CC BY
42
УДК 81.114
И. С. Лебедева, Е. Б. Павлова
Лебедева И. С., кандидат филологических наук,
доцент кафедры грамматики и истории английского языка ФГПН МГЛУ e-mail: [email protected] Павлова Е. Б., кандидат филологических наук,
доцент кафедры грамматики и истории английского языка ФГПН МГЛУ e-mail: [email protected]
СОЧЕТАНИЯ ДВУХ И БОЛЕЕ МОДАЛЬНЫХ ГЛАГОЛОВ В АНГЛИЙСКОМ ЯЗЫКЕ
В статье рассматриваются синтактические, семантические и прагматические особенности употребления сочетаний двух и более модальных глаголов, выражающих эпистемические, деонтические и онтологические модальные значения. Особое внимание уделяется функциям сочетаний модальных глаголов, которые рассматриваются как маркеры вежливости в контекстах, где основной задачей говорящего следует рассматривать сохранение «лица».
Ключевые слова: сочетания двух и более модальных глаголов, эписте-мическая модальность; деонтическая модальность; онтологическая модальность; «лицо»; маркеры вежливости.
I. S. Lebedeva, E. B. Pavlova
Lebedeva I. S., Ph. D., Ass. Prof., Chair of Grammar and History of English Department of Humanities and Applied Sciences, MSLU e-mail: [email protected]
Pavlova E. B., Ph. D., Ass. Prof., Chair of Grammar and History of English Department of Humanities and Applied Sciences, MSLU e-mail: [email protected]
DOUBLE / MULTIPLE MODALS IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
The article looks into the syntactic, semantic and pragmatic conditions governing the use of double / multiple modals in the English language. Double / multiple modals are treated as strictly ordered combinations of two or more modals (usually an epistemic modal followed by one or more dynamic or deontic modals) that express both epistemic and dynamic / deontic meanings. Special attention is paid to the functions double / multiple modals perform in discourse. Double / multiple modals are found in face saving contexts where they serve as hedges, mitigations and politeness markers.
Key words: double modals; multiple modals; dynamic modality; epistemic modality; deontic modality; face; politeness markers.
Double / multiple modals are strictly ordered combinations of two or more modal verbs - usually an epistemic modal (might, may, must), as the
first component, followed by either one dynamic (can, could) or deonctic (should, oughta, will, would) modal - that express both epistemic and dynamic / deontic modal meanings (might could, might should, might would, may will). Cases of two deonctic modals following the epistemic verb are also possible (might should oughta), as well as cases of two epistemic meanings (might could). Native speakers of many varieties of English including Southern American Englishes, South Midland American Englishes, Utahan Englishes, African American Englishes, Northern British Englishes, Scottish Englishes, Northern Irish Englishes, and Caribbean Englishes regularly use at least some multiple modal combinations [4-6; 8-10; 12]. In spite ofbeing exclusively regional phenomena double / multiple modals are significant and commonly acknowledged units of Modern English that have their own function in interaction. In general, it would be wrong to consider double / multiple modals as any kind of grammar distortion. Their grammatical form is steady and scientifically recognized.
Double / Multiple modals first appeared in English approximately eight hundred years ago, however, at that time such modal constructions differed significantly in meaning and form from modern multiple modals. The most significant changes that have occurred in the system of double / multiple modal combinations so far establish the required pragmatic and grammatical conditions governing today's usage of multiple modals in face-to-face conversations, negotiations and face saving contexts where they serve as hedges, mitigations, politeness markers, as well as markers of indirectness.
According to Nagle [13], double modals are usually arrayed in tiers: the first tier modal might, may, must expresses the speaker's supposition of different degrees of certainty regarding the probability / possibility of the event described in the propositional content. Whereas, the range of second tier modals is wider and includes can, could, should, will, would. The second tier modal generally expresses either deonctic (advice, volition, necessity) or dynamic (ability, capability, possibility due to circumstances) modal meanings as well as epistemic meaning.
• Might could - epistemic might + dynamic could (ability) I think he might could do it. I just don't know if he will. I might could work both shifts, just not that one on Saturday. In the above examples future ability is expressed, could is used instead of be able to.
