ag.viii)Expressions of Modality

ag.viii)Expressions of Modality

modal auxiliary verbs - must, have to, may, might, can, could, should, ought to

modal adjectives - possible, probable, likely, certain, sure

modal adverbs - perhaps, possibly, probably, maybe, really, surely, certainly, actually, frankly

pragmatic particles - I think, I mean, I guess

Modal adjectives and adverbs, modal auxiliary verbs in an epistemic modal function, and pragmatic particles (Aijmer 2002; Holmes 1995) are, apart from expressing modality, also used to express various pragmatic functions which depend on their use either as a boosting device or as a hedging device (see Chapters 7 and 8). From this research it follows that both these functions, the pragmatic function and the modal function, of these linguistic means are interrelated in that sense that they express very similar meanings. This claim is in contrast to the previous research of Coates (2003:331ff) who separates these two functions. It must be stressed here that this finding applies only to epistemic types of modality, it does not apply to deontic types and to circumstantial possibility since lexical means of these types of modalities do not modify the illocutionary force of propositions to the same extent as epistemic means do.

ag.ix)Frequency of Occurrence of Modal Expressions and Types of Modality

Table 28 and Figure 7 below summarize all types of modality examined and the number of occurrences produced by males, females and by both genders together. The most frequent type of modality is epistemic possibility with 1,061 occurrences followed by deontic necessity (565 occurrences) and epistemic attitudinal modality (369 occurrences). The least frequent type of modality is deontic possibility with mere 23 appearances in the whole corpus.

Figure : Types of Modality and Number of Occurrences

Type of modality	Male Politicians	Female Politicians	Total
epistemic possibility	551	510	1,061
deontic necessity	254	311	565
epistemic attitudinal	178	191	369
circumstantial possibility	50	48	98
epistemic necessity	36	51	87
deontic possibility	10	13	23

Table : Types of Modality and Number of Occurrences

In the following sections, particular types of modality will be analysed from the point of view of the frequency of their occurrence. All categories of modality will be illustrated with examples from the corpus. As with boosting and hedging devices, all modal expressions are highlighted in the attachment to this thesis. Depending on the type of modality, they have a particular background colour. Epistemic types of modality have a yellow background, deontic modalities have a red background and circumstantial possibility is highlighted with turquoise colour. The type of modality is abbreviated in brackets and is also coloured, for example:

As already stated above, an expression may function as a booster or as a hedge and at the same time, it may express modality. Therefore, some expressions are underlined and have the abbreviation of a type of booster or hedge and its pragmatic function in brackets and they also have a coloured background according to the corresponding type of modality:

ag.ix.1Epistemic Possibility

This kind of modality is the category with the highest frequency of occurrence in the corpus, both in male and female politicians, as demonstrated in Table 29. The reason is that the phrase I think is the most frequently used linguistic means coming under this category. Epistemic possibility is expressed, apart from I think, by the pragmatic particles I don’t think and I mean, by the modal auxiliary may, its preterite form might, by the lexical modals possible, perhaps, possibly, probably, maybe, apparently and likely in the corpus.

Out of all these means, the most frequent expression is the phrase I think (686 occurrences in total) followed by I mean (134 occurrences) and I don’t think (appeared 80 times). As regards epistemic possibility conveyed by the modal verbs may or might, the number of occurrences is much lower when compared to the pragmatic particles. Finally, lexical modals show an even lower number of occurrence than modal verbs.

In case that linguistic means of epistemic possibility hedge the illocutionary force of utterances, they express uncertainty, assumption, lack of commitment to the proposition and doubt of the speaker. Politicians may also take their listeners into consideration and offer them a prediction or hope for the future. Their use may also be interpreted as a face-saving strategy of the speaker. If the expressions of epistemic possibility boost the illocutionary force of speech acts, they emphasise their views and express subjectivity. They try to influence their voters.

In Example 96, there is a discussion about the Middle East peace between Tony Blair and David Frost, a reporter of Al Jazeera English (English version of the Arabic news channel). Blair is not sure about the development in Palestine, which is singalled by the use of the phrase I think expressing his uncertainty and assumption. The first use of I think in this extract indicates the uncertainty about the possibility of reaching agreement in this conflict. The second use of I think expresses Blair’s assumption about the future cooperation among the EU and the USA in the Middle East:

Example

DF: But whatever the EU can do with the Palestinians and so on, and they obviously can do something, is it in fact progress and this target you have for Middle East peace, while you're in office if possible it all depends on the United States putting wholehearted pressure on Israel?

