Modality and tense

Question

I am working on some assignments about tense, modality, voice and aspect. But even though I got almost everything right, of course three clauses had to confuse me.

The first:

"I may do it" According to my book this is tenseless, why is that? Is this root or epistemic?

Same with "I might do it".. It`s tenseless. What about the modality in this one?

And the last one:

"They must have lost". Why isn`t this epistemic? ( THe speaker thinks it is possible that X is the case) Is the meaning more "possibility?"

Andriy Lapin · Accepted Answer

Good evening, Agatha,

let's try to sort it out. According to authoritative sources, modal verbs have abnormal time reference, which means that not only the present forms, but the past forms of the modals can be used to refer to present and future time (often hypothetically):

I think he might fly to Japan next May. <future, though might is historically considered the past of may>

There are pairs of auxiliaries which superficially have tense distinctions: can/could, may/might, will/would, shall/should, but 'past tense' forms can only to limited extend be usefully classified as such from the point of view of their meaning (as was shown above). Therefore, the definition in your grammar book about tenseless modals in part reflects reality.

(to be continued)

Andriy Lapin · Answer

(continued)

Justafreak"I may do it" According to my book this is tenseless, why is that? Is this root or epistemic?

- now that we have dealt with the 'tenselessness' of modals, let's consider other issues. The question of root and epistemic modality is a neat area. I suggest the we begin with the definition of this type of modality. One tells us that epistemic possibility denotes the possibility of a given proposition's (=idea's) being or becoming true. Only the following modal verbs can convey epistemic meaning: may/might, must, have (got) to.

'May' is stressed in speech when it is epistemic, and 'might' is often used instead of 'may' as a more tentative, more 'unreal' substitute. Next, how to distinguish between epistemic and root possibility, you might ask, Agatha? The answer is: 'may/might' are used with root possibility in very formal English - they just substitute for 'can/could' in this type of meaning; besides, the whole sentence may be paraphrased with It is possible + infinitive phrase:

During the autumn, many rare birds may be observed on these picturesque shores. ~
During the autumn, many rare birds can be observed on these picturesque shores. ~
During the autumn, it is possible to observe many rare birds on these picturesque shores.

In other words, if you see a sentence with may denoting possibility (not permission), it is most plausibly epistemic 'may'. The sentence you mention features an epistemic modal:

I may do it. <the speaker asserts that he will accomplish something in prospect, and the paraphrase is It is possible that I will do it, and not *It is possible for me to do it. Another 'paraphrase test' is with probably/possibly: Perhaps/possibly I will do it.>

JustafreakSame with "I might do it".. It`s tenseless. What about the modality in this one?

- the same rules apply to might, save that it is more hypothetical in meaning. Indeed, it is often preferred to may because of its tentativeness.

JustafreakAnd the last one:

"They must have lost". Why isn`t this epistemic? ( THe speaker thinks it is possible that X is the case) Is the meaning more "possibility?"

- there are several interpretations of this meaning of 'must', Agatha. According to one, 'must' in this case conveys logical necessity; according to another - epistemic necessity, which is synonyous with epistemic possibility sense of 'may/might'. I suppose you could use the three terms typed in bald interchangeably, but let me stick to the term 'epistemic necessity' to distinguish between 'must' and 'may/might'.

When 'must' is used in this case, it means that the speaker thinks that the idea expressed in the clause (They have got lost) has a high likelihood of being true (= It is very probably that they have got lost). Moreover, the speaker bases his assumption on some evidence - facts already known or observed. It may be that the person who uttered the example sentence left no stone unturned in the house where 'they' were supposed to be, but still found no trace of 'them'. Therefore, after hours of vain search, he says: They must have got lost. This, Agatha, is epistemic necessity in action, dare I say so.

Additionally, if it may help you, I'll tell about the root necessity of must. In fact, it is quite lucid. Sentences with root necessity (featuring 'must') can be paraphrased with It is essential for..., It is necessary for..:

To live to a ripe old age, a human being must eat and live healthily. ~
To live to a ripe old age, it is essential/necessary for a human being...

That's all for now. Alles Gute!

(in my previous post: to a limited extent . A typo corrected)

Respectfully, Gleb Chebrikoff

Modality and tense

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions