Lexical and Grammatical Means of Expressing Supposition in Modern English. 2

INTRODUCTION

 

Supposition expresses the degree of certainty that something is correct. In grammar the term supposition is closely associated with the category of Modality.

Modality – is a multifold phenomenon, and therefore in the linguistic literature we can find different thoughts concerning the essence of this phenomenon. By its nature modality expresses an action which depends on the attitude of the speaker it does not refer directly to any characteristics of the event, but simply to the status of the proposition. There are different types of modality and the topicality of our term paper is caused by the necessity to improve knowledge about the term modality and its expression. The problem of modality as an object of interdisciplinary knowledge that is relevant to the modern science, has long been interested in the humanities scholars working in different fields research - logicians, linguists, psychologists, semioticians. A case of studying modality is complicated by multi-pronged approach to it, which leads to different interpretations. Linguistics borrowed the concept of modality from logic and philosophy which defines it as the information related to the attitude of the statement to the reality, or its evaluative, temporal and other characteristics. Category of modality is one of the most complex and contradictory interpreted in grammatical theory. Despite the presence of fairly long tradition of research modality and a huge amount of literature devoted to it, it is still in a sense blind spot of modern linguistics.

Therefore the aim of studying modality is systemize on our means of analysis at different levels:

1. Lexical
2. Grammatical

The goal determines the following tasks:

1. detection concept of modality
2. usage of different forms of modality
3. characteristics of transformation problems of various forms of modality in translation

The object: realization of modern verb, usage, functioning of modality in modern English.

The subject: means realizing of modality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 1.

REVIEW OF THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL STUDYING OF MODALITY IN MODERN ENGLISH

The problem of modality as an object of interdisciplinary knowledge is relevant to modern science, since ancient times scholars have been working in different fields of research - logicians, linguists, psychologists, semioticians. Study of the problem of modality complicated multi-pronged approach to it, which leads to different interpretations. By its long history, it was developed in the different traditions, which is not exclusive, but complementary. Thus, in the French tradition category of modality is studied on the basis of logical research, and domestic - her interpretation due distributive orientation, that is, a description of the modal language. Special attention to this study deserves the approach developed in French linguistics, continues the tradition of the ancient vision. Ancient understanding of modality in some degree imitated French linguistics. G. Parre called Aristotelian modality "alethic", extensional motivated, pointing to the truth. The classic definition of the grammar of modality is based on the basis of the establishment of links between its logical and philosophical understanding and linguistic actualization, that is identifying and describing the logical and linguistic structures of how certain logical and philosophical speculations of modality options are implemented in the language become the units of speech.[11;2]

1.1. Definitions of Notion Modality

Human thinking appears as a result of the world perception and it is closely connected with language – the primary means of its expression. The category of modality is the category of language and presents in itself the judgment concerning the reality or the statement related to the ties and phenomena of the reality. In general, modality can be defined as the speaker’s attitude to the content of his statement and the relation of the content of the statement to the reality.[ 12;1]

Modality – is a multifold phenomenon, and therefore in the linguistic literature we can find different thoughts concerning the essence of this phenomenon. Modality (from Latin modus – measure, method, shape) in different object domains is a category which characterizes modus operandi or an attitude toward the action.[ 10;1]

Modality is a category of linguistic meaning having to do with the expression of possibility and necessity. This phenomenon is a grammatical-semantic category, which expresses the speaker’s attitude towards the expression, his evaluation of the attitude input towards objective reality. As it is well known, it becomes traditional to divide modality into two types: objective modality and subjective modality. This approach was based on the principles of work Russian scholar V. Z. Panfilov. In this case, objective modality is an attitude of the expression towards reality (reality or unreality, possibility or impossibility, necessity or probability etc.) and subjective modality is the expression of speaker’s attitude towards the utterance. In West-European linguistics Sh.Ballie’s conception of modality was widely spread. In his opinion, in any utterance/expression we can single out basic content (dictum) and modal part (modus), in which is expressed intellectual, emotional and volitional consideration of the speaker concerning dictum. He distinguishes explicite and implicit modus. The main form of expression of the explicite modus is the main clause consisting of compound sentence with object clause. Thus, in Sh.Ballie’s interpretation modality is presented as syntactic category, in the expression of which the modal verbs play the main role.