TB: Well you're absolutely right in saying the role of the US is crucial but you see I think that both the United States and Israel will want to make progress provided we can get a national unity government on the Palestinian side.

That is in line with the principles laid out by the United Nations so that there’s mutual recognition of an Israeli state and a Palestinian state, and then we’ve got to clear all the obstacles out of the way and get on with it.

(App., p. 37, Tony Blair, 2006-12-11, ll. 23-34)

In the following extract, William Hague expresses lack of commitment to his proposition about returning an amount of money to people which they paid for a tax. He uses the phrase I don’t think which express detachment from that assertion. Using might he indicates a possibility of getting that money but he doubts it and does not believe it too much.

Example

WILLIAM HAGUE: Well it's not clear how complete this U-turn has been. Of course, they're now very unclear about whether everybody who is losing out as a result of the abolition of the doubling of the 10p tax band, is going to be compensated and when they are going to be compensated.

There will be a further debate about this in the House of Commons tomorrow and I don't think people are going to be impressed with the idea that they might get some of the money back in a year and a half's time or something like that and they know that Gordon Brown has only given in on this because he had to; not because he actually was persuaded that lower paid people were being hit by his measures, but because he was forced by the Conservatives and his own backbenchers, in to a change of tack, so I don't think he's going to get a lot of credit for that.

(App., p. 158, William Hague, 2008-04-27, ll. 19-32)

In Example 98, Theresa May discusses a breakdown of trust between people and politicians. Using I think, she expresses her opinions and assumptions about this problem, about what could be done in the future and how to solve it. Perhaps also indicates these assumptions.

Example

THERESA MAY: I think there is a break down of trust generally, between people and politicians. I think that's come about for a whole variety of reasons. This issue we've just been talking about, the question of allowances and budgets and expenses, is one aspect of it.

So there is a break down of trust. There's much more we can be doing in parliament, we could be giving more power back to people at local government level, through local referendums. We could be giving more power to people to initiate debates and perhaps Bills in the House of Commons. I think we need to open up how we do things, to restore that break down of trust.

(App., p. 185, Theresa May, 2008-03-09, ll. 150-165)

Below, the phrase I think expresses subjectivity of Alan Johnson about things concerning children’s obesity and the restriction of junk food advertising. I think functions as a booster pragmatically and strengthens the illocutionary force of the utterance.

Example

JON SOPEL: Okay, let's talk about obesity in children because I think 16% of our children are now considered to be obese and the government has taken action. There's a ban on advertising of junk foods on specific children's programming, but of course we all know that children watch a lot of other programmes like, I don't know, Coronation Street, the X Factor, Saturday Night Takeaway, whatever it happens and there, you're getting a lot of adverts for junk foods, now why not just say, actually, no junk food advertising before the nine o clock watershed.

ALAN JOHNSON: Because I think that would be too drastic as a first step. a first step, and it's a very important first step which was introduced in January as you rightly say, is we ban food advertising from children's programmes, we look at the effect of that, which is what we've agreed to do, and the advertising industry have brought forward that review to the summer, which was initially going to be at the end of the year and then we look at the effects of that, we have an evidence base, before we move on to the next step.

(App., p. 174, Alan Johnson, 2008-04-13, ll. 75-87)

As mentioned above, one aspect that is closely connected with epistemic modality is subjectivity, which has already been mentioned in Section 9.4. This applies not only to the phrases I think and I mean, but also to the modal auxiliaries may and might. This can be explained by the fact that the speaker is not certain about the truth value of the proposition so s/he presents it as a mere possibility, which is also shown in Example 99 above. This assumption has been confirmed by Hoye (1997:43-45), who asserts that “subjectivity can certainly be regarded as an essential feature of epistemic modality since the speaker is expressing judgements in accordance with his own (subjective) set of beliefs” (1997:43).

Huddleston and Pullum (2002) also mention the subjective use of may and add that this modal auxiliary can also be used to express objectivity. This relates to cases “where it is a matter of public knowledge [...], rather than the speaker’s knowledge” (2002:181). As for lexical modals expressing epistemic possibility, “possible and possibly are objective perhaps and maybe are usually subjective” (Huddleston and Pullum 2002:208). Perhaps in Example 98 above shows subjectivity of the speaker since she explains her personal attitude to the problem. By contrast, the use of possible in Example 100 expresses objectivity and impartiality of the speaker:

Example

BLITZER: Do you want someone other than Ibrahim al-Jaafari to be the prime minister?

