. The seven examples of WILL='Willingness' with nuclear stress can be broken down into 'Insistence' (one), covert imperative will you (two), main verb ellipted (two), emphatic (two). This shows that, in the few cases where WILL is stressed, Root ('Willingness') examples have a tendency to receive nuclear stress, while Epistemic examples have a tendency to receive onset. Table 7.3: Stress Patterns Found with WILL Nuclear Stress Willingness Intention Prediction Totals

7

2 4 13

Other Stress

No Stress

Total

2 0 9

2 0

11

9

12 39 80 131

23 41 100 164

Onset

7

7.1.5 Stylistic Variation

As Figure 7.3 shows (and has been commented upon in the relevant sections), the distribution of meanings varies according to the type of

The Modals of Volition and Prediction

185

language involved. With WILL it is the Root meanings, particularly 'Intention', which occur more frequently in informal language (in Survey category S - private conversation, and in the Lancaster fiction texts). The Epistemic meaning 'Predictability' is most common in formal language (Lancaster non-fiction texts and Survey category T public speech). Epistemic 'Prediction' is the most frequently occurring meaning in all categories, but it varies from 72 per cent of the manuscript written texts to 41 per cent of the informal spoken texts.

80 70

60

Prediction

so 40 Predictability

30

20 Intention Willingness

10

s

v

LF

w

T

LNF

Figure 7.3: Distribution of the Meanings of WILL

7.2SHALL In everyday spoken language, SHALL is virtually restricted to first person subjects, and this restriction is reflected in th~ meanings expressed by it. There are two Root meanings, one meaning 'Intention' which is synonymous with WILL='Intention'; and one used frequently in interrogatives to consult the wishes of the addressee: 'Addressee's Volition'. There is only one Epistemic meaning, the weak 'futurity' sense of 'Prediction'. In the more formal spoken texts, and in the written material of the corpuses, we find a further Root meaning, the 'Obligation' SHALL of legal and quasi-legal language.

186

The Medals of Volition and Prediction

Examples of all these meanings are given below, together with Table 6.4 to show their distribution. (i) 'Intention' A /no# I /ddn 't want one# jyou ,have it# B /I shall !save it ,Up# we'll jshdre it# (S.2.11B.16) (ii) 'Addressee's Volition' Shall I ring at 11 p.m. one night (English time) in the week after you get back? (W.7.4.4) (iii) 'Prediction' NSC just water. NSD m ... B /otherwise I shall 'end up . 'like the sdng# the /seven idrunken :kntghts# (S.2.11B.80) (iv) 'Obligation' Before passing a sentence of Borstal training in the case of an offender of any age, the court shall consider any report made in respect of him by or on behalf of the Prison Commissioners. (Lanc8-74 7) Table 7.4: Distribution of SHALL in the Two Corpus Samples

Survey Lancaster

Intention

Addressee's Volition

35 43

37 20

Prediction Obligation

121 79

4 77

In deter- Sample min ate Total

3 6

200 225

7.2.1 'Intention' 'Core' examples of SHALL= 'Intention' are characterised by the presence of an agentive verb after the first person subject. Depending on whether the action referred to in the verb is regarded as pleasant or unpleasant, the statement of intention will be interpreted as a promise or as a threat. An example of each is given below. (42) /and I shall !g~t to Lbndon#as /soon as I cltn# (S.9.1A.7) ('I intend to get to London as soon as I can' =promise) (43) She /finally sata# "/don't 'argue with m~#-

/if you argue with

The Modals of Volition and Prediction

187

m~# /I shall just 'put this :pheme down. [shejsata# j # (S.l.l2.120) ('I intend to put this phone down' = threat) The agentivity of the verb is crucial, since one can only intend to do what one is able to do, what is within one's control. In formal contexts, this use of SHALL occurs when the speaker or writer states how he intends to proceed. (44)

/1 'want# jth~refore# to / [!(;flow this] :further# in my "/next [tw'oj l'ectures#- in the /first of whiCh# /I shall dsk# /what was hdppening# fin the E!lizabethan :chifrch# (T.12.2A.49)