In Russian linguistics modality was also a subject of interest for many scholars. For example, academician V.V Vinogradov, who was one of the first who gave very broad interpretation of the category of modality. His works, dedicated to the problem of modality, are very important for modern linguists. V. V. Vinogradov first of all refers modality to “the fundamental structural characteristic of any sentence” and characterizes it as “the speaker’s evaluation of the relation of utterance content to the reality”. His definition of modality is widely used in English studies, possibly because, as I.R. Galperin mentions, “… modern English grammars avoid giving the definition of this category, and when they deal with it, they limit themselves to the indication of the forms, in which the modality is realized”.[ 2;145]

F.R. Petrov borrowed the concept of modality from logic and philosophy and defined it as the information related to the attitude of the statement to the reality, or its evaluative, temporal and other characteristics. Numerous linguistic scholars have created various modality classifications, for example N. Petrov, F.R.[4;15]

Some scholars have other approaches to studying of modality. For example G.A. Zolotova distinguishes 3 meanings of modality: 1/ an attitude of the person to the reality from the speaker’s point of view; 2/ speaker’s attitude to the content of the expression; 3/ agent’s attitude to the action.[ 4;7]

In spite of differences in determination of the notion modality there are clashes of opinions on the categorical belonging of this notion. For example scholar R.A. Budagov speaks about modality as grammatical category; L.S. Yermolaeva considers modality as syntactic category, mentioning that lexical means remain beyond the bounds of syntactic modality. Modality as semantic category is distinguished by V.V. Vinogradov, G.V. Kolshanskiy, I.B. Khlebnikova.[ Демина, Елена Борисовна- Способы выражения модальности в газетно-публицистических текстах современного английского языка] 
1.2.Category of Modality

We call categories of modality the concepts of possibility or necessity, impossibility or unnecessity, contingency or incontingency, probability or improbability and their degrees — as well as presence or absence.

Category of modality is differentiated into two types: objective and subjective. Objective modality is mandatory feature of any statement, one of the categories that form a predicative unit - offer. This type of modality expresses the ratio of reported to reality in terms of reality (implementation or feasibility). Objective modality is organically linked to the category of time and differentiated on the basis of temporary certainty - uncertainty. The value of time and reality - unreality merged, the complex of these values is called objective-modal values.[7;5]

Subjective modality - the ratio of the speaker to the information. In contrast to the objective modality and optional feature of the utterance. Semantic volume subjective modality is much broader objective of semantic modality. Semantic basis of subjective evaluation of the concept of modality forms in the broad sense, including not only the logical (intellectual, rational) skills imparted, but also different types of emotional (irrational) reaction. By evaluating - characterized by values are values that combine the expression of the subjective attitude to be reported with the characteristic of it, which may be viewed as subjective, arising from the very fact, the events of his qualities, properties, the nature of its occurrence in time or of its links and relations with other facts and events.[11;3]

Kinds of Modal Meaning

One can distinguish different kinds of modal meaning. Alethic modality (Greek:aletheia, meaning ‘truth’), sometimes logical or metaphysical modality, concerns what is possible or necessary in the widest sense. It is in fact hard to find convincing examples of alethic modality in natural language, and its inclusion in this list is primarily for reason of historical completeness. The following categories, however, are of primary importance in the study of natural language. Epistemic modality (Greek episteme, meaning ‘knowledge’) concerns what is possible or necessary given what is known and what the available evidence is. Deontic modality (Greek: deon, meaning ‘duty’) concerns what is possible, necessary, permissible, or obligatory, given a body of law or a set of moral principles or the like. Bouletic modality, sometimes boulomaic modality, concerns what is possible or necessary, given a person’s desires. Circumstantial modality, sometimes dynamic modality, concerns what is possible or necessary, given a particular set of circumstances. Teleological modality (Greek telos, meaning ‘goal’) concerns what means are possible or necessary for achieving a particular goal. In the descriptive literature on modality, there is taxonomic exuberance far beyond these basic distinctions.