RICE: This is something that the Iraqis have got to determine. They have got to determine whether or not it is possible to achieve a government of national unity with that particular candidate.

The Shia do not have enough votes to govern on their own. And so they have to bring into coalition others from -- who won in the electoral process. That is what they're doing, and I think they're doing a remarkable job.

(App., p. 201, Condoleezza Rice, 2006-03-26, ll. 107-113)

ag.ix.2Deontic Necessity

You must clean up this mess at once. - subjective

We must make an appointment if we want to see the Dean. - objective

(Huddleston and Pullum 2002:183)

Palmer speaks about have to, an alternative to must, “which generally indicates that the speaker takes no responsibility for the obligation” (2001:75). Thus, there is a difference between:

You must come and see me tomorrow.

You have to come and see me tomorrow.

(Palmer 2001:75)

The first sentence expresses a suggestion or an invitation; the second implies that “there is some compelling reason independent of the speaker. If there is not a reason, then the addressee might take offence, regarding it as presumptuous of the speaker to say what he or she has to do” (Palmer 2001:75). In short, “with MUST, the speaker has authority, while with HAVE TO the authority comes from no particular source” (Coates 1983:55, emphasis in original).

Deontic necessity, or sometimes called strong obligation (Huddleston and Pullum 2002:182), is the second most frequent type of modality in the corpus, although its occurrence is considerably lower than that of epistemic possibility. As may be seen in Table 31 below, it appears 565 times, with a higher frequency of occurrence in females.

The number of occurrence of linguistic means expressing deontic necessity in the corpus may be found in Table 32 below:

As shown in Table 32 above, there is a considerable difference in the frequency of occurrence of the modals must and have to or have got to in the corpus. This is connected, on the one hand, with expressing subjectivity of the speaker who, by using must, imposes the obligation, or on the other hand, if the speaker does not want to be responsible for the obligation, s/he uses the form have to or have got to. This contrast between must and have to explains a much higher occurrence of the latter form in political interviews. It may be interpreted as an attempt of the speaker to gain detachment from the proposition expressed. Politicians do not want to take responsibility for the obligation imposed, which can be regarded as a face-saving strategy. In case the form have to is used, it means that the speaker is not involved or does not want to be involved in the utterance expressed and rather, s/he wants to shift the responsibility on somebody else. This fact applies especially to female politicians who used the forms have to or have got to 217 times, compared to only 154 occurrences of these forms by males.

Consider the subjectivity expressed by the modal must in the example below. Condoleezza Rice expresses the obligation of the USA to defend their borders. The obligation is imposed on the State Department, which should enforce border security.

Example

RICE: The president has very clearly stated the principles on which we would work to try and get a more humane and effective immigration law, and those principles include that we really must, of course, defend our border, and we've put a lot of money into border security. The State Department has enhanced its request for border security. We are obviously determined that U.S. laws should be enforced.

(App., p. 204, Condoleezza Rice, 2006-03-26, ll. 276-285)

As mentioned above, must does not express only subjective deontic modality but it may also be objective when expressing obligation imposed by an authority as a regulation or rule. The use of have to in this extract is also objective, the speaker does not want to have responsibility for it and he wants to gain detachment:

Example

JEREMY PAXMAN: You've just said the decision was taken by the inspectors to leave the country. They were therefore not thrown out.

TONY BLAIR: They were effectively thrown out for the reason that I will give you. Prior to them leaving Iraq they had come back to the Security Council, again and again, and said we are not being given access to sites. For example, things were being designated as presidential palaces, they weren't being allowed to go in there.

As a result of that, they came back to the United Nations and said we can't carry out the work as inspectors; therefore we said you must leave because we will have to try and enforce this action a different way. So when you say the inspectors, when you imply the inspectors were in there doing their work, that is simply not the case.

(App., p. 4, Tony Blair, 2003-02-06, ll. 57-66)

In the extract below, Janet Napolitano discusses agreements and disagreements of Obama’s and McCain’s policy. She explains what the legislation is obliged to do. She expresses her detachment from it:

Example

NEIL CAVUTO, HOST: All right. All right, so Barack Obama plans to show up for Friday`s big debate at Ole Miss. John McCain does not. He is keeping his campaign going. John McCain is not. He insists he calls -- called John McCain first. John McCain says he called him first. So, these

two aren`t even remotely in synch on this issue.

