Modal Meanings in Different Text Types in the Field of Logistics)

Oddelek za anglistiko in amerikanistiko

DOCTORAL DISSERTATION

MODAL MEANINGS IN DIFFERENT TEXT TYPES

IN THE FIELD OF LOGISTICS

APRIL, 2016 Polona VIČIČ

Oddelek za anglistiko in amerikanistiko

DOCTORAL DISSERTATION

MODAL MEANINGS IN DIFFERENT TEXT TYPES

IN THE FIELD OF LOGISTICS

DOKTORSKA DISERTACIJA

MODALNI ODNOSI V BESEDILNIH VRSTAH

NA PODROČJU LOGISTIKE

APRIL, 2016 mag. Polona VIČIČ

Mentorica: doc. dr. Klementina JURANČIČ PETEK

Acknowledgments

First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere thanks to doc. dr. Klementina Jurančič Petek for supervising the present thesis and continuously supporting me in the process of writing.

Special thanks goes to prof. dr. Branka Čagran and dr. Jožica Zajc for their help with matters of statistics and to Dragica Brinovec for proofreading the Slovene text.

I would also like to thank my family for their support and encouragement throughout the research process.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgments

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND OF MODALITY ...... 5

2.1 INTRODUCTION TO MODALITY AND MODAL VERBS ...... 5 2.2 MODALITY ...... 8 2.3 STUDIES OF MODALITY: PAST TO PRESENT ...... 11 2.3.1 Jespersen (1924) ...... 13 2.3.2 Von Wright (1951) ...... 15 2.3.3 Coates (1983) ...... 17 2.3.4 Palmer ([1979], 1990 and [1986], 2001) ...... 19 2.3.5 Leech ([1971], 1987) ...... 21 2.4 CHARACTERISATION OF MODALITY ...... 22 2.4.1 Characterisation by modal verbs ...... 23 2.4.1.1 CAN ...... 25 2.4.1.2 COULD ...... 27 2.4.1.3 MAY ...... 28 2.4.1.4 MIGHT...... 30 2.4.1.5 MUST ...... 32 2.4.1.6 OUGHT TO ...... 34 2.4.1.7 SHOULD ...... 36 2.4.1.8 BE ABLE TO ...... 38 2.4.1.9 BE BOUND TO ...... 39 2.4.1.10 BE GOING TO ...... 40 2.4.1.11 HAVE (GOT) TO ...... 40 2.4.2 Basic semantic categories of modality ...... 42 2.4.2.1 Epistemic modality ...... 43 2.4.2.2 Deontic modality ...... 45 2.4.2.3 Dynamic modality ...... 47 2.4.2.4 Modal mergers ...... 49 2.4.3 Genre variation ...... 51 2.4.4 Discipline variation ...... 57 2.4.5 The discipline of logistics ...... 60

2.4.6 Language variation ...... 62 3 CORPUS AND METHODOLOGY ...... 63

3.1 MOTIVATION ...... 63 3.2 RESEARCH PROBLEM ...... 64 3.2.1 Research questions ...... 65 3.2.2 Research hypotheses ...... 66 3.3 CORPUS LINGUISTIC SETTING ...... 68 3.4 CORPUS OF LOGISTICS TEXTS ...... 71 3.5 RESEARCH METHODS OF ANALYSIS ...... 76 4 EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS ...... 78

4.1 MODAL VERBS IN ENGLISH SCIENTIFIC AND PROFESSIONAL LOGISTICS DISCOURSE ...... 78 4.1.1 Research papers ...... 79 4.1.2 Scientific textbook ...... 99 4.1.3 Application handbook ...... 115 4.1.4 Spoken discourse ...... 125 4.1.5 Statistical analysis of modal verb use in logistics written discourse ...... 131 4.2 MODAL VERBS IN SLOVENE SCIENTIFIC LOGISTICS DISCOURSE ...... 139 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ...... 145

6 POVZETEK V SLOVENŠČINI ...... 151

References ...... 159

Appendices ...... 1

Appendix 1: Corpus of logistics texts ...... 1 Appendix 2: Statistical comparisons of differences between subcorpora Sc1, Sc2 and Sc3 4

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Corpus of logistics texts ...... 73 Table 2. Modal verbs and their modal meanings in the logistics research papers 81 Table 3. Proportion of epistemic, deontic and dynamic modality in the logistics research papers ...... 98 Table 4. Modal verbs and their modal meanings in the logistics scientific textbook ...... 100 Table 5. Proportion of epistemic, deontic and dynamic modality in the logistics scientific textbook ...... 114 Table 6. Modal verbs and their modal meanings in the application handbook... 116 Table 7. Proportion of epistemic, deontic and dynamic modality in the application handbook ...... 124 Table 8. Modal verbs and their modal meanings in logistics spoken discourse . 126 Table 9. Proportion of epistemic, deontic and dynamic modality in logistics spoken discourse ...... 130 Table 10. Comparison of the use of CAN in Sc1, Sc2 and Sc3 ...... 133 Table 11. Comparison of the use of MAY in Sc1, Sc2 and Sc3 ...... 134 Table 12. Comparison of the use of SHOULD in Sc1, Sc2 and Sc3 ...... 135 Table 13. Comparison of the use of COULD in Sc1, Sc2 and Sc3...... 136 Table 14. Comparison of the use of MIGHT in Sc1, Sc2 and Sc3 ...... 137 Table 15. Comparison of the use of MUST in Sc1, Sc2 and Sc3 ...... 138 Table 16. Modal verbs and their modal meanings in the scientific textbook in Slovene ...... 141 Table 17. Proportion of epistemic, deontic and dynamic modality in the scientific textbook in Slovene ...... 144 Table 18. Proportion of epistemic, deontic and dynamic modality in the corpus of logistics text ...... 146

iii

ABSTRACT

The thesis sets out to investigate modality, which has been recognised as a central linguistic feature used for the expression of opinions and attitudes and thus also for establishing a dialogic relationship between the writer and reader. Following more recent, text-type oriented approaches to modality, which have recognised the importance of both genre- and discipline-specific conventions, the analysis aims to investigate modal verb use in different text types in logistics. Building on the finding that academic discourse is characterised by both objective (dynamic) and subjective (epistemic and deontic) presentation of claims it aims to establish to what extent the ratio between the two reflects genre- and discipline-specific use. The study is based on a combination of quantitative and qualitative (semantic) analysis, the results of which show that modal verb use in the analysed text types is characterised by a marked dichotomy between dynamic on the one side and epistemic and deontic use on the other, which, at least to some extent, could be related to the interdisciplinary nature of logistics. Furthermore, the analysed texts also show differences in the overall proportions of dynamic, epistemic and deontic use, which could be linked to the genre-specific style of each text type.

Key words : modality, modal verbs, epistemic, deontic and dynamic meaning, text type, logistics.

POVZETEK

Doktorska disertacija je namenjena raziskavi modalnosti kot eni izmed osrednjih jezikovnih sredstev za izražanje stališč in odnosa do predstavljene vsebine in s tem tudi za vzpostavitev dialoškega odnosa med avtorjem besedila in bralci. Skladno s spoznanji sodobnejših, v besedilo usmerjenih, pristopov, da je za rabo modalnih glagolov značilna tako za žanr kot tudi za disciplino specifična raba, se raziskava osredinja na analizo modalnih glagolov v izbranih besedilnih vrstah v logistiki. Izhajajoč iz spoznanja, da znanstveni diskurz poleg tradicionalno prepoznane objektivnosti pomembno zaznamuje tudi bolj subjektivno oziroma dialoško naravnan ton, raziskava pri tem kot osrednji cilj zasleduje odgovor na vprašanje, v kolikšni meri razmerje med objektivnim (dinamičnim) ter subjektivnim (epistemičnim in deontičnim) poročanjem odraža za žanr in disciplino specifično rabo. Študija pri tem uporabi kombinacijo kvantitativne in kvalitativne (semantične) analize, rezultati katere pri vseh besedilih pokažejo izrazito dihotomijo med dinamičnim na eni strani ter epistemičnim in deontičnim pomenom na drugi. Omenjena dihotomija vsaj delno sovpada z interdisciplinarno naravo logistike. Analizirana besedila pokažejo še nekatere druge razlike, in sicer relativno pogosto deontično rabo v raziskovalnih člankih, relativno pogosto epistemično rabo v znanstveni monografiji ter nekoliko višjo dinamično rabo v strokovnem priročniku. Le-te lahko vsaj delno pripišemo za žanr specifični rabi.