Flexibility of Meaning

According to A.V. Bondarko there are 6 types of meaning, which have different (grammatical, lexical, intonation) means of expressing.

1) Speaker’s evaluation of the content of the utterance from the point of view of reality/unreality, which is expressed with the help of forms of Mood and Tense of the verb, and also some conjunctions, particles and other elements of the sentence structure.

2) Expressing with the help of modal verbs and other modal words the evaluation of the situation in the utterance from the point of view of its possibility, necessity and desirability.

3) Speaker’s evaluation of his certainty in the reliability of what is informed, which may be expressed with the help of modal adverbs, parenthetic words, and also with the help of compound sentences.

4) The aim of the speaker or communicative function of the utterance. On this basis all sentences are subdivided into statements (which express information), interrogative sentences (which express a question), and optative sentences (which express desire). Means of expressing these meanings are different: morphological (Mood of the verb), syntactic (structure of the sentence), prosodic (intonation).

5) Meanings of affirmation/denial, which reflect presence/absence of objective connection between the objects, features, events, about which the sentence informs. First member of the opposition (affirmation) isn’t marked, the second – is marked with the help of grammatical, word-forming and lexical means.

6) Emotional and qualitative evaluation of the content of the utterance, which is expressed lexically, prosodically (with the help of exclamatory sentences), and also with the help of interjections [2; 67].

Modality is a category of linguistic meaning having to do with the expression of possibility and necessity. There are numerous kinds of expression that have modal meanings. Many authors such as V.V. Vinogradov, G.V. Kolshanskiy, I.B. Khlebnikova point out that modal content may be expressed with the help of different means of language, here belong: grammatical (Mood); lexical (modal words); lexico-grammatical (modal verbs) and intonation.

According to Ilko V. Korunets’ Modality as an extralingual category expressing the relation of content to reality has in English and Ukrainian common means of realization. These include: ( chart 1)

• phonological means
• lexico-grammatical
• lexical means conveying subjective modality
• grammatical means conveying grammatical modality

Chart 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 2.

THE ANALYSES OF USAGE MODALITY IN MODERN ENGLISH

Means of expressing modality: lexical (modal verbs), lexico-grammatical (modal words), morphological or grammatical (mood), syntactic (structure of the sentence), phonetic (intonation). Linguists distinguish between objective modality (expressed by mood-forms) and subjective modality (expressed by lexical and lexico-grammatical means).

Mood forms of the verb is the grammatical means of expressing supposition. The category of mood, undoubtedly, is the most controversial category of the verb. It expresses the character of connection between the process denoted by the verb and the actual reality, either presenting process as a fact that really happened, happens or will happen, or treating it as an imaginary phenomenon, i.e. the subject of hypothesis, speculation, desire. It follows from this that the functional opposition underlying the category as a whole is constituted by the forms of oblique mood meaning, i.e. those of unreality, contrasted against the forms of direct mood meaning, i.e. those of reality, the former making up the strong member, the letter, the weak member of the opposition.

The category of mood is closely connected with the syntactic function of the predicate. So the category of Mood has a strong syntactic significance.

Linguists distinguish from 2 to 16 moods in Modem English. The reasons are as follows:

1. The category of mood is in the state of development. Some forms have a limited sphere of use (he, be), new forms are coming into the system (let).

2. There is no direct correspondence of meaning and form. There are no special forms for expressing unreal actions (with the exception of the forms he be, he were). Sometimes the same external series of signs will have two (or more) different meanings depending on the factors lying outside the form itself, and outside the meaning of the verb, sometimes, again the same modal meaning will be expressed by two different series of external signs.