Governor Janet Napolitano, Democrat of Arizona, joins me right now. She`s a big Obama supporter.

Governor, these two are not on the same page.

GOV. JANET NAPOLITANO (D), ARIZONA: Well, I think actually, they are on some fundamentals. They`re on the same page in terms of what any kind of bailout legislation needs to look like, that it has to have independent oversight, that it has to protect home buyers, that it has to repay taxpayers, and it has to ensure that the CEOs and others who have profited over the last few years don`t make profits out of this bailout.

(App., p. 195, Janet Napolitano, 2008-09-24, ll. 5-17)

As already mentioned, deontic necessity may be expressed not only by must or have to, but also by the modal auxiliary should. The deontics must and should are both used to impose an obligation. The difference is that obligation laid by must is stronger than that laid by should. As regards the form ought to, most sources agree on its interchangeability with should (cf. Huddleston and Pullum 2002:186; Palmer 1979:100; Hoye 1997:109), however, in spoken discourse should is used more frequently than ought to, which is also indicated in the present analysis. Should was used 154 times in the corpus, while ought to only 17 times by both genders, as Table 32 demonstrates. Should and ought to occur 171 times in total compared to 371 occurrences of have to and have got to. It can be interpreted as an effort of politicians to sound authoritative and detached rather than responsible for their claims.

In Example 104, the topic discussed is obesity in the UK. Alan Johnson cites an argument of a scientist who claims that governments should not interfere in solving this problem since it is similar to smoking or sexual health. When using should not, the obligation implied by this modal is not so strong:

Example

ALAN JOHNSON: Well, I see it's a very serious problem mainly because we asked the scientists and the clinicians to look at this, we asked them to look at what the world would look like in 2050 in relation to obesity and it was their report that's driven our policy and it's the science and the clinicians view that will guide us through this and I think Max's, I'm obviously with Gill on this argument, Max's argument was not just an argument about obesity, it was an argument about public health, it was saying that governments shouldn't intervene, whether it's on smoking, whether it's on issues like sexual health; governments simply shouldn't intervene at all, that's the extreme libertarian view and I think that's wrong. And on obesity and life style epidemics, we now know that it's as big a problem now as smoking was in the '60s.

(App., p. 173, Alan Johnson, 2008-04-13, ll. 7-18)

Discussing a conference about Iraq, Condoleezza Rice explains the obligations which the states involved in the Iraq conflict have. According to her, they should stabilize Iraq. She used ought to to signal that this obligation should be urgently fulfilled but, at the same time, it indicates that other things should also be done, not only this one.

Example

QUESTION: But they could have had a foreign minister-to-foreign minister conversation in Egypt if they wanted to, foreign minister-to-foreign minister, and they chose not to do it.

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I believe that what I said, Charlie, was that if the opportunity proposed -- showed itself, of course, I'd be very happy to greet my Iranian counterpart. It didn't happen. We didn't seek a bilateral with them. They didn't seek a bilateral meeting with us. Our officials did on the margins of the conference have a chance to exchange some views about Iraq.

But again, this was a conference not about U.S.-Iranian relations, not about U.S.-Syrian relations. This was a conference about Iraq. And if the neighbors, including those of us who are deeply involved in Iraq, can find a way to work together to help stabilize Iraq, we ought to do it.

(App., p. 217, Condoleezza Rice, 2007-05-07, ll. 107-117)

ag.ix.3Epistemic Attitudinal Modality

As already mentioned above, this category is somewhat special since it has not been identified in the relevant literature, to my knowledge, but it is quite numerous in the corpus; in concrete terms, it is the third most frequent kind of modality with 369 occurrences in total. Female politicians expressed it more frequently than male politicians, as Table 33 shows. It is expressed by the pragmatic particles really, actually and frankly; really being the most frequent one, which illustrates Table 34 below.

All examples of really, actually and frankly in the corpus are expressions of epistemic stance since they relate to the speaker’s attitude to the truth of the proposition and to modifying the illocutionary force. The problem with these three adverbs is that they cannot be placed within any subtype of the epistemic modality proposed here because they express neither epistemic necessity, possibility nor assumption. That is why I have suggested a special category of epistemic modality.