Ključne besede : modalnost, modalni glagoli, epistemičen, doentičen ter dinamičen pomen, besedilna vrsta, logistika.

UDK: 811.111'367.625:656(043.3)

1 INTRODUCTION

Modality is one of the key features of written as well as spoken discourse, in which it is frequently employed by writers and speakers to either qualify their commitment to the information they put forward or to indicate the possibility or necessity of the actualisation of the action referred to. These functions are undoubtedly important in all contexts, however, there are some in which they seem to even more significantly determine the textual voice. One such context is scientific and professional discourse, in which an important function of modality is to position new knowledge and findings vis-à-vis the findings of other researchers as well as vis-à-vis the intended audience. As evidenced by numerous contextual studies of modality, its specific use and function in scientific and professional discourse is shaped by discipline- and genre-specific conventions, which have developed gradually in response to specific settings and communicative functions. Accordingly, to successfully communicate their findings and ideas, authors of scientific and professional texts should first of all strive to conform to discipline- specific norms when positioning their ideas and viewpoints in the broader disciplinary context and seeking approval from their disciplinary colleagues as well as more general public. Different texts being further defined by genre-specific conventions, authors of disciplinary texts should also observe and conform to communicative norms of a chosen genre. As meanings are constructed between writers and readers, successful transfer of meanings intended by the writers is conditioned not only by the writer’s informed use of language but also by the reader’s informed academic reading, i.e. awareness and recognition of genre- and discipline-specific conventions. In recognition of the role that the study of language use in disciplinary genres can play in enhancing informed disciplinary reading and writing, the present thesis sets out to explore and provide a structured account of the communicative function of modality expressed through modal verbs, which could prove useful to anyone involved in the teaching and learning of English for logistics and other related disciplines as well as anyone involved in scientific and professional writing in logistics and related disciplines.

Although language skills needed for informed academic reading and writing are largely language-universal, informed use of certain linguistic features, with one of them being modality, calls for language-specific focus of analysis. Accordingly, in recognition of the fact that due to internationalisation and globalisation of academic activity, the majority of academic discourse today is in English, which has gradually but steadily established itself as a lingua franca in academia (Hyland, 2007, pp. 1- 2), the present thesis will focus on the analysis of disciplinary discourse in English and start from the postulate that due to internationalisation and globalisation of academic activity academic writing and reading (in English) have become one of the researcher’s key skill sets, which incorporates both a thorough understanding and know-how of a discipline as well as genre- and discipline-specific “discourse conventions” (ibid.).

One linguistic phenomenon importantly defined by both genre- and discipline- specific setting is undoubtedly modality, which authors commonly employ for subtle expression of their views and for engaging with readers. In English, modality is most frequently expressed through modal verbs, which are nevertheless far from the only modal expressions in this language. However, due to recognition of modal verbs as prototypical expressions of modality in English coupled with the fact that English modal verbs exhibit idiosyncratic features, which might prove difficult to fully understand not only to non-native but also native speakers of English, recent decades have witnessed a growing interest in the study of the role of modal verbs in different academic genres across different disciplines as well as across different languages. Studies up to now have focused on traditional disciplines, such as medicine, economics and literary criticism, leaving logistics as a relatively young science marked by its interdisciplinary nature an area that still needs to be researched from this perspective. To contribute to filling this gap, the present thesis focuses on the analysis of scientific and professional discourse in the field of logistics. Following the view that language, or, relatedly, any kind of discourse is not determined only by its specific setting of use but also by its specific communicative purpose (Piqué-Angordans, Posteguillo, Andreu-Besó, 2002, p. 49), the present analysis of modal verbs in logistics scientific and professional discourse takes a genre- and discipline-oriented approach with the goal of