The same forms are used to express facts and non-facts: should/would do, did. They are treated either as homonymous or as polysemantic. The first of these two points may be illustrated by the sequence we should come , which means one thing in the sentence I think we should come here again tomorrow (here we should come is equivalent to we ought to come); it means another thing in the sentence If we knew that he wants us we should come to see him (here we should come denotes  a conditional action, an action depending on certain conditions), and it means another thing in the sentence How queer that we should come at the very moment when you were talking about us! (here we should come denotes an action which has actually taken place and which is considered as an object for comment). In a similar way, several meanings may be found in the sequence he would come in different contexts. (Ilyish, 1971)

3. It is difficult to distinguish between mood auxiliaries and modal verbs: may, let.

In connection with expressing supposition, we are concentrated on the Oblique Moods or whatever other name we can choose to give these moods.

M.Y.Blokh suggests the name of “spektive” mood, employing just the Latin base for the notion of “attitudes”. For the sake of simplifying the working terminology and bearing in mind the existing practice, the non-modal forms of the subjunctive can be called, respectively, subjunctive one (spective), subjunctive two (stipulative), subjunctive three (consective), against the background, the modal spective can simply be referred to as the modal subjunctive, which will exactly correspond to its functional nature in distinction to three “pure” subjunctive forms. (Blokh, 1983)

According to Ganshina and Vasilevskaya there are four Oblique Moods in Modern English, of which two are synthetical and two analytical. The synthetical moods are subjunctive I and subjunctive II. The analytical moods are the conditional and the suppositional.

Problematic and unreal actions are expressed by 4 sets of forms. The form (he) be/come/take, expressing a problematic action, is the only form which differs from the forms of the indicative. There is one more form of the verb to be, different from the forms of the indicative: (he) were. But this difference disappears in all other verbs, and besides, the form (he) was is now being replaced by the form (he) was. The combinations (he) should be, (he) should have been do not differ from modal phrases.

Forms expressing unreal actions are the same as the forms of the past indicative. These forms are often treated as polysemantic, i.e. forms of the indicative, which express unreal actions in certain syntactic structures (R.Quirk, L.S.Barkhudarov). Forms of the past indicative denote actions, not connected with the moment of speaking, not “relevant” for the speaker, “not real” now. That is why they may be used to denote unreality. In this case subjunctive will be represented by 2 forms of the verb to be: (he) be, (he) were and 1 form of other verbs: (he) do, come, go.

A.I.Smimitsky: these forms are homonymic, denoting real and unreal actions: they were ... - real, past; if they were ... - unreal, non-past. Subjunctive is represented by 4 sets of forms. In this system of 4 sets of forms, denoting different degree of unreality, there is no direct correspondence of meaning and form:

a) one meaning - different forms: I suggest you do (should do) it.

b) one form - different meanings: I suggest you should do it. In your place I should do it.

The number of oblique moods will depend on the basic principle for distinguishing between them: a) meaning; b) form; c) both meaning and form,

a) B.A.llyish treats these 4 sets of forms as forms of one mood - subjunctive. The difference of form and particular meanings is disregarded: only the common component of meaning (unreality) is taken into account.

b) A.I.Smirnitsky takes into account the difference in form and recognizes 4 oblique moods: Subjunctive I (he be), Suppositional (he should be), Subjunctive II (he were), Conditional (should/would be).

c) The system of forms, expressing different degrees of unreality, will be subdivided into 2 parts:

1. Forms, denoting problematic actions (he be, should be) may be treated as forms of one mood (Subjunctive I), the analytical form ousting the synthetic form in British English.

2. Forms, denoting unreal actions (were, should/would be) are treated as different moods, expressing independent and dependent unreality, or unreal condition and unreal consequence. But their modal meaning is the same and were - should be are not opposed as moods. This opposition reveals the category, which also exists in the system of the indicative mood.

So the wide divergence of views on the number of oblique moods can be accounted for:

a) by different approaches to the problem of polysemy/homonymy;

b) by the absence of mutual relation between meaning and form.

In the system of the indicative mood time may be denoted absolutely (tense) and relatively (order, posteriority). In the system of the subjunctive mood time may be denoted relatively (order, prospect). Perfect forms denote priority, non-perfect forms - simultaneousness with regard to other actions. The category of order may acquire the meaning of the category of tense.

Historically form he be- he were , he have- he had, etc. were tense forms ( present and past) of one mood- The subjunctive. But in the course of time their meaning has changed, they no longer indicate distinction of time but express different modality. The form he be is used with reference to any time indicating supposition or uncertainty. The form he were is often used with regard to the present indicating unreality. So these two moods are called subjunctive I ( be) and subjunctive II (were). They do not only express different modality but also differ in style.

Subjunctive I is rather obsolete in Modern English; it may be found in poetry, high prose and official documents (treaties, manifestoes, resolutions etc.)

For example:

Be his banner unconquered, resistless his spear. (Scott,132).

Let us unite our efforts and demand that the war now devastating Korea, a war that tomorrow may set the world ablaze, cease now. (“Manifesto to People of the World,” Second World Congress of Partisans of Peace).

Subjunctive II is a living form which is used in colloquial speech and literary style as well:

For example:

As I heard the waves rushing along the sides of the ship and roaring in my very ear, it seemed as if Death were raging round this floating prison seeking for his prey. (Irving,228).

The other types of Oblique Moods, which are analytical, are The  Suppositional and Conditional moods.

The Suppositional mood represents an action as problematic, but not necessarily contradicting reality. The realization of the action may depend on certain circumstances, but these circumstances are not contrary to fact. It is formed by combining the auxiliary verb should (for all persons) with the infinitive.

The suppositional mood is used to express necessity, order, suggestion, and also supposition.

For example:

At last they grew terrified that some evil should have befallen him…(Locke, 67-68).

Maggie was frightened lest she should have been doing something wrong…(Eliot,67).

The unreality of an action represented by the conditional mood is due to the absence of the necessary circumstances on which the realization of the action depends.

The unreality of an action expressed by the conditional mood is a dependent unreality: the realization of the action depends on the condition expressed in the subordinate clause (if clause). The conditional mood is formed by the auxiliary verbs should and would+ either indefinite (continuous) infinitive or perfect infinitive. (depending on tense).( Ganshina, Vasilevskaya,1964).

For example:

I should be happier if there were sharper criteria to help to make our choice.(Snow, 138)

Unless I had heard the story from his lips I should never have believed that he was capable of such an action. (Maugham, 342)

If I had waited for one of uncle’s horses I should have been too late. (Hardy, 49).

Historically these moods, which cause a lot of difficulties, are Subjunctive and Conditional moods. Their common natures are evident enough.

First, although the subjunctive expresses a condition and the conditional-the consequence of that condition, the general categorical meaning of both moods in English is the same: it is the problematic supposition of an action.

Second, neither the subjunctive nor the conditional possesses the category of tense because in the domain of non-real modality tense characteristics are irrelevant.

Third, the aspect opposition is characterized by a low frequency of occurrence.

Fourth, both the subjunctive and the conditional draw a distinction between simultaneity (non-perfect forms) and priority (perfect forms).

Perfect forms place the unreal action in the temporal plane of the past.In other words, there is no opposition between the subjunctive and the conditional, but there is syntactically motivated co-existence: the conditional occurs in the subordinating clause, the subjunctive- in the subordinate clause.

For example:

If I were you, I wouldn’t be in a hurry to do anything, Lester (Dreiser, 375).

The use of the conditional in the subordinating clause, which is more independent than the subordinate clause, makes the conditional a free category. As a free category, the conditional mood is sometimes used independently, with the condition implicitly included in various parts of the sentence or inferred from the context.

For example:

In the circumstances any one would have done the same (Maugham, 142).

The subjunctive is generally used in the subordinate clause. Therefore, it is a subordinate category. The independent use of the subjunctive is rare.