The main reason for using these pragmatic particles by the speaker is to show his/her involvement. As can be seen, they are used by politicians quite often, which may be ascribed to the fact that politicians, in spite of showing detachment from what they say, do not want to lose face in front of their audience, they try to show their involvement with the proposition expressed. They attempt to be closer to their voters and speak a similar language as they do.

Here again, it may be observed that pragmatic and modal functions are interrelated. Apart from their modal functions, all three adverbs function pragmatically both as boosters or hedges. Their pragmatic functions as boosters are the expression of assurance (really) and content-oriented emphasis (actually, frankly); as hedges they attenuate the force of the given utterance (for a more detailed account of these pragmatic functions see Chapter 7, Sections 7.4.4 and 7.4.1, and Chapter 8, Section 8.4.1). Consider the examples below which illustrate this type of modality.

In the example below, the question of terrorism is discussed. Bush expresses his fears about the security of the Americans. He wants to stress his worries by the use of speaker-oriented booster really that shows his involvement with this big problem the USA faces and the fact that he tries to solve it in some way.

Example

BUSH: Well – my biggest fear is somebody will come in and slip in this country and kill Americans. And I can't tell you how. Obviously there would be the spectacular. That would be the use of some kind of biological weapon or weapon of mass destruction. But as we learned recently from the British plots, people were, you know, gonna get on airplanes and blow up airplanes with innocent people flying to America.

And – you know, one way to look at it is we have to be right 100 percent of the time in order to protect this country, and they gotta be right once. And it's just a – just a fact of life. The – the – we're facing an enemy, Katie, that just doesn't care about innocent life. I mean, they really are evil people.

(App., p. 78, George W. Bush, 2006-09-06, ll. 37-47)

In the following extract, Alan Duncan criticizes the attitude of Tony Blair to nuclear power stations. He points out his reluctance to act by using the booster really. At the same time, he does not want to sound too critical, therefore he uses the hedges actually which should attenuate the forthcoming message:

Example

ALAN DUNCAN: Well you're pretending that the government is not vague. Now we all hear Tony Blair saying you know, I want nuclear power stations but actually, if you look at the print, he's really leaving it all to the markets, so it doesn't matter what he says because nothing that he says actually, in terms of government policy is going to be converted in to it actually happening, so let's not allow ourselves to be diverted by this rhetoric. (interjection) ...

(App., p. 148, Alan Duncan, 2006-07-02, ll. 20-29)

In Example 108, Hillary Clinton points out that it is necessary to find a new solution and approach to the Iraq conflict and to the fight with terrorism. These problems should be viewed as they really are. She proposes to change the people in charge. She emphasizes the content of her message by using the adverb frankly. As already mentioned, frankly is more typical of female politicians. My claim is that they aim at having a positive and responsible attitude to their audience. They want to be frank and honest and they do not want to pretend anything as regards the relationship to their voters since they believe that in this way, they gain their confidence more easily. This, again, relates to the position of women in the area of politics, which is not as strong as the position of male politicians.

Example

McFadden: Is there a link between Iraq, the war in Iraq and terrorism? The president says yes. What do you say?

Clinton: Well, the president is right, if you're talking about today, but not if you're going back to 9/11 or 2002, when the vote was cast, or even March 2003, when the invasion occurred. ... I just wish that this president and vice president would get out of the bubble they're in, quit listening to the people they're listening, change their national security team and maybe bring in some new voices, which is why I've called for the resignation or the firing, frankly, of Donald Rumsfeld.

But, instead, they're back to business as usual, trying to make links that don't exist, trying to draw historical analogies that are not accurate. I think that does a great disservice not only to the American people, but, frankly, to the quality of decision-making.

(App., p. 124, Hillary Clinton, 2007-10-11, ll. 107-118)

ag.ix.4Circumstantial Possibility

Circumstantial possibility is, with 98 occurrences, the fourth most frequent category of modality in the corpus, as demonstrated in Table 35 above. The difference between males and females is mere two instances, which is insignificant. Circumstantial possibility is expressed by the modal auxiliary can, both in the present and past tense, the frequency of occurrence of the forms of this modal expressing this type of modality is summarized in Table 36 below:

Although circumstantial possibility occurs in the corpus quite frequently, it is not mentioned by Palmer. This is quite surprising because in the corpus there are examples of the modal verb can that cannot be determined according to his classification. Circumstantial possibility has been identified by Huddleston and Pullum (2002:184, 197) who define it as a possibility that is likely to happen under certain circumstances. According to Palmer’s classification, can is used to refer to permission or ability. As is evident, could, in Example 109 below, expresses neither of these categories. In this context, it is used to indicate the possibility for Iran to have a nuclear weapon on condition that it gains the technology for constructing it.