2 establishing whether commonly used genres in logistics show genre- and perhaps also discipline-specific use of modal verbs and to shed light on respective communicative functions which importantly shape the textual voice of disciplinary genres. Although the focus of the present study is scientific texts, it will, however, also provide an insight into professional texts and dialogues, which frequently present an important part of student and research work besides being crucial to professionals involved with logistics in practice. The main goal of the present analysis is thus to discover whether in line with the findings of more recent studies of English modality, which have employed text-type oriented approaches and studied different contextual factors that influence the use of modal verbs and modal meanings they express, logistics as an interdisciplinary science combining methods and concepts of different disciplines, including sciences like engineering, social sciences and economics, has developed discipline-specific use of modal verbs. As English modal verbs exhibit many idiosyncratic uses, which might prove especially difficult to grasp for non-native speakers of English, the present study also aims to find out what some of these uses are as well as how the use of modal verbs in English compares to the use of modal verbs in Slovene.

To provide an objective insight into the potential genre- and discipline-specific use of modal verbs in logistics discourse, analysis of modal verbs will start from the corpus-based approach, or, to be more specific, from the qualitative analysis of corpus data. Next, all the occurrences of modal verbs will be semantically analysed in their context of use and classified as epistemic, deontic and dynamic (Palmer, 1990), while further semantic analysis will focus on communicative functions, which play a critical role in shaping the textual voice in a manner that successfully combines neutrality with persuasion and humility of the author, which is crucial to successful academic writing.

Pursuing the above mentioned goal – identification of genre- and discipline-specific variation in the use of modal verbs in logistics discourse – the present thesis combines quantitative and qualitative (semantic) analysis and is structured as follows:

Chapter 2 introduces the theoretical background of the present thesis and starts with a brief historical overview of the concept of modality and some frequently referenced classifications of modality. Next, it discusses the characterisation of modality by modal verbs and gives a detailed account of Palmer’s (1990) analytic three-fold division of modality into epistemic, deontic and dynamic modal meanings. The sections that follow shed light on genre, discipline and language variation in the use of modal verbs, whereby discussion is based on the review of previous research on these issues. Relating to discipline variation, this chapter also introduces historical and epistemological origins of logistics and the role of logistics today.

An in-depth presentation of the motivation for the present research and related research questions and hypotheses are given in Chapter 3. This chapter also provides an outline of the corpus linguistic setting and the corpus of logistics texts. It rounds up with a detailed presentation of research methods employed in the analysis of modal verbs in the corpus data and two separate divisions of logistics discourse, English dialogues on logistically related issues and a sample of a Slovene scientific textbook on logistics.

After discussing the theoretical background and findings of previous research introduced in Chapter 2 and based on the methodological framework introduced in Chapter 3, Chapter 4 provides a detailed review of the results obtained in the quantitative and semantic analysis of modal verbs in logistics discourse, whereby the results are interpreted in the light of research questions and hypotheses. Accordingly, frequencies and communicative functions of individual modal verbs are discussed from the perspective of genre- and discipline-specific conventions, which are frequently recognised as the reflections of the intended audience, interpersonal relationships between the author and audience and communicative function. The chapter concludes with an insight into the use of modal verbs in a Slovene scientific textbook on logistics, whereby the main goal is to identify the commonly used modal verbs in Slovene scientific discourse and see whether Palmer’s (1990) classification into epistemic, deontic and dynamic modal meaning could also be applied to the Slovene system of modal verbs.