For example:

If only I were young again (Foley, Hall, 27).

As we see, the category of mood, for all the positive linguistic work performed upon it, continues to be a tremendously interesting field of analytical observation. There is no doubt that its numerous particular properties, as well as its fundamental qualities as a whole, will be further exposed, clarified, and paradigmatically ordered in the course of continued linguistic research.

Modal verbs are the lexico-grammatical means of expressing supposition. They are characterized by specific meaning, particular functions in the sentence and a number of morphological peculiarities. Accordingly they form a special class of verbs.

The specific meaning of these verbs is as follows: they denote neither actions nor states but combined with the infinitive of a notional verb (in a compound verbal predicate) show that the action (or state) expressed by the infinitive is considered as possible, desirable, necessary, etc.

Owing to their morphological peculiarities modal verbs are characterized as defective verbs, because they lack some forms. They lack –s in the third person singular in the Present tense and have no verbals, so they have no analytical forms; some of them lack the Past tense.

The modals that show supposition are must, should, may/might, can/could, will/would, ought, ranging from relative certainty to relative uncertainty. They frequently occur in conclusions and abstracts where the implications of results are discussed.

To start with can/could, it can be said that can acquires the meaning of doubt or uncertainty (but only in the negative and interrogative forms).

For example:

“Can this be Mr. Darcy?” thought she. (Austen, 474).

It can’t be that. (Show, Modelling financial derivatives with Matematica).

Can in combination with perfect infinitive refers to the action in the past.

For example:

Can she have told a lie? (Kane, 488).

The combination of can with the perfect infinitive may also indicate an action begun in the past and continued into the moment of speaking. This is usually found with verbs that cannot have continuous form.

For example:

Can she really have been at home all this time?( Eason, 78).

Could is the past form of can in the Indicative mood, in the meaning of ability and possibility, but it may be used in the present-time contexts as a milder and more polite form of can, or as a form implying more uncertainty and unreality than can.

For example:

“Why not, she could be secretary, to some interesting man.”( Baum, 191)

You could articulate more distinctly with that cigarette out of your mouth (Wilkinson, 89)

In combination with the perfect infinitive could indicates that the action was not carried out in the past.

For example:

She could have explained the mystery (Shakespeare, 102)

As is seen from the above examples, the form could referring to the present is sometimes clearly opposed to can in that it expresses unreality, whereas can in affirmative sentences expresses reality.

What about may and might? In the meaning of supposition implying uncertainty, the verb may occurs in affirmative and negative sentences.

For example:

Erik says that you may be coming to New York (Wilson, 6).

We may be here for a fortnight (Maugham, 449).

In this meaning may can be followed by different forms of the infinitive depending on the time reference expressed.

May in combination with simple infinitive usually refers the action to the future.

He may soon come.( Smith, 279).

The action may also refer to the present but only with verbs that are not used in the continuous form.

For example:

He may not know about it (Batney, 38).

May in combination with the perfect infinitive, may also indicate an action begun in the past and continued into the moment of speaking.

For example:

He may have been at home got about two hours (Howell, 882).

In the meaning of supposition implying uncertainty, the form might is also found with the reference to the present or future. It differs from the form may in that it emphasizes more the idea of uncertainty. It may be followed by the simple, continuous or perfect infinitive.

Might followed by the perfect infinitive indicates that the action was not carried out owing to certain circumstances (expressed in the sentence implied).

For example:

She thought she might have been consulted (Dickens, 617).

I don’t know how long the silence lasted, it might have been for half an hour.(Maugham, 46).

Comparing can and may it can be said that their use is parallel only in two meaning, possibility due to circumstances and permission. In these meanings, however, they are not always interchangeable for a number of various reasons.

Thus in the meaning of possibility due to circumstances the use of may is restricted only to affirmative sentences, whereas can is found in all kinds of sentences.

Their time reference is also different. May refers only to the present or future; the form might is used in past-time contexts only in reported speech. Can and could may refer to the present, past and future.

