Bernd Heine argues for the two types of modality, that is agent-oriented (also known as deontic root, objective, and pragmatic) and epistemic modality (also known as subjective, or hypothetical). Heine claims that epistemic modality is more subjective compared to agent-oriented modality, which is more objective; Thus, there are some modals, such as will, that have closer relationship with the verb and some others, such as must, that do not have so close relationship with the verb of the sentence (19). As a result, will provokes agent-oriented modality (as it expresses objectivity), whereas must provokes epistemic modality (as it expresses subjectivity).
What factors affect modality?
The behavior of the modals in terms of agent-oriented and epistemic senses is affected by the type of the main verb of the clause; verbs expressing action and telic verbs provoke agent-oriented modality, but stative verbs provoke both types of modality (25). However, there are some other factors affecting modality, such as the type of proposition, tense, and aspect; in perfect, modals have agent oriented uses, and the same happens with interrogative and negative propositions (25).
Examples.
- He had to come. (Agent-Oriented)
- Does he need to come? (Agent-Oriented)
- He must be coming. (Epistemic)
- He must have come. (Epistemic)
Contextual frames are associated with the two types of modality. “The notion of a contextual frame is similar to what others have called an ‘inferential schema,’ or simply a ‘frame,’ i.e. a body of knowledge evoked the language user in order to provide an inferential basis for the understanding of an utterance” (27-8). According to Heine, contextuality lies upon some factors such as contextual clues (focal frames which do not require mental effort or imagination, and non-focal frames which require objectivity), knowledge of the world (it provokes epistemic modality, as we can not change events or incidents) and social norms (for instance, when we believe in something socially acceptable, we can have either agent-oriented or epistemic sense, but when something is socially disapproved, only epistemic sense occurs) (28)
Examples.
- It must be three o’clock. (knowledge of the world, epistemic)
- He has to be brave. (socially acceptable norm, agent-oriented)
- He must be brave. (socially acceptable norm, epistemic)
- He must be a coward. (socially unacceptable norm, epistemic)
- He is said to beat his wife. (human agent as the subject, agent-oriented)
Additionally, Heine argues for the issue of conceptual properties in relation to
the two kinds of modality. He takes into account the conceptual properties of force, controlling agent, dynamic event, time reference, and probability; all these factors provoke agent-oriented modality (29). Force, is provoked when a constituent is characterized by an “element of will” (Jespersen 1924: 320-1), that has an interest in an event either occurring or not (29). Dynamic events are observed when something manipulates a particular situation and provokes the change of a state (29).
Examples
Examples
- He has to come. (force)
- I insist that he comes. (Controlling agent)
In this part, I would like to mention that Heine, apart from the agent-oriented and epistemic modality, he also discusses the metaphor and context model. For instance, he takes the phrase be going to, and changes it from its concrete/ lexical meaning (the concrete meaning refers to the intention someone may have to go somewhere and it indicates an action) to the grammatical meaning of the future tense (37). According to Heine, this transformation happens “from one domain of human conceptualization to another.” (37) In other words, he observes that the literal meaning of be going to (i.e. Sally is going to the town.) expresses some kind of motion in terms of space, and is a metaphor model; on the other hand the non-literal meaning of be going to (i.e. Sally is going to wake up in a minute.) is a context model as the literal meaning is ruled out.
On the other hand, some linguists like Sweetser, suggest that “the conceptual shift from the agent-oriented to the epistemic domain is a clear instance of a metaphorical process.” (39) Coates, also observes that modal auxiliaries are transformed from agent-oriented to epistemic, due to the three types of intedeterminacy: gradience, ambiguity, and merger (39). However, Heine, Claudi and Hunnemeyer claim that both the metaphor and the context model are required for different levels; thus, the context model relates with the micro-level and the metaphor with the macro-level of the conceptual shift (40). Consequently, for be going to, the micro-level extension of the construction refers to its present uses and the cases of ambiguity between physical motion and intention; on the other hand, the macro-level is concerned with the shift from “a concrete source proposition to an abstract grammatical function.” (40-1)
In this part, I would like to point out that the theory concerning the discrimination between agent-oriented and epistemic Modality, is very useful for the theme of the research paper; which is the presence or absence of modality in conditionality, and especially in hypothesis. As we have mentioned before, modality is affected by many factors like the tense; for example according to Ritter epistemic modality is highly related with future tense and in its meaning it “entails that a temporal domain created by an FPS-form is a kind of intentional domain.” (136) Thus, we could easily agree with Declerck and Reed who claim that the future tense will cover not only the “pure future” sense but also “prediction” and “predictability.” (135) As a result, epistemic modality exists in future tenses when something has its own set of presuppositions and truth conditions, and each of them can be evaluated and interpreted (136).
Examples with epistemic modalizers
- If you asked him politely, he (may/ will) do it for you. (open-P)
- If you had asked him politely, he (might/ would perhaps/ would certainly) had done it for you. (counterfactual)