Finally, Chapter 5 summarises all the findings of the empirical analysis and discusses potential practical implications of these findings for students, researchers and practitioners in the field of logistics as all logistically related issues, including spoken and written discourse, have been recognised as reflecting a markedly interdisciplinary nature of logistics. The chapter concludes with the presentation of the limitations of the present research and suggestions for future research.

2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND OF MODALITY

The overview of the theoretical background of modality begins with a brief introduction of the focal points of the present analysis of modality and modal verbs in logistics texts. After discussing the concept of modality from the historical perspective, it will focus on modality in linguistics and respective classifications of modal meaning. The present analysis of modal verbs is limited to the modals CAN, COULD, MAY, MIGHT, MUST, OUGHT TO and SHOULD and the semi-modals ABLE TO, BOUND TO, GOING TO and HAVE (GOT) TO through which an in- depth analysis of Palmer’s (1990) three-fold division of modality into epistemic, deontic and dynamic modal meanings will be presented. In line with the findings of more recent research on modality, the three modal meanings and related functions will be further discussed through the prism of genre, disciplinary and language variation.

2.1 INTRODUCTION TO MODALITY AND MODAL VERBS

Modality in English is a very complex grammatical or semi-grammatical category concerned with both form and notion (Palmer, 1990, p. 1). It is commonly associated with the meanings of ability, permission, possibility, obligation, necessity, volition and prediction (Biber, Johansson, Leech, Conrad, & Finegan, 1999, p. 485), while more subject-specific approaches to modality typically focus on the two central notions, i.e. the notion of possibility and necessity, and related modal categories. The mentioned notions of possibility and necessity are frequently used both in spoken and written discourse to qualify the author’s commitment to the truth value of claims they make or to define whether the actualisation of an event is possible or necessary (Depraetere & Reed, 2006, p. 269). Rather than presenting

5 something as a straightforward fact, speakers and writers can thus qualify their commitment to or detachment from the propositional content. Although “intersubjective positioning” of discourse (White, 2003) can be expressed through different lexical forms, including modal verbs, lexical verbs, adjectives, adverbs, nouns, particles, prosody and mood (Facchinetti, Krug, & Palmer, 2003, p. vi), modal verbs stand out as the form that is the most commonly used and studied grammatical class for the expression of modality in English.

Given their frequency of use and function, modal verbs importantly shape and define all types of discourse, be it the everyday use of language or the more sophisticated use(s). However, there are some contexts in which they seem to play an even more decisive role. Undoubtedly, one such context is academic discourse, in which the authors frequently use them to cautiously and accurately present their findings (Hyland, 1996, p. 433), to express obligation to “pursue knowledge” or “to take action” in line with the presented findings (Giltrow, 2005, p. 171), or to make objective statements (Palmer, 1990, p. 36). The importance of modal verbs in academic discourse can also be viewed through the prism of a dialogic view, whereby academic discourse, spoken and written, is interpreted as a verbal communication in which authors position their findings and views in relation to previous findings and knowledge about the topics addressed in their works as well as in relation to the expected audience and their response (White, 2003, p. 261). The importance of modal verbs and some other modality markers in academic discourse is also reflected in a growing number of studies on modality in academic texts, including the studies of Hyland (1998), Piqué-Angordans, Posteguillo, and Andreu-Besó (2002), Vázquez and Giner (2008), and Vold (2006). These, as well as other studies on modality in a specific context, i.e. the so called text-type oriented studies, are in line with the more recent approaches to English modality, which focus on context dependence or “contextuality” of communication (Heylighen & Dewaele, 2002, p. 293) and related contextual factors, i.e. discourse and stylistic factors (Fachinetti, Krug, & Palmer, 2003, p. x). Following the view that modal verbs are polysemous, i.e. communicate different semantically distinct modal meanings (Depraetere, 2014, p. 161), these contextual factors could also be interpreted in the light of modal restriction which contextually fills the modal’s

6 template (ibid.) or, as Kratzer (2013, p. 7) puts it, epistemic, dynamic or deontic reading of a modalised utterance is a result of a merger between “contextually provided modal restriction” and “the common sematic core” of a modal verb. In other words, the author determines in what sense a modal verb is used and the audience needs to recover the intended meaning (Depraetere, 2014, p. 161).

To sum up, findings of more recent studies of modality, the majority of which are text-type oriented, show that contextual factors undoubtedly importantly define the use and function of modal verbs in different types of discourse. In academic discourse, these contextual factors can be defined in broader terms of academic discourse as a whole as well as in narrower terms of both genre- and discipline- specific academic discourse. To shed light on how modal verbs are used and what function they perform in given genres in the field of logistics, the present analysis has employed both the genre- and discipline-specific approach as well as the language-specific approach, whereby it aims to answer the following research questions (RQs):

RQ1: Does the use of modal verbs in logistics scientific and professional genres show a preference for any modal meaning, i.e. epistemic, deontic or dynamic, and related communicative functions? RQ2: Does the use of modal verbs in logistics scientific and professional genres demonstrate any genre-specific differences? RQ3: Is the interdisciplinary nature of logistics reflected in the use of modal verbs and their respective communicative functions? RQ4: Does the use of modal verbs in a Slovene scientific textbook show any specific similarities and/or differences with the use in an English scientific textbook? RQ5: Can the analytic approach to modality, i.e. from the perspective of epistemic, deontic and dynamic relations, used as a method contribute to a better understanding and interpretation of modal verb use in different languages in the field of logistics?

2.2 MODALITY

The concept of modality has been present from Aristotle’s time and it has been studied by logicians, philosophers as well as linguists (Tran, 2014, p. 12). In the course of history, the dynamics and complexity of the concept of modality has resulted in different definitions as well as different views on what it comprises and what it refers to. Relatedly, it has commonly been viewed as either being differentiated into two fundamentally distinct types of modality, i.e. metaphysical and conceptual modality (Kripke, 1980), or as being reduced into one broader concept, be it metaphysical (Fine, 2002) or conceptual (Jackson, 1998) modality, to subsume modal meanings of both categories (reproduced from Tahko, 2008, pp. 172-173). When viewed as discrete categories, metaphysical modality is more closely related to logical approaches, while conceptual modality is closer to linguistic approaches.

In linguistics, however, the term modality may again be understood in a broader or narrower sense. The first, i.e. broader sense, is used far less frequently and refers to any kind of qualification of a state of affairs (Nuyts, 2006, p. 1). When so used, it is synonymous with grammatical tense-aspect-modality (TAM) categories (ibid.). More commonly, the term is used in a narrower sense, which views it as a “semantic subfield” of the domain of TAM categories (ibid.) and associates it with tense and aspect. In the framework of this latter view, all three categories – time, aspect and modality – are typically associated with the verb (Palmer, 2003, p. 5) and related with “the event or situation that is reported by the utterance” (Palmer, 2001, p. 1). Nevertheless, while the category of tense and aspect refer directly to the time and nature of the event respectively, the category of modality refers to the status of the proposition expressed by the sentence (ibid.) and thus semantically relates not only to the verb, but to the sentence as a whole (Palmer, 1986, p. 2), which places it at a higher level of abstraction than tense and aspect (Nuyts, 2006, p. 1). Accordingly, when compared with the other two TAM categories, modality appears to be vaguer and more difficult to define, as pointed out also by Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca (1994, p. 176):

Mood and modality are not so easily defined as tense and aspect… A definition often proposed is that modality is the grammaticization of speakers’ (subjective) attitudes and opinions […]. Recent cross-linguistic works on mood and modality, such as Palmer 1986, however, show that modality notions range far beyond what is included in this definition. In fact, it may be impossible to come up with a succinct characterization of the notional domain of modality and the part of it that is expressed grammatically.

As mentioned by the quote above, the grammatical category of modality is related to mood. Palmer’s use (1986) of these two terms in the combination “mood and modality” undoubtedly paved the way for its subsequent use, despite the fact it was the result of the author’s misinterpretation of the distinction between the two categories (Palmer, 2003, p. 2). As explicated in Palmer (2001, p. 4, 2003, p. 2), mood is namely only one sub-category of a wider category of modality, the other sub-category being modal system. Typically, these two sub-categories are “mutually exclusive” and most languages have either of the two (Palmer, 2001, p. 4). In modern English, modality is presented by modal system, while mood has almost disappeared and is only occasionally identified when the past tense is used for unreality (e.g. “ If he came tomorrow …”) or when the uninflected form of a verb is used in subordinate clauses (e.g. “I suggest he come tomorrow ”) (Palmer, 1990, p. 12). The modal system of modern English comprises different linguistic features, namely ones which most obviously involve modality expressed by modal verbs (e.g. must ), certain adverbs (e.g. maybe ), and certain adjectives (e. g. possible ) (Portner, 2009, p. 2). As pointed out by numerous authors, including Palmer (2003, p. 2) and Depraetere and Reed (2006, p. 270), modal verbs are the principal or prototypical expressions of modality in the English language.

Another fundamental notion for modality is the notion of possible worlds (Vihla, 1999, p. 1), which cuts across both logical and linguistic approaches to modality. It was first introduced by Leibniz in 1924 (ibid.). Following the Leibnizian idea of possible worlds, Hintikka and Kripke, among others, developed the possible world semantics in the late 1950s and early 1960s, which consequently revolutionised the formal theory of modality (Kaufmann, Condoravdi, & Harizanov, 2006, p. 71). While the Lebnizian notion of possible worlds “refers to the possibilities God had

9 when he was creating the world: God picked the best of all possible worlds” (Mutanen, 2014, p. 54), Hintikka (1961) and Krippke (1959) in their view on the relation between possible worlds »adopted a new notion of validity that required truth in all arbitrary sets of worlds” (Balarin, 2014). In 1963, Kripke further defined possible worlds by characterizing them “as simple points of evaluation” (ibid.). Two decades later (in 1985), the notion of possible worlds was redefined by Chung and Timberlake, who used the concepts “event world(s)” and “a reference world” in their identification of mood:

Mood characterizes the actuality of an event by comparing the event world(s) to a reference world, termed the actual world. An event can simply be actual (more precisely, the event world is identical to the actual world); the event can be hypothetically possible (the event world is not identical to the actual world); the event may be imposed by the speaker on the addressee; and so on. Whereas there is basically one way for an event to be actual, there are numerous ways that an event can be less than completely actual. (Chung & Timberlake, 1985, p. 241)

Chung and Timberlake’s identification of mood can be expanded to modality, where different modal meanings can be defined in terms of the type of relationship between the event world and a reference world, these relationship being commonly interpreted in terms of the possibility or necessity of the event.

In line of the quotes above, modality is a complex category, which in linguistics is commonly viewed as a grammatical or semi-grammatical category that importantly contributes to human language capacity “to convey information about objects and events that are displaced not only in time and space but also in actuality or potentiality” (Portner, 2009, p. xi). Due to its important function in human language, modality has become the subject of typological studies, which focus on “explaining language structures through analyzing their function” and typically involve “cross-linguistic comparisons and generalizations” (de Haan, 2006, p. 27). Another important characteristic of a great number of typological approaches to modality is their orientation towards the semantic aspects (ibid.). In other words, function of modality and related modal expressions should be studied in its context of use (ibid.), which Piqué-Angordans, Posteguillo, and Andreu-Besó (2002, p. 49)

10 defined as “a specific setting” and “communicative purpose” of a given discourse. Rather than being viewed as a one-way relation, this interdependence of modality and its context of use should be viewed as a two-way relation in which modality, too, importantly shapes the discourse and is thus seen as a “semantics by which the textual voice maps out its relationships with the various value positions brought into communicative play by the text” (White, 2003, pp. 280-281). This dialogic function of modality is undoubtedly important in all types of discourse and underlines its ultimate purpose, which is “to affect a hearer’s mental state” (Moore & Pollack, 1992, p. 538). Nevertheless, in more sophisticated contexts, such as academic discourse, modality seems to be of even greater importance because of its critical role in positioning new knowledge and findings in relation to previous works on the discussed topic on the one hand and persuading the audience on the other.