• Might could - epistemic might + deonctic could (permission) You think you might could drop off and take a rest for about an hour? I told Anne she might could go.
'You might could stay here tonight,' the aunt said. Do you think I might could bring it in tomorrow?
• Might could - epistemic might + epistemic could (supposition)
'Are you Bubba Pritchert, president of the Saucer Nuts of America?' Bubba took his time answering. 'I might could be,' he said at last, his eyes narrowed. 'I might could be subject to get a call of nature,' Gary Lee Stringer said from his cot.
He would be deputy to Marice's uncle until the sheriff died or retired, and then it might could be he would win his own election to sheriff.
Could is used to express uncertainty about a future action with the notional be.
• Might should - epistemic might + deonctic should (obligation)
We might shouldn't have done it last night. She might should have gotten it.
I wish I had time to tell you some stories. I might should have done that
rather than showing slides.
In these examples past obligation is expressed.
• Might should - epistemic might + deonctic should (obligation / suggestion)
Did I put enough money in the meter? You might should go check. Maybe we might should wait till next week. You might should go ahead and wake him up. Here we observe future obligation.
• Might should - epistemic might + epistemic should (logical possibility / something is to be expected)
Reparations might should be paid to those damaged by the activities of Burge [...].
Burned teens speak of the ordeal. This might should be the end of this activity.
• Might oughta - epistemic might + deonctic oughta (obligation) I might oughta have been working this morning instead of reading. In this example past obligation is expressed.
• Might oughta - epistemic might + deonctic oughta (obligation / suggestion)
We might oughta bring it up just so we can think about it. You might oughta take a look at that pie before you eat it. Here we observe future obligation.
• Might oughta - epistemic might + epistemic oughta (logical possibility / something is to be expected)
People might oughta think about it for a long time.
In sentences with embedded conditionals and in indirect questions combinations:
• Might would - epistemic might + hypothetical would I might would have done it if he would tell me to.
I wonder if he might would be interested in that?
I might would send it in if they would just give me till Monday.
That might would have been enough of a reason right there for Orgon to
have brought him home, don't you think?
I might would have gone, but it rained.
• Might would - epistemic might + epistemic would (prediction) I asked him if he might would have it ready by one o'clock.
Let's try that. It might would work. Yeah, I think she might would like those. She probably might would get it.
• Might would - epistemic might + would (habitual actions in the past)
John is recalling his childhood. 'On Sundays we might would visit our grandparents.'
Outdoor supplies have just come a long way from the times since we might would visit the nearby boulevard shop to have the articles of furniture and pay the shop the prices of the fixtures, taxes, transfer price and then piecing together cost.
In the following examples the modal combinations serve to express volition indirectly:
That radio might could be playing softer.
She said she might wouldn't mind going with us if we had time to wait.
J. Hasty [9] gives a list of possible double modal combinations found in literature:
might could must can might oughta
might would must could could oughta / should
might should may can should oughta
might can may could would oughta
might will may will
may should
According to Hasty, double modals with might as the first component (the first column on the above list) are more common than those containing must and may in the first position (the second column). The double modal might could is considered to be the most common (more than half of all examples); the non-epistemic could, should and would can also be found in the first position, although very rarely; oughta can be part of the construction following the first modal in the pair [8]. The last column with oughta in the second position represents the foundations for what have been called 'triple modal' [9, p. 4] combinations, since might can be added to the front of all the members of this column, for example:
I might could should tell her about it. (COCA) I might could should write home. (COCA)
There exist different views on double / multiple modal combinations. Labov [11, p. 59] states that first place modals are 'functioning formally as adverbs' for they appear to be untensed. According to Bigham [2] phrases known as 'double modals' are actually only one modal preceded by an adverb that looks like a modal. Might means 'possibly', usedta means 'back in the day' or the remote past (giving the past-tense could the extra remoteness) and should oughta is used when 'you should, but you don't just want to be so pushy' [2, p. 5]. Di Paolo [5] argues that the double modal construction should be regarded as an idiomatic lexical unit, since both components appear to be tense matched (may can and might could), not tense-mixed (may could or might can). However, Hasty contradicts this view saying that first position modals can combine with a number of different modals (i.e., might could, might should, might would), which points toward the 'compositionality' of double modals [9, p. 10]. The analysis of COCA examples provides a lot of tense-mixed cases, for example:
If they can come on the TV and talk to me at 1 and 2 AM, then I might can fit them in for a few minutes.