Example

MCFADDEN: New York Congressman Gary Ackerman said yesterday, "Everybody at Annapolis has one thing in common: not a love of Israel or the Palestinians, but the fear of Iran." Everybody needs a relative to protect them from Iran.

RICE: Well, clearly there is every reason to have a deep concern about Iran, about Iran's support for terrorism and against the peoples of Lebanon and of Iraq and of the Palestinian territories.

There's a reason to worry about an Iran that is trying to gain the technology that could lead to a nuclear weapon, because enrichment and reprocessing capability, which is what the world is trying to stop, is a technology that if used in certain ways can lead to a nuclear weapon.

So there are reasons to worry about that. Clearly, there are reasons to worry about Iranian aggression and ambition and what they're doing in the region.

I think people were there at Annapolis because they want to support a Palestinian state, but of course extremism in the region is something that threatens everybody in that room.

(App., p. 231, Condoleezza Rice, 2007-11-28, ll. 276-289)

In the next extract, the topic discussed is containment of Saddam Hussein. Blair explains that it was not possible under any circumstances to keep troops in Iraq for a long time. He uses the negative modal form couldn’t, which indicates this impossibility.

Example

QUESTION: But if he could have been isolated with the inspectors there, if he could have been surrounded by 250,000 troops, the entire world, he wouldn't have been able to hold on forever.

BLAIR: Yes, but you couldn't have kept -- we can go over this again and again, but, I mean, you couldn't actually, frankly, have kept quarter of a million troops down there. It's very long.

At some point, you had to come to a situation where he had a chance of heart or there was a change of regime, and I think what is interesting is that actually removing Saddam took two or three months.

(App., p. 35, Tony Blair, 2006-12-10, ll. 200-208)

The subject of discussion in Example 111 is a natural disaster in Rangoon and the help of various humanitarian organizations. Miliband assures British people who decided to contribute an amount of money that this money will be used properly. He stresses it with the modal verb can, which emphasizes that on condition that they contributed in the UK, they do not have to worry.

Example

JON SOPEL: If someone is at home listening to this interview with you and you're describing the desperate situation there, but also the reluctance of the regime to help, why on earth would you part with your money to help the situation if you're not sure that the money you give is going to be turned in to mosquito nets that will get to the people who need it.

DAVID MILIBAND: Well I want to address that very directly. Anyone who's given money in Britain, can be sure that it will be properly used, because it won't go - and it won't go in to the regime's military coffers. Our aid is channeled through organizations like Save the Children, who rightly have a very high reputation and I think that that's why there is this very important next thirty six hours.

I mean, the last six or seven days have been really inexplicable I think, to most people, that it should have taken so long. You rightly drew the comparison with the tsunami and the response that happened then. But of course the government in that case, actually welcomed the international community, rather than rejecting it. But I think that we are clear that our aid will go when it's able to do go, and that's the right basis on which to appeal to people.

(App., p. 192, David Miliband, 2008-05-11, ll. 48-64)

The examples above show that the reason why politicians use the modal forms can and could with this meaning may, again, be due to signalling detachment from their utterances and showing irresponsibility for them. Again, it can be judged as a face-saving strategy. They are not sure if the particular event happens or not, that is why they present it as possible but only under certain circumstances.

ag.ix.5Epistemic Necessity

Epistemic necessity, or strong modality, belongs, together with deontic possibility, to the least frequent types of modality appearing in political interviews. It is expressed in 87 utterances in the whole corpus, out of which 36 were produced by males and 51 instances were produced by females, as shown in Table 37. Concerning linguistic expression of this type of modality in the corpus, it includes the modal auxiliary can in its non-assertive form, modal adjectives sure and certain, and the modal adverbs surely and certainly. The number of occurrences of these lexical means is summarized in Table 38 below:

This type of modality can also be expressed by must, utilized as a strong modal, however, it does not occur in my corpus at all. Must in its epistemic use “conveys the speaker’s confidence in the truth of what he is saying, based on a logical process of deduction from facts known to him (which may or may not be specified)” (Coates 1983:41, my emphasis). This use of must is subjective. Objective epistemic necessity “involves strict semantic necessity” (Huddleston and Pullum 2002:181). However, Coates claims that objective epistemic modality, though present in natural language, is not very usual (1983:18).

