I. Introduction | II. Theory: 1. Existential Level, 2. Epistemic Level, 3.
Ground or Root Level |
III. Form and
Meaning | IV. Difficulties of Teaching Modals |
V. Analysis &
Exercises | VI.
Recommendations | VII. Conclusion | VIII. Endnotes
One of the most difficult aspects of learning English is modality. Throughout this paper, we attempt to carve out a working understanding of the English modal system. In order to do this, we need to juggle theory, research, and pedagogy the way a clown juggles at a circus. We utilized an informant to determine what a non-native speaker knows about the English modal system by developing an assessment instrument, analyzing the data, and making conclusions. In addition, we will endeavor to address the intercultural issues that surround the meaning of the English modal system. Before we examine our informant's work, we will enter into the ongoing discussion of modality.
Langacker proposes four levels on which the form and meaning of modals combine to create meaning (1979). The levels consist of the objective content, the existential, the epistemic, and the ground or root strata. Although this paper uses the same framework, the OC and the existential levels are treated as one. The defining lines between an external situation (OC) and the semantic units which confirm the existence of this situation (existential) are too ambiguous to separate. We view the debate of which comes first existence or essence as appropriate but not for this paper. To view these distinct levels, Langacker employs Chomsky's Transformational Grammar Rules to illustrate the function of modals in meaning.
1. Existential Level
In Transformational Grammar (TG), the first step to formulating a description of an event or object occurs at the base component or deep structure. For example, the speaker views a chair, and the deep structure that follows is "chair + now + exists." How we acquire the information prior to the deep structure is questionable, however, educational psychologists such as Omrod believe that it is dependent on a "mental unit of knowledge that represents a class of similar objects and event categorically" (Omrod, 1995, p. 173). Omrod calls this unit a schema which varies by individual cultures and people. Our schema for the chair may include propositions such as: has a seat, has four legs, is found in classrooms and offices, is not found on football fields, is low to the ground, etc. If the speaker states common knowledge of this schema or an objective view, Langacker says the person is expressing an existential description of the object or event. An expression of this existence is called a proposition which is the "smallest unit of knowledge that can stand on its own and be judged true or false (Omrod, 1995, p.240)." Therefore, "chair + now + exists" is the objective fact judged to be a true proposition by the speaker's schema that has been realized on an existential level and formulated in the deep structure.
Quirk suggests there is another reality that is based on the subjective perspective. (1990) In order to grasp the dichotomy of the subjective/objective split, we can turn our attention to the philosophy of Jean-Paul Sartre. Sartre describes the subjective versus the objective interpretation as being-in-itself (1'en-soi) and being-for-itself (le pour-soi). The 1'en-soi indicates the way something is (Stumpf, 1989). A chair is a chair because, as human beings, we give it this meaning in our schema. In this way, the chair simply is. The transformational component of TG then creates the surface structure of our prior deep structure, so we can express the chair in an utterance "That is a chair". As argued by Langacker, "the existential level of knowledge predicates the existence of a situation" (Langacker, 1978, p.855). To Sartre, a person is also a conscious subject in that the speaker knows they are conscious of the chair. Moreover, the speaker's subjectivity requires logical probabilities and negotiations to form meaning in the world. The result is that the le pour-soi (being-for-itself) requires and individual to form certainty or meaning out of an event or action interrelating and negotiating meaning through interactions. These interactions establish a meaning between the speaker and the object/person or event.
2. Epistemic Level
To negotiate meaning involves the use of epistemic or extrinsic modality in English since we use modals to navigate ourselves through human judgment on the basis of logical probabilities of an object or event (Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman, 1983). The speaker develops meaning on the epistemic level by employing modals in possibility, necessity, and prediction to confirm or deny a proposition (Quirk, 1990).
According to Bahoul, "subjectivity is an essential criterion for modality (since) it is the grammaticalization of the speaker's (subjective) attitude and opinion."(Bahoul, 1984, p.22) If we examine the TG process of a person at an exhibition, at the Cirque du Soleil, they may have the deep structure of "chair + possibility + exists + now" when they look at an abstract furniture design. The surface structure could be "That might be a chair." On the other hand, a critic, reporting on the exhibition, with a different schema may come to this person and assert, "That must be a chair due to these reasons..." Our uncertainty arising in the deep structure is expressed with the use of might be to indicate possibility. Since we are searching for meaning, a proposition is not stated. The critic expresses necessity of logical probability by using must be. Further, the critic may increase his prediction of the design being a chair with the use of will as in "The artist will tell you that is a chair."
3. Ground or Root Level
The ground or root level of modals differs from the epistemic level and the existential. Whereas the epistemic level deals with the acquisition of knowledge through logical probabilities, the root level modals have a social interactional function that takes into account the characteristics of the social situation (Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman, 1983). As a result, the root modals are used to express the human control over events in permission, obligation, and volition (advice falls under each category). Meanings of social norms are gained through the use of these modals, so the appropriate modal for the situation may be chosen in relation to status (Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman, 1983). For example, a boy may ask his parents, "May I go see the trapeze artists?" The may is used to receive permission since the parents have control over the situation. In response to the query, the parents say, "No, we should find your sister first." Should functions as a marker of obligation to the meaning of the sentence.
Intention, willingness, and insistence are used to note volition in sentences. The following sentences illustrate the concept of volition: 1) "The barker said the clowns will be here at one o'clock" indicates the intention of clowns; 2) "We will go see the elephants first if you want" shows the willingness of the speaker; 3) "The monkeys will keep screaming if we do not feed them" explains how the action of the monkeys is insistent. The examples given for volition as well as for permission and obligation offer a categorization for modals not being used to find or negotiate meaning in the world. It should be noted that the past tense forms of can/ could and will / would offer a more formal or polite meaning (Quirk, 1990). Rather, root modals function when there is human control over the object or event, and it is then these modals that are chosen according to the social setting.
As with any classification of word meanings in a language, there will be exceptions. Palmer notes that the sentence "Lions can be dangerous" retains an existential meaning since it is clearly different from the epistemic "Lions may be dangerous" (Palmer, 1979, p.152). May is used to indicate that it is possible for lions to be dangerous; however, can be dangerous means that some or all are dangerous (Palmer, 1979). Yet can be dangerous implies lions have that ability. If some lions are dangerous, then the epistemic modals are used to negotiate the meanings of which ones or under what circumstances the lions are dangerous. If all lions are always dangerous, then the sentence "Lions are dangerous" implies an existential meaning of fact, and according to Palmer, in this respect existential modality is epistemic (1979). As we can see, the meanings are not always clear.
Despite the disclaimers and debate over some of the classifications used for dividing modals, the classifications (existential, epistemic, and root) divide the categories logically. For grammarians, this offers a solid ground for understanding, but what does it mean to our ESL students?
III. Form
and Meaning | IV. Difficulties of Teaching
Modals |
V. Analysis &
Exercises | VI. Recommendations | VII.
Conclusion | VIII. Endnotes