Hopefully, before we're gone, we - we might can make up for some of those wrongs we made along the way.
Research from the University of Rochester suggests the blue dye such as the stuff that's used in M&Ms may could help, perhaps, prevent paralysis.
I think because it's an election year we may actually address education, energy and crime and this may could very well wind up being a better year than last year Primary tabs.
If double modals were single lexical units, they would resist separation, however such sentences as He might probably could help you or I might not can write but I want a piece of a great man to remember and I think of telling him that, but don't because he might not can take it, where the double modal construction is split by either an adverb or a negation, suggest that the two modals function independently.
Boertien [1], Di Paolo [5] and Hasty [9] explore the behavior of double / multiple modals in questions. There appear to be two possible ways to form double modal questions (based on the examples with might could) by inverting only the second modal or by inverting both modals together, for example:
a) You might could go to the store for me.
b) Could you might go to the store for me?
c) Might could you go to the store for me? [9, p. 5]
However, the acceptability of constructions such as (c) with both modals inverted may vary by region.
Would you might not be seen as good as you once were? (COCA)
While naturally occurring yes / no questions have been attested in literature [14; 1; 5; 9] there seem to have been no reported instances of wh-questions in spontaneous speech. Taking into account Mishoe and Montgomery's [12] view of the pragmatics of the double modal for hedging and politeness, it is unclear if this pragmatic situation will occur very often with any questions and even less often with wh-questions.
Tag-Questions: when the declarative part containing a double modal is tagged, the component carrying the finiteness feature (i.e. the component which is closer to finite verbs) is repeated in the tag.
a) I might could get back on time, couldn't I?
b) He might would go with me, wouldn't he?
c) He shouldn't oughta be playin' with those lights, should he?
Invariant tags are also possible, for example:
I might could get back on time, right?
There is variation in the literature regarding which form of negation is used. Pampell [14] finds negation only between the two modal components, as in (c); Coleman [4] and Boertien [1] find negation both between the two (c) and after the second modal (a), (b); and Di Paolo et al. [6] find negation only after the second modal (a), (b), both full and contracted. However, no contraction is accepted onto the first modal component.
a) I might could not go to the store (full, final).
b) I might couldn't go to the store (contracted, final).
c) I might not could go to the store (full, after the first modal component).
Bigham [2] identifies three reasons for the existence of double / multiple modal combinations in English. Their first purpose is to express uncertainty, if the speaker is unsure of the certainty of a statement or the probability / possibility of an action, but does not wish to seem simplistic and curt by simply stating that the speaker 'doesn't know' [2, p. 2]. Bigham provides two examples illustrating the meaning:
a) I might could make it up, but I don't know.
b) Jenny Lee might could sign up, couldn't she?
In the first example, the speaker had failed a college course and was being asked by her parents whether or not she would be allowed to repeat the class for a better grade. Later, when questioned on this usage, the speaker explained that she did not want to lie to her parents, and still wanted to ease their minds so that she could continue to receive money from them. Here the combination might could is used instead of might be able to with reference to the future where could replaces be able to [2, p. 6].
The second reason is reducing force, where the speaker wishes to express reluctance to a request, or wishes to make a critique without sounding harsh, overstepping personal boundaries or to seem unyielding. This semantic type is clearly seen in the following examples:
a) I might could stitch, but my hand's been actin' up.
b) He might should study a little harder.
c) Hayden shouldn't oughta be playin' with those lights, should he?