Following the tradition of typological studies (Chung & Timberlake, 1985; Givon, 1984; Palmer, 1986, 2001), the present study of modal verbs as a prototypical expression of modality in English focuses on their function in logistics scientific and professional discourse in English and compares it with the system and function of modal verbs in Slovene.

2.3 STUDIES OF MODALITY: PAST TO PRESENT

In linguistics, as already mentioned (cf. 2.2), modality is a complex and rather vague category, especially when compared to related TAM categories of tense and aspect. Relatedly, modality, as proposed by Nuyts (2006, pp. 1-15), can be viewed as a rather loosely structured category belonging to a higher level of abstraction than tense and aspect and comprising a set of rather disparate semantic notions. Consequently, there is no consensus among scholars on which semantic notions and dimensions belong to the category of modality, the frequently disputed categories being alethic modality, boulomaic modality/attitude and evidentiality, as well as on its further categorisation into distinct modal categories (ibid., p. 2).

Despite, or perhaps because of, its vagueness, modality has attracted attention not only of many linguists but also of logicians and philosophers, who attempted to

11 establish a set of modal categories. The roots of categorisation of modality date back to a logician von Wright, who in 1951 proposed its division into alethic, epistemic, deontic and existential mode. Of these four modes, epistemic and deontic mode are frequently taken as the two central modes, subsuming alethic and existential mode respectively. Epistemic mode is used to express the evaluation of the truth value of a proposition, i.e. to show how confident the speaker is about what he/she is saying, while deontic mode is primarily used to show whether the actualisation of an event is possible or necessary, or, in other words, whether it is permissible or obligatory. Although many subsequent works on modality in linguistics have followed von Wright’s tradition, including for example Lyons (1977) and Palmer (1986), there is a growing number of studies that have recognised that all non-epistemic modal meanings do not fit the category of deontic modality. In response to this gap in the epistemic/deontic distinction of modal meanings, the term root modality was introduced in the late 1960s to subsume all non-epistemic modal meanings (de Haan, 2006, pp. 29-30). One of the most prominent proponents of a two-fold division of modality into epistemic and root modality is Coates, who in her study of modal verbs in modern British English (1983) uses the term root modality as a cover term for all non-epistemic modal meanings (pp. 20-21). Many scholars followed this suit, including Sweetser (1990) and Papafragou (1997); however, there are also others, including Palmer (1990, 2001, 2003), Nuyts (2006), and Fachinetti (2003), who find differences within root modality big enough to justify its breakdown into two separate categories, the category of deontic and dynamic modality, the main distinctions between the two categories being conditioning factors (Palmer, 2001, p. 9). Namely, with deontic modality the actualisation of the event is conditioned by some kind of authority, be it a speaker, a set of rules or a social norm (Depraetere & Reed, 2006, p. 274), whereas with dynamic modality the conditioning factor is either internal to the individual concerned, i.e. the subject’s ability or capability, or external, i.e. general or external circumstances (Palmer, 2001, pp. 9-10, 70).

Any categorisation of modal meanings into discrete categories – be it a two-fold division into deontic and epistemic or into epistemic and root/non-epistemic modality, or a three-fold division into epistemic, deontic and dynamic modality – is

12 based on the polysemantic approach to modality (Coates, 1983, p. 9). Rather than defining each modal verb in the light of its basic or core meaning that should be applicable to all its uses, which is typical of the monosemantic approach, polysemantic approaches to modality deal with modal verbs in terms of the modal meanings they express and can thus be assigned to diverse modal categories (ibid.).

After years of discussion on the different approaches to the categorisation of modality, there is, however, still no real consensus on the categorisation of the modal meanings which do not belong to the category of epistemic modality, while the status of the latter modality remains more or less undisputed. Nevertheless, a three-fold division of modal meanings into epistemic, deontic and dynamic modality has gradually established