

Grammar


Tenses


Present

Present Simple

Present Continuous

Present Perfect

Present Perfect Continuous


Past

Past Simple

Past Continuous

Past Perfect

Past Perfect Continuous


Future

Future Simple

Future Continuous

Future Perfect

Future Perfect Continuous


Parts Of Speech


Nouns

Countable and uncountable nouns

Verbal nouns

Singular and Plural nouns

Proper nouns

Nouns gender

Nouns definition

Concrete nouns

Abstract nouns

Common nouns

Collective nouns

Definition Of Nouns

Animate and Inanimate nouns

Nouns


Verbs

Stative and dynamic verbs

Finite and nonfinite verbs

To be verbs

Transitive and intransitive verbs

Auxiliary verbs

Modal verbs

Regular and irregular verbs

Action verbs

Verbs


Adverbs

Relative adverbs

Interrogative adverbs

Adverbs of time

Adverbs of place

Adverbs of reason

Adverbs of quantity

Adverbs of manner

Adverbs of frequency

Adverbs of affirmation

Adverbs


Adjectives

Quantitative adjective

Proper adjective

Possessive adjective

Numeral adjective

Interrogative adjective

Distributive adjective

Descriptive adjective

Demonstrative adjective


Pronouns

Subject pronoun

Relative pronoun

Reflexive pronoun

Reciprocal pronoun

Possessive pronoun

Personal pronoun

Interrogative pronoun

Indefinite pronoun

Emphatic pronoun

Distributive pronoun

Demonstrative pronoun

Pronouns


Pre Position


Preposition by function

Time preposition

Reason preposition

Possession preposition

Place preposition

Phrases preposition

Origin preposition

Measure preposition

Direction preposition

Contrast preposition

Agent preposition


Preposition by construction

Simple preposition

Phrase preposition

Double preposition

Compound preposition

prepositions


Conjunctions

Subordinating conjunction

Correlative conjunction

Coordinating conjunction

Conjunctive adverbs

conjunctions


Interjections

Express calling interjection

Phrases

Sentences


Grammar Rules

Passive and Active

Preference

Requests and offers

wishes

Be used to

Some and any

Could have done

Describing people

Giving advices

Possession

Comparative and superlative

Giving Reason

Making Suggestions

Apologizing

Forming questions

Since and for

Directions

Obligation

Adverbials

invitation

Articles

Imaginary condition

Zero conditional

First conditional

Second conditional

Third conditional

Reported speech

Demonstratives

Determiners


Linguistics

Phonetics

Phonology

Linguistics fields

Syntax

Morphology

Semantics

pragmatics

History

Writing

Grammar

Phonetics and Phonology

Semiotics


Reading Comprehension

Elementary

Intermediate

Advanced


Teaching Methods

Teaching Strategies

Assessment
Epistemic and deontic modality
المؤلف:
Jim Miller
المصدر:
An Introduction to English Syntax
الجزء والصفحة:
139-12
4-2-2022
2137
Epistemic and deontic modality
The presentation of situations as possible or necessary, point (2.) above, is achieved in English by modal verbs. The essential distinction in this area is between epistemic and deontic modality.
‘Epistemic’ derives from the Greek episteme (knowledge), and epistemic modality relates to the way (the mode) in which speakers know a situation; do they know that it exists, do they consider it as merely possible or do they treat it as necessarily existing (although they have not seen it themselves) on the basis of evidence?
‘Deontic’ derives from the Greek verb deo (tie). Deontic modality relates to whether speakers present a situation as possible because permission has been given, or as necessary because circumstances require it, for example because someone with authority has issued a command or because the situation is such that other actions are ruled out.
Epistemic possibility is expressed by could, may or might, as in (4).
May is neutral but might and could express more remote possibility. Note that can is not excluded in principle from expressing epistemic possibility but occurs very rarely with this interpretation. In addition to asserting that propositions are epistemically possible, speakers assert that they are epistemically not possible, as in (5).
Can/could and may/might derive historically from different verbs and diverge in meaning to the extent that can and could can be used to refer to physical or mental ability, whereas may and might cannot. Example (6a) is quite different in meaning from (6b).


When negated, can and could behave very differently from may and might. Example (7) expresses a stronger commitment to the impossibility of a situation. The gloss is ‘it is not possible that such and such’, as opposed to ‘it is possible that not such and such’ for (5).
Speakers may also present situations as epistemically necessary, that is, they can convey the message ‘I conclude from the evidence that this event happened/is going to happen’. Must is typically used, as in (8).

Speakers also use have to and have got to, which express necessity but are not modal verbs because they do not have the typical syntax of modal verbs: That’s got to be the worst joke I’ve ever heard.
Many examples of epistemic necessity can be glossed by means of I conclude that, as in (9), which could be uttered as the speaker looks at piles of empty beer cans.
Speakers can also conclude that something is necessarily not the case. They can’t be going to tell us used to be the standard British English construction, but They mustn’t be going to tell us is the regular construction for speakers of Scottish English and speakers of American English and is moving into standard English English.
Deontic possibility has to do with giving or withholding permission. Grammar books used to assert that may is used in this sense, but the bulk of speakers both in the UK and in North America use can. Permission can be given to do something or not to do something; the latter is typically expressed by verbs other than may. Having permission not to do something is equivalent to not being obliged to do something, and the typical expressions are, for example, You don’t have to come to work tomorrow and You don’t need to come to work tomorrow. In contrast, not having permission to do something is expressed by may not [the standard story] or can’t/cannot: You may not/can’t/cannot hand in your dissertation late.
Deontic necessity is expressed by must, have to and have got to. The typical account in grammars of English is that must expresses an obligation placed on individuals by themselves (I must read that new novel because I enjoyed all her other novels) as opposed to an obligation placed on individuals by others or by circumstances (I have to read that novel because there’s an obligatory question on it in the exam, or I have to go to the dentist because the toothache keeps waking me up). This analysis of must and have to does not fit the facts of usage. Speakers recognize have got to as expressing obligations placed on individuals by others or by circumstances. Have to is neutral, and must is peripheral for many speakers (as opposed to writers).
As mentioned in the paragraph following example (8) above, have and have got to are used for the expression of epistemic modality. The original meaning of have and have got to was and is deontic, that is, some action is necessary because circumstances make it so. The use of these verbs in examples such as That has to be the worst joke I’ve ever heard is more recent. Similarly, the use of ought and should has changed. Their original meaning is one of moral obligation, as in He should help his friends, not laugh at them. Another use, possibly derived from the moral-obligation interpretation, is exemplified in The computer desk should hold together now that I’ve put in extra screws. A moral obligation is weaker and more easily avoided than an obligation imposed by circumstances, and this difference between ought and should on the one hand and have and have got to on the other is reflected in the epistemic uses. Speakers who say That book should be in the library draw conclusions from whatever evidence is available to them, such as patterns of book-borrowing or the fact that they returned the book to the library just twenty minutes before. But they draw a much weaker conclusion than speakers who say the book must be in the library. The latter statement indicates that no other conclusion is possible, whereas should leaves room for the conclusion to be wrong.
الاكثر قراءة في Syntax
اخر الاخبار
اخبار العتبة العباسية المقدسة
الآخبار الصحية

قسم الشؤون الفكرية يصدر كتاباً يوثق تاريخ السدانة في العتبة العباسية المقدسة
"المهمة".. إصدار قصصي يوثّق القصص الفائزة في مسابقة فتوى الدفاع المقدسة للقصة القصيرة
(نوافذ).. إصدار أدبي يوثق القصص الفائزة في مسابقة الإمام العسكري (عليه السلام)