The first example is typical of the reluctance type since it is an indirect response to an indirect question. The other two examples are typical of
the desire to critique while not overstepping personal boundaries. Both are comments from the speaker to a mother on the mother's parenting skills. Mishoe and Montgomery [12] attribute the use of double modals to their pragmatics, which is explained in terms of 'face work when there is a threat to ''face' [7] of one or more speakers in a conversation. As defined by Brown and Levinson, face is 'something that is emotionally invested, and that can be lost, maintained, or enhanced, and must be constantly attended to in interaction' [3, p. 61]. Di Paolo [5] offers the example of a conversation that she experienced between herself and a middle-aged female clerk in a small fabric store. Di Paolo brings in a blouse that she wishes to alter and engages the clerk in a conversation. As a customer, Di Paolo is in a higher status position than the clerk. Therefore, when the clerk wishes to assert her opinion and change the mind of the customer, the clerk employs the multiple modal might could:
'You might still could keep the cuff [the way it is] and have French cuffs
[on the blouse].'
The clerk wants to influence the customer to leave the original style of cuffs on the blouse and softens the command with the deontic modal could as a politeness marker [5, p. 198]. However, as the interlocutor is of a lower status, the clerk further softens the command with the epistemic modal might as if to say, 'It is possible that it is suggested that you keep the French cuffs,' rather than 'I suggest you keep the French cuffs.'
Di Paolo found that, in addition to the spontaneously produced multiple modals, she could elicit more multiple modals from the clerk by acting doubtful or hesitant but not hostile about the suggestions offered, which supports the claim that multiple modals occur most often in face saving contexts very often in face-to-face verbal conversations. The clerk maintains the public self-image of herself as a clerk and Di Paolo's as a customer through the use of the double modal might could [5, p. 198]. Thus, Di Paolo observes that sales clerks tend to use might could especially when they want to offer a suggestion that might run counter to the customer's wishes. This proves that might could is a marker of politeness in conversation, used so that the listener will not feel threatened by possible lack of agreement on the part of the speaker [5].
Multiple modals frequently co-occur with a variety of other mitigations, hedges and politeness markers, such as tag questions, epistemic and discourse markers, as well as rising intonation, which, on the whole,
are politeness strategies used by the speaker to modify the propositional content to express sensitivity to the hearer, avoid creating offense and to moderate their commitment to a stance. For example, the following multiple modals co-occur with mitigating adverbs (a), (b) and hedging discourse markers (c), (d), (e):
a) Could you might possibly use a teller machine? [12, p. 11]
b) If we had known ..., we may still could have done it [5, p. 216].
c) I reckon I might should better try to get me a little bit more sleep [12, p. 9].
d) I don't think I have any grants you might could apply for [5, p. 195].
e) You know, if you drank half a drink, you might oughta go home and sleep it off [5, p. 195].
In addition to distancing the speaker from the proposition, discourse markers such as I reckon, I (don't) know, and you know move multiple modals from the main verb clause to the embedded noun clause. This, according to Mishoe and Montgomery [12], creates the effect of indirectness. Here also belong other syntactic constructions that contain embedded clauses such as stative verbs with noun clause direct objects (a), noun clauses functioning as complements (b), conditional adverbial clauses (c), and clauses in indirect questions (d):
a) I'm nervous; I'm afraid I may can't do it all.
b) I'll tell you what we might should do.
c) If we could might get a piece of car, things would be better.
d) I wonder if we might could get a copy of last year's test?
e) Sometimes I feel like I might will do all right.
Identifying the relationship between indirectness and multiple modals is also essential for understanding their politeness and face saving functions. In addition to the general definition of public self-image, Brown and Levinson posit two related aspects of face: negative face and positive face. Negative face is defined as 'the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to non-distraction, i.e. to freedom of action and freedom from imposition' [3, p. 61]. As Mishoe and Montgomery [12] summarize, negative face stems from the need of people not to look bad or lose self-esteem or self-respect. Positive face is defined as 'the positive consistent self-image or 'personality' (crucially including the desire that this self-image be appreciated and approved of by interactants' [3, p. 61], i.e. positive face stems from the desire of people to want approval and confirmation.