Both could and might combined with the perfect infinitive indicates that the action was not carried out in the past.

It follows from the above that the sphere of application of can in the meaning of possibility due to circumstances is wider than that of may.

The modal must has also connection with supposition. The modal verb must has only one form. It is used in present-time contexts with reference to the present or future and in combination with the perfect infinitive it refers to the past. In past-time contexts this form is used only in reported speech, i.e. the rules of the sequence of tenses are not observed with past. Must has the following meanings: obligation, prohibition, emphatic advice and supposition implying strong probability.

When must expresses supposition implying strong probability, its use is restricted in two ways:

1. It is not used with reference to the future. In this case we find modal words in the sentence.

For example:

He will probably come tomorrow (Triplett, 246)

2. It is not used in the interrogative or negative forms. It is found only in the affirmative form.

For example:

“He must be quite middle-aged by now,” went on Aunt Juley dreamily (Galsworthy, 121).

Must with verbs which do not have the continuous form, the simple infinitive is used to express supposition.

For example:

He must be over fifty (Prather, 18)

Must in combination with the perfect infinitive refers the action to the past.

For example:

Do you see him smoking over there? He must have finished his work (Shakespeare,243).

The combination of must with the perfect continuous infinitive indicates an action begun in the past and continued into the moment of speaking.

For example:

It must have been raining all the night, There are big puddles in the garden (Allen, 157)

Must and may can be compared in two meanings.

1. Both may and must serve to express supposition but their use is parallel. May denotes supposition implying uncertainty, whereas the supposition expressed by must implies strong probability.

For example:

For all I know, he may be an actor. His face seems so familiar.(Ebert, 416).

He must be an actor. His voice carries so well. (Stein, 252)

2. May and must are used to express prohibition in negative sentences. But may is seldom found in this meaning. In negative answers to questions with may asking permission we generally find must not or cannot.

The modal verb ought (to) may also express supposition implying strong probability.

For example:

The new sanatorium ought to be very comfortable ( Wilson,27).

The use of ought in this case is not very common as this meaning is normally rendered by must.

In modern English the modal verb should is used with reference to the present or future and it remains unchanged in reported speech.

Now about should expressing supposition implying strong probability.

For example:

News was at Kotgarh by midnight, and should be at Ziglaur by tomorrow (Kipling, 256).

Comparing must, should and ought(to), it can be said that all three verbs serve to express obligation. Must, however, sounds more forceful.

Both should and ought express obligation, advisability, desirability and are used when must would sound too forceful.

Should and ought are very much alike in meaning and are often interchangeable. In using ought, however, we lay more stress on the meaning of moral obligation, whereas should is common in instructions and corrections.

Must, ought and should serve to express supposition implying strong probability. Must, however, seems to be in more frequent use than the other two verbs.

And finally about will and would. While shall and should are treated as two different verbs in modern English, will and would are considered to be forms of the same verb. But, however, it is to be noted, that in some of their meanings the use of will is parallel only to would which denotes an actual fact in the past; in other meanings will is found alongside of would which expresses unreality in the present or serves as a milder or more polite form of will.

The use of will and would are parallel in the following cases.

1. Will may be used to express supposition with reference to the present or to the future in combination with the simple infinitive, or to the past in combination with the perfect infinitive. This meaning is found with the second and third persons.

For example:

This will be the school, I believe.(Dewey, 231)

2. Would may be used rather sarcastically to express that something was to be expected. It is found in affirmative and negative sentences.

For example:

“Auntie Meg has been very brave.”  “Yes. She would be brave.”(Alcott, 156).

So as we see the modals must, should, may/might, can/could, will/would, ought, besides their other meanings, have their obvious suppositional meanings.

Modal words are the lexical means of expressing supposition. They serve to express the relation between the statement made in the sentence and reality as established by the speaker. With the help of these words the speaker expresses various degrees of certainty, supposition, desirability or undesirability of the action indicated in the sentence. Modal words are invariable parts of speech.