(45) We shall devote most of the present Chapter to proving that such an equation can indeed be used to describe the motion. (Lanc8-J) (Note the use of 'impersonal' we here, to avoid I which is frowned on in academic discourse) It is similarly used when nomenclature is decided upon; we find: we shall refer to this as ... , we shall call this . . . , the husband as I shall call him, etc. To underline the sense of 'Intention', SHALL is sometimes stressed (i.e. receives onset) in certain formal contexts. Since SHALL (like WILL) is usually unstressed, this seems to be a definite disambiguating strategy. (46) we /shall of course . a: en:collrage# a: /import 'substitUtion# as jw'Ml as#. a: /giving. a: a: a: :afd# (T.114.109)

(4 7) I /shall of 'course' take ac'count of "'tzl 'relevant 'factors#/in a: !seeking to 'make. whitt I :hope will 'be the :cor:rect decfsions# (T.11.4.42) Such examples can be compared with the following, which comes from the same text as (4 7). Note that the speaker avoids committing himself (a) by not stressing SHALL and (b) by using Progressive aspect. This will be discussed further in 7.2.4. (48) jwe shall be !giving it 'very 'very 'careful 'thought ind'eed# (T.11.4.40)

188

The Modals of Volition and Prediction

This meaning of SHALL can be negated and means: 'I do not intend to'. (Note that contrast between negation of the modal predication (normally Root) and negation of the main predication (normally Epistemic) is neutralised here: 'I do not intend to ... ' and 'I intend not to ... ' come to the same thing.) There are only two examples in the samples and these are given below.

(4 9) /as long as I know you're [ cdmingj I :shan't go dut# (S.7.2M.5) v

(50) /I shall :not con:tinue this#

(S.2.4B.30)

The second example is more than a threat; it is a refusal, and is parallel to Root won't. 7.2.2 'Addressee's Volition' The construction shall I+ agentive verb has the effect of consulting the addressee's wishes: it means roughly 'do you want me to ... ?' It is quite distinct from utterances with will I, and minimal pairs can only be devised by exploiting the ambiguity of some verbs which have both agentive and non-agentive functions. Consider the pair of utterances: Will I get a cup of coffee? Shall I get a cup of coffee? The first could be an enquiry about arrangements at an evening class. It uses the verb get in the sense receive (non-agentive ). It is a straightforward question, seeking information about future happenings. The second, on the other hand, is not questioning the addressee's knowledge I but his feelings. It means roughly 'Would you like me to get a cup of coffee?' Note that get is agentive here, in the sense make. The time reference of the main predication of such an utterance is present: it consults the wishes of the addressee at the mqment of speaking. Will I is unacceptable with an agentive verb (except in ~cottish English, where this is an acceptable form, see Brown and Miller (1975)), which means that it cannot be substituted for shall I in any of the following examples. /

y

(51) A: there are jcups#. jNes'cafe# B: shall we /have a 'cup of c6ffee# A: jyes c'ertainly# fyes !c'&tainly# (S.1.8.1) (Note: have is agentive here)

The Modals of Volition and Prediction

189

(52) A: I've ffo~nd the addr~s book# and I'll jpost /'off Rita's 'parcel shfLZl I# B: a: fy~s# / c6uld you# ~ A: /0 K# (S.7.2B.3) (Note the parallelism of I'll and shall I here. Speaker states intention, then checks that this corresponds with addressee's wishes)

(53) David said: "Shall we dance?" "I should love to.'' (Lanc8-1699) (Note the addressee's response here: her wishes are made explicit. In each of the above examples, the addressee's response is not just an answer to a question, but is an expression of volition.) When a question word (what, when, etc.) is involved in the interrogative structure with SHALL, the meaning is sometimes subtly different. The speaker asks the addressee for advice, rather than asking him what he wants.

(54) I fmean I'm dlways 'dealing with# /what shall I 'do with this 'odd :thdusand# am. but as I fs'ay# it's an imjp6ssible 'question to 6nswer# (S.2.2A.81) (Paraphrase = 'what would you advise me to do ... ') Just as will you is used pragmatically as a covert imperative, so shall we is sometimes found operating as a covert first person command meaning Let's.