According to Mishoe and Montgomery [12], multiple modals allow speakers to attend to both negative face and positive face. For example, the clerk in the conversation with Di Paolo uses the multiple modal might could in the suggestion You might still could keep the cuff [the way it is] and have French cuffs [on the blouse] [5, p. 198] to get Di Paolo to agree (negative face protection), as well as not to look bad (argumentative, aggressive) in front of the customer (positive face protection). Multiple modals in embedded clauses in particular allow speakers to attend to both negative and positive face of both the speaker and the listener simultaneously [12], for example, compare the pragmatic meanings of the following five sentences with similar semantic meanings:
a) Dye your hair red.
b) You should dye your hair red.
c) You might should dye your hair red.
d) I think that you should dye your hair red.
e) I think that you might should dye your hair red.
The semantics of all the five sentences is roughly that the speaker wants the hearer to change her hair color to red. In (a) the imperative mood expresses strong deontic modality; the speaker directly commands the hearer, which potentially threatens the hearer's negative face. Moving across the pragmatic continuum, the combination of the discourse marker I think and the double modal might should in (e) results in the following pragmatic meaning:
My personal judgment is that it is possible that it is desirable for you to dye
your hair red.
Compared with the strong deontic I command you in (a), the epistemic my personal judgment is that it is possible further weakens the already weak deontic it is desirable in (e), resulting in a proposition that preserves both the positive face and the negative face of both the speaker and the hearer.
The third semantic type of double modals is that of remote past. To illustrate this meaning Bigham [2, p. 7] gives an example with usedta, which is regarded as a semi-modal. In the sentence You usedta couldn't go shopping after nine the first modal component is used to express remoteness of past events. According to Bigham [2], this example was produced by a clerk at the local 24-hour Wal-Mart about how people's
shopping had changed in the past ten years since the store became a 24hour location. This example would have been meaningless if the store had opened only last year. Other examples of remote past:
They used to wouldn't let you pay a guitar around partly because they called it sinful music - the devil's music, you know? (COCA) I used to wouldn't talk to nobody, but now I talk to people I haven't seen, you know, I ain't backwards or nothing. (COCA)
'You used to couldn't talk to him about history,' Napier says. (COCA)
That's right. You used to could - that's right. You used to could. (COCA)
We have had some success in broadening our economic perspective ... and selling more of our products that we used to couldn't sell. (COCA)
Negation in this case is added to the second component.
REFERENCES
1. Boertien H. Constituent structure of double modals // Montgomery M., Bailey G. (Eds.). Language variety in the South: Perspectives in Black and White. - Tuscaloosa, AL : University ofAlabama Press, 1986. - P. 294-318.
2. Bigham D. What 'might' might could be in 'might could' // The case of double modals in Appalachian English. Talk, Linguistics Luncheon Series. - Southern Illinois University at Carbondale Friday, April 7. - P. 1-5.
3. Brown P., Levinson S. Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena // Goody, Esther, (Ed.). Questions and politeness. - Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1978. - 402 p.
4. Coleman W. Multiple modals in Southern States English : Ph.D. diss. - Indiana University, 1975. - 203 p.
5. Di Paolo M. Double modals as a single lexical item // American Speech 64.3. - 1989. - P. 195-224.
6. Di Paolo M., McClenon C., Ranson K. A survey of double modals in Texas // Texas Linguistic Forum 13. - 1979. - P. 40-49.
7. Goffman E. The presentation of Self in everyday life. - Anchor books, 1959. -251 p.
8. Hasty J. D. I Might Not Would Say That: A Sociolinguistic Study of Double Modal Acceptance // University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics : Selected Papers from NWAV 39. - Vol. 17, Issue 2, Article 11. -2011. - P. 91-98.
9. Hasty J. D. We might should oughta take a second look at this: A syntactic re-analysis of double modals in Southern United States English, 2012. -P. 11-48.
10. Labov W. The social motivation of a sound change // Word 19. - 1963. -P. 273-309.
11. Labov W. Language in the Inner City // Studies in the Black English Vernacular. -Philadelphia : University of Pennsylvania Press, 1972. - 440 p.
12. Mishoe M., Montgomery M. The pragmatics of multiple modal variation in North and South Carolina // American Speech 69.1. - 1994. - P. 3-29.
13. Nagle S. J. English double modal conspiracy // Diachronica 11. - 1994. -P. 199-212.
14. Pampell J. More on double modals // Texas Linguistic Forum 2. - 1975. -P. 110-121.