Semantically modal words may be divided into some groups.

1. those expressing supposition (e.g. maybe, perhaps, possibly, presumably, probably, evidently, obviously, apparently, etc.)

For example:

Perhaps I’ll be able to trace the murderers.(Paterson, 171)

Maybe this is the end.(Gakeri,37)

Probably he was not so young as he looked (Conrad,107)

2. those expressing certainty (e.g. certainly, of course, undoubtedly, no noubt, surely, decidedly, definitely, really, in fact, indeed, naturally, and some others).

For example:

It was indeed an unusual situation for him to find himself in (Boyle, 448)

3. those expressing (un)desirability (e.g. (un)luckily, (un)happily)

For example:

Fortunately, the men were genuine patriots and did not betray me. (Waldie, 189).

Luckily, found the man in the office and we quickly settled the difficulty. (Postley, 73)

So, like modal verbs, modal words also have their suppositional meanings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

After a deep analysis, we can conclude:

• Supposition expresses the degree of certainty, whether something is correct, real or not.
• Supposition is closely connected with modality, which expresses the attitude of the speaker and differs from tense and aspect from that it does not refer directly to any characteristics of the event.
• The Subjunctive and Conditional moods express supposition, with the help of auxiliary verbs should and would+ indefinite infinitive or perfect infinitive (depending on tense).
• The unreality of an action expressed by the Conditional mood is a dependent unreality: the realization of the action depends on the condition expressed in the subordinate clause (if clause).
• The unreality of an action expressed by the Subjunctive mood expresses a condition, the realization of which may depend on certain circumstances.
• The lexico- grammatical means of expressing supposition is actualized by the help of modal verbs can/could, may/might, will/would, should, must and ought.
• The specific meaning of these verbs is as follows: they denote neither actions nor states but combined with the infinitive of a notional verb they show that the action or state expressed by the infinitive is considered as possible, desirable, necessary, suppositional etc.
• The lexical means of expressing supposition is actualized by the help of modal words, such as maybe, perhaps, possibly, presumably, probably, evidently, obviously, apparently, etc.

Besides all above mentioned points it should be also said that modality, for all the positive linguistic work performed upon it, continues to be a tremendously interesting field of analytical observation. There is no doubt that it will be further exposed, clarified, and paradigmatically ordered in the course of continued linguistic research.

 

 

REFERENCES

 

1. M.Y.Blokh “A Course of Theoretical English Grammar” Москва, 1983
2. B.Ilysh “The Structure of Modern English”, Ленинград, “Просвещение”, 1971
3. F.R.Palmer, “Mood and Modality” 2^nd ed. Cambridge Univ. Press. 2001
4. Master P. “Grammar and Technical Writing” Washington, 2004
5. Ganshina M.A., Vasilevskaya N.M. “English Grammar” Moscow, 1964
6. Gordon E.M., Krylova I.P. “A Grammar of present-day English”1985
7. G.Radden and R. Dirven, “Cognitive English Grammar”, John Benjamins, 2007
8. Kaushanskaya, Kovner, Korzhevnikova “A Grammar of the English Language”, Москва, 2009
9. Л.С. Бархударов, Д.А. Штеллинг “Грамматика английского языка” Москва1973

     URLs

10. http://grammar.about.com/od/mo/g/modalityterm.htm
11. http://belozerovaineng.blogspot.com/
12. http://usefulenglish.ru/grammar/subjunctive-mood-summary

Fiction cited

13. Austen, Jane. Pride and Prejudice. United Kingdom, 1813
14. Shakespeare, William. Julius Caesar. (ed. John Dover Wilson) The New Shakespeare Edition. Cambridge University Press, 1968
15. Galsworthy, John. Indian Summer of a Forsyte, United Kingdom, 1918
16. Maugham, Somerset. Rain. New York, 1923

Dictionaries cited

17. Collins English Dictionary. 1979. London: Collins