English Modals
1 analysis of modals
[ep]
[deon] [pot]
must
must
will
will
shall
shall

[ff] [ ev] should should would
would
may
can
[cw] [ev] may
can
[cw] [ev] might might could
could could
[ff] [ev]
this is an analysis of what the different modals can be used to spell out, not the features
that they are associated with – see later on this
This analysis ignores certain differences between some modals
epistemic might/could
he might be being followed
he could be being followed
it is often assumed that there is a difference of certainty between these, but I
don’t believe it
epistemic will/shall (would/should)
he will win
I shall win
tradition has it that shall is used for first person and will for all the rest
it is difficult to know what the status of this distinction is
it has a prescriptive feel to it
most people use will and tend to avoid shall
there are cases where shall can be used (even formally) in non-1st person
contexts
he shall be king of all England
epistemic must/will
must is conclusive, will is predictive = minor features
the butler must have done it
the butler will have done it
Deontic must/shall
must places the obligation on the subject
shall places the obligation on the speaker
you must go to the ball
you shall go to the ball
Deontic may/can (might/could)
this seems to be a formal/informal distinction – again, it is difficult to know how to
treat this grammatically
you may leave
you can leave
2 two questions
1. how can we use these modals to express these range of meanings?
2. how can we account for the fact that while there is a lot of crossover in terms of the
type of modality that modals express, there is not crossover at all in the degree or
evidentiality that they express?
3 a late insertion approach helps to answer the first question
if we assumed a lexical approach one would have to accept that there are at least two
(three in one case) lexical entries for each modal
if we assume we start with lexical items and these introduce the features of
meaning, we could not assume that must is marked for both epistemic and
Deontic type, otherwise both would be introduced every time must was used
so there must be one must marked as epistemic and another marked as Deontic
a late insertion approach allows us to have just one entry for each modal which spells
out varying underlying features because it is the best fit in each case
4 the question is, what features are the modals associated with?
if we assume a Superset condition approach, each modal will be associated with all of
the features it is used to spell out
must  [ep] [deon] [ff] [ev]
shall  [ep] [deon] [ff] [ev]
will  [ep] [pot] [ff] [ev]
should  [ep] [deon] [ff] [ev]
would  [ep] [pot] [ff] [ev]
may  [ep] [deon] [cw] [ev]
can  [deon] [pot] [cw] [ev]
might  [ep] [deon] [cw] [ev]
could  [ep] [deon] [pot] [cw] [ev]
this would work, but isn’t very informative
in particular it cannot answer the second question
why can modals be associated with various type features but are always associated
with the same degree and evidentiality features?
A Subset condition approach would not even be possible
e.g. will would have to be associated with [pot] [ff] [ev] to account for why it is
the only modal which can spell this combination of features out
But if this is so, by the Subset condition, it should not be able to spell out [ep] [ff]
[ev] as it is associated with an incompatible feature
suppose it isn’t associated with [pot] therefore but only [ff] [ev]
but then so would must and shall in order to account for why they are able to
spell out [ep] [ff] [ev]
then we would have no account for why will can spell out [pot] and must and
shall cannot and why will cannot spell out [deon] and must and shall can
again, under this assumption (even if it could be made to work) there would be no
answer to question 2
5 the solution is to have the modals associated with certain features that they don’t
always spell out (basically taking a Superset condition approach) but allow the
modals to be used to spell out features that they are not associated with (taking
a Subset approach)
this apparent contradiction can be made sense of under the assumption that, in
accordance with the Superset condition, underlying features are generally spelled out
but some features are earmarked for not being spelled out if necessary
the assumption is that the type feature does not need to be spelled out if there is
no vocabulary item compatible with it
6 Under this analysis, the following vocabulary entries are proposed:
may
can
 [ep], [cw], [ev]
 [pot], [cw], [ev]
might  [cw], [ev]
could  [pot], [cw],
will
shall
 [pot], [ff], [ev]
 [deon], [ff], [ev]
would  [pot], [ff], [ev]
should  [deon], [ff],
must
 [deon], [ff], [ev]
[ev]
[ev]
to see how this works, consider some examples
given that may is associated with [ep] [cw] [ev], it will be the best selection for
spelling these features out. Hence not other modal can.
but there is no modal specified for [deon] [cw] [ev], so what will be selected?
The choice is between shall, should, must (specified for [deon]), may, might, can,
could (specified for [cw]) may, can, will, shall, and must (specified for [ev]).
of these, may, can, shall and must are associated with two out of the three
features, whereas the others are associated with only one. Therefore we can
discard the others and concentrate on these four
Assuming that if it is not possible to match a vocabulary item with the type
feature it doesn’t have to, but there must be a match for degree and evidentiality
features, we see that while may and can have the right degree and evidentiality
features shall and must are mismatched for [cw]. Therefore both may and can
will be selected as possible spell outs for this set of features
We can represent this in terms of an OT system
match degree match evid match type
[deon] [cw] [ev]
 may  [ep], [cw], [ev]
*

*!
might  [cw], [ ev]

 can
*
 [pot], [cw], [ ev]
*!
could  [pot], [cw], [ev]
will  [pot], [ff], [ev] *!
would  [pot], [ff], [ev] *!
shall  [deon], [ff], [ev] *!
should  [deon], [ff], [ev] *!
must  [deon], [ff], [ev] *!