(55) "Shall we go on?" she asked and it was really a request not a question. (Lanc8-K) (Note the illuminating gloss here) ln fact it is also found as a tag question, after utterances with let's.

(56) His voice changed. "Just let's forget about it all, shall we?" (Lanc8-L) (Note that the addressee does not reply: since this is not functioning as a question, an answer is unnecessary.) As these examples illustrate, this use of SHALL occurs more in the novel texts of the Lancaster sample than in the spoken material of the Survey (for breakdown of usage, see Table 7.5).

190

The Modals of Volition and Prediction

A fmal sub-set of SHALL (='Addressee's Volition') involves fixed phrases, in particular the phrase shall we say, which is interpolated in an utterance when the speaker wishes to excuse his lack of accuracy or his choice of words. The following examples illustnite this usage, which is particularly common in the Survey material. (57) and /Eileen has for !gdtten# that fre~lly ((you know))# afpart from 'shall we 'say the 'month of Affgust# you /had af{re ((in))# fall the year round# (S.l.13.56) ( = 'apart from, roughly speaking, the month of August') ~

(58) the a:- - fNoncon:formist chdpel 'element in: [/Ndrth · Wa.f;s#] # has sucfc--;;mbed# . jto shall we 'say the 'march of :Sczence# (S.l.l4A.13) ( = 'has succumbed to what I shall call, if you've got no objection, the march of Science') Table 7.5: Breakdown of SHALL= 'Addressee's Volition'

Survey Lancaster

Simple Interrogative Consults Addressee's Wishes

WH-question

18 11

5

Pragmatic Fixed Phrase

Total

=Let's

2

3 5

10

36

2

20

Table 7.5 sets out the numbers of examples involved in each of these different uses. 7.2.3 Root 'Obligation' I shall deal with SHALL='Obligation' here since it is one of the Root meanings. It must, however, be remembered that this usage is virtually restricted to formal legal contexts. Its fossilisation 2 is demonstrated by the fact that there are no examples in the informal spoken language of · the Survey and only one in the more colloquial written language of the Lancaster fiction texts. The histogram in Figure 7.4 reveals that the large numbers recorded for this meaning of SHALL are almost entirely due to the presence of category H in the Lancaster corpus (government documents, etc.). Typical examples of this meaning are: (59) A line of rails or tramway constructed under the powers of this

The Modals of Volition and Prediction

191

60

so 40

30

20 10 A

B

0

E

F

G

H

J

P

Lancaster

T

V

W

Survey

Figure 7.4: Distribution of SHALL='Obligation'

Order shall not be used for the public conveyance of passengers unless it has been certified by the Minister to be fit for that purpose. (Lanc8-H)

(60) What is required is that the loan shall be repaid in total and until it is the limit of overdraft of £7,000 is not operative. (W.7.9.52) (61) !where 'firearms 'are :'lfsed# the /~ximum [ p~nalty#} #/shall be the !maximum :p'enalty#ajvailable to the !ldw# (V.2.3A.11) Note that SHALL can be replaced by MUST (the normal modal exponent of strong 'Obligation') in (59) and (60). A less stylised version of (61) would require will. All four examples of SHALL='Obligation' in the Survey have a third person inanimate ~ubject, as do 76 of the 77 in the Lancaster sample. The only example with a second person subject-is an archaic quotation from a religious text: ye shall. The two volitional meanings of SHALL with second and third person subjects, identified by Leech (1971) and Quirk et al. (1972), do not appear in my material. The work of Brown and Miller (1975) confmns my fmdings in suggesting that these uses are now (very) rare: when informants were asked to supply the missing form in John - -

192

The Modals of Volition and Prediction

have his prize tomorrow (with a stimulus sentence using the word promise), only 12.5 per cent responded with shall. In the Lancaster corpus, the following associations were established for SHALL= 'Obligation':

Third person subject :::> 100 +'Obligation' Existential Subject :::> 100 +'Obligation' Passive Voice :::> 100 +'Obligation' 7.2.4 Epistemic Meaning: 'Prediction'