Epistemic must is not utilized in the corpus at all. The explanation for this could be that it sounds too authoritative and, as stated above, it communicates confidence of the speaker about what s/he is saying, which may be restrictive for politicians in that it does not leave them any room for mitigating the force of their utterances. Politicians tend to leave some room for changing their opinion, modifying their assertions and also for saving their face in case of potential accusation of lying.

Modal adjectives and adverbs occur more frequently in the corpus than epistemic modals verbs. The most frequent of them is certainly. It is interesting that the modal adverb surely is not so frequent, although there is no semantic difference between surely and certainly. Both genders prefer using certainly, female speakers did not use surely at all. Below, there are several examples from the corpus to illustrate this category.

When discussing the issues concerning the return from maternity leave to work, the interviewer asks Harriet Harman about the policy of the Labour Party relating to this subject. She assures the audience, by using the epistemic certainly, about various choices the parents have in this respect. Pragmatically, certainly functions as a speaker-oriented booster expressing assurance, which proves that pragmatic and modal functions in epistemic use are manifestations of the same meaning.

Example

HARRIET HARMAN: I don't think they have been one-sided but certainly, there does need to be more choice for families in the very early years of a child's life. You see, the national minimum wage was something which actually gave parents more time at home with their children because if you've got a very low wage then you have to work all hours to make ends meet. And one of the objectives of that national minimum wage topped up by the tax credit, was to give some families the opportunity, who otherwise couldn't afford it, to have one of the couple staying at home full time, or one only working part time and the reality is that the lower down the income scale you are, the less choice you've got. If you're high up the income scale, then irrespective of your housing costs and such like, you can make those choices and we need to support those families, who are constrained in their choice because it's hard for them to make ends meet.

(App., p. 165, Harriet Harman, 2007-06-17, ll. 9-24)

In the extract below, Sarah Palin expresses her assurance to the listeners of Barack Obama’s patriotism. The phrase “I am sure” focuses on the speaker’s responsibility for her claim.

Example

VARGAS: But, set the record straight. Do you think Senator Obama is as patriotic, as American, as honorable as John McCain?

PALIN: I am sure that Senator Obama, ... cares as much for this country as McCain does. Now, McCain has a strong, solid track record of his ... I think, some manifestations of the opportunities that he's had to prove that patriotism, and that love for country, but no. A ... and I don't want anybody to ever put words in my mouth, and, and, you know, I'll fight hard against any kind of false allegation in terms of what I've said or what I've meant. I'm ... I'm, for the record, stating, no, that, I'm not calling someone out on their love of country or level of patriotism.

(App., p. 198, Sarah Palin, 2008-10-29, ll. 55-63)

In Example 114 below, the speaker uses two means of epistemic necessity in one utterance, which even more emphasises her claim. Using certainly directs more attention to the speaker’s involvement to the proposition.

Example

SECRETARY RICE: Well, a relationship, of course, is going to depend on whether or not Syria actually carries out the objectives and the responsibilities that it says it needs to carry out. But this isn't a quid pro quo. This isn't somehow a favor for the United States. I can assure you that Syria, with extremists transiting through Syria, that the Syrians are going to find themselves in a situation in which that's destabilizing for Syria.

And it certainly can't be very good for Iraq's neighbors to have a situation in which extremists are able to move across borders, to kill innocent Iraqis, to create large refugee flows -- something that the Syrians complain loudly about. So I would hope that Syria would do this in its own interests, and if there is cooperation to be had on that border, then, of course, the United States would want to cooperate.

(App., p. 216, Condoleezza Rice, 2007-05-07, ll. 58-71)

ag.ix.6Deontic Possibility

As shown in Table 39 above, deontic possibility is not so frequent in political interviews; altogether, there are 23 occurrences: males produced this type of modality 10 times in the corpus and females produced it in 13 utterances. The low number of appearances may be explained by the genre of political interview itself since this modality expresses giving permission, which is not typical of this genre. Deontic possibility may be found more frequently in different types of spoken discourse, such as informal face-to-face conversation.

Deontic possibility is expressed by the modal verbs may and can, with may being restricted to the formal style and can to the informal one. As proposed by Coates (1983:147), may and might are interchangeable in their epistemic uses, which is not true about their deontic interpretations since the use of might, in this sense, is “extremely rare”, as claimed and proven by Hoye (1997:94-95).