SHALL='Prediction'" is very similar to WILL='Prediction', except that it is restricted to first person subjects. Examples of SHALL='Prediction' can all be paraphrased by 'I predict that ... '/'it is predictable that ... ' or interpreted as markers of futurity. Typical examples are given below. (62) jyou !see# /I shall get# a: /scripts from :ten assistant v -ex:aminers# (S.1.1.13) (63) I shall /have to sort of 'see what !Jfm says# when /I ,s'ee him# (S.3.2A.31) Note that the verbs following SHALL in (62) are non-agentive. As we found with WILL, where the verb is agentive (as in (64) below), SHALL may be tinged with the meaning of 'I-ntention' (see section on merger, 7.2.4.3). (64) I shall /probably !cdme 'up the 'A t~n#

(S.4.5.20)

Here, the modally harmonic adverb probably disambiguates the utterance. In fact, agentive verbs occur only rarely with SHALL='Prediction'. In the Survey material, for example, there are 121 examples with this meaning. Of these, only 16 involve an agentive verb, and those 16 can be broken down into those where the context (through modally harmonic expressions, as in (64)) makes clear that 'Prediction' is the intended meaning, and those where the use of Progressive aspect makes the 'Intention' reading unacceptable. The disambiguating effect of Progressive aspect has been discussed in 7. 1.2.2 An example is given below. (65) and of jcourse we shall be :doing our u}'i:itmost# (T.ll.4.55)

The Modals of Volition and Prediction

193

The effect of the be+ing construction is to prevent the utterance from being construed as a promise. There are seven examples of this in the Survey material. In the interrogative, progressive aspect is found as a device to distinguish examples with 'Prediction' meaning from examples of 'Addressee's Volition'. (66) I fopen my dtary#. for the year ftwo thousand and fif,t~en# f. .. I and I fsdy to myself# /what shall I be udb'ing# /this !!yellr# (Compare this with what shall I do?) Although examples of Epistemic SHALL are more uniform than Epistekic WILL (that is, as seems to be typical of Epistemic meaning, we find little gradience ), there are one or two examples in the corpus samples which seem to justify a stronger interpretation, closer to 'Predictability'. Two examples from the Survey are given below, both from more formal texts (one scientific, one literary). (67) but /if the 'molecules are i:d'tntical# and ;r'tgular# - - /th~n# /when we 'go a !certain di~tance# aflong :each chafn# we shall /find !two 'more 'groups of fztoms# in fjust the 'right pl6ce# to be atftr'acted to 'one [ ajn'Other# j # (V .1.2A.3) ( = 'I confidently predict that ... ' 'it is predictable that ... ') (68) fwe shall :never. re:m'imber th€m# [i.e. poets who died young} as fwe remember the old W'Ordsworth# . with /failing pdwers# /jabbering a lot ofndnsense# in the in in his flast y'ears# (T.5.2.15) ( = 'I confidently predict that ... ' 'it is predictable that ... ') These examples, like those ofWILL='Predictability', do not refer to a single event, but have the meaning 'whenever x, then y'- i.e. 'whenever we think of poets who die young, it's predictable that we won't remember them with failing powers'. In such examples, the main predication does not refer to a single event or state in the future, but to a series of events or states, that is, it has iterative aspect. Significantly, examples of WILL='Predictability' occur typically with third person subjects (there is only one example with a first person

194

The Modals of Volition and Prediction

subject in my samples - (32)), while these two examples ((67) and (68)) with first person subjects have SHALL. That is, there is evidence of some general rule which specifies SHALL for first person subjects and WILL for second and third person subjects when the meaning is that of 'Predictability'. In general, however, this rule does not hold despite prescriptive teaching in schools and elsewhere. While Epistemic SHALL is restricted to first person subjects, WILL occurs freely (and very frequently) with first, second and third person subjects, and is clearly the main exponent of 'Prediction' and 'Predictability'.

7.2.4.1 Syntactic Co-occurrence Patterns. Significant co-occurrence patterns found in the data are given below. The associations given for stative verb and negation are quoted with the figures for the Survey material only. The Lancaster material is skewed by the legal documents in category H and thus no significant association with stative verb or with negation is found. Progressive aspect Quasi-modal Stative verb Negation

~ 100 ~ 100 ~ 93 ~ 93

I