In the corpus, there appear only instances of deontic possibility expressed by the modal auxiliary can, as Table 40 below demonstrates. Although may is frequently used in formal style, it does not occur in the corpus. Therefore, the use of can may be a sign of tendency to informality in this genre.

In Example 115, Condoleezza Rice tells a story about her grandfather, who as an African-American had problems with receiving education. Both modal verbs could express deontic necessity since they relate to obtaining permission to go to college and to receiving a scholarship.

Example

RICE: [...] But I want to just close with this little story because -- maybe some of you’ve heard it. But -- my grandfather, my father's father, was a sharecropper's son in Ewtah, Alabama -- E-w-t-a-h, Alabama. And for some reason, he decided he wanted to get book learning. And so he would ask people who came through where could a colored man go to college. And they said, well, there's Stillman College, which is a little Presbyterian school about 60 miles from here, but you're going to have to pay to go there. So he saved up his cotton and he got enough money from his cotton to go to Stillman. He made his way to Stillman. He made it through his first year of school. And then the second year they said, okay, now where's your tuition for the second year? And he said, well, I’ve paid with all the cotton I had. And they said -- he said, but -- well, how are those boys going to school? They said, well, you know, they have what's called a scholarship. He said -- and if you wanted to be a Presbyterian minister, then you could have a scholarship too. And my grandfather said, oh, you know, that's exactly what I plan to do. (Laughter.)

(App., p. 251, Condoleezza Rice, 2008-03-27, ll. 713-726)

In Example 116, there are two instances of can illustrating deontic possibility. The discussion is about the last presidential campaign in the USA. The interviewer asks Hillary Clinton if Barack Obama is prepared to be president of the USA. Can in the utterances below expresses that the voters are permitted to ask questions during the election campaigns.

Example

MR. RUSSERT: But is Barack Obama ready to be president?

SEN. CLINTON: That is up for voters to decide, Tim. You know, you can ask that question of him, voters can ask that question, but that's what I want. I thought the campaign really started at the debate in New Hampshire. For the first time we really had a debate that compared and contrasted our records. When Senator Obama was asked, what is your major accomplishment in the Senate, he said it was passing ethics reform and getting legislators to be prohibited from having lunch with lobbyists. And then, you know, Charlie Gibson said, "Well, wait a minute. You can have lunch if you're standing up, not if you're sitting down." So if that's his main claim for legislative accomplishment, people deserve to know that. And finally, in New Hampshire, we had an atmosphere where tough questions were asked and answered. I answered hundreds and hundreds of questions, saw thousands and thousands of people, and I think that the results really speak to what people are hungry for. They want to get beyond, you know, just the coverage of the campaign, to really understand what motivates us, what we bring to this campaign, and what we will do as president.

(App., p. 113, Hillary Clinton, 2008-01-13, ll. 232-247)

Deontic possibility may also be expressed by the non-assertive form can’t, which expresses a prohibition. In the example below, Bush speaks about the danger of various ideologies that are connected with strange prohibitions and permissions. The negative form can’t in the utterance below expresses the prohibition to communicate your opinions freely. Two assertive uses of can in the following utterances signal the permission, however, in this context, Bush is being ironic since he wants to emphasize the dangers of ideologies that consider only the official religious belief as correct.

Example

Mr Bush: Yeah. Well, you know, they're... I think that's just a brush back pitch, as we say in baseball. It's... America is trapped in this notion that we care about human life. We respect human dignity. And that's not a trap. That's a belief. And that many of [us] in this country recognise that the human condition matters to our own national security. See, I happen to believe we're in an ideological struggle. And, those who murder the innocent to achieve political objectives are evil people. But, they have an ideology. And the only way you can recruit for that ideology is to find hopeless folks. I mean, who wants to join an ideology say women don't have rights? You can't express yourself freely. Religious beliefs are... you know, the only religious belief you can hold is the one we tell you. And, oh, by the way, it's great. You can be a suicider. Well, hopeless people are the ones who get attracted by that point of view. And, therefore, it's in the world's interest from a national security perspective to deal with hopelessness. And it has to be in our moral interest. I repeat to you... I believe to whom much is given, much is required. It happens to be a religious notion. But, it should be a universal notion as well. And... I believe America's soul is enriched, our spirit is enhanced when we help people who suffer.

(App., p. 113, George W. Bush, 2008-02-14, ll. 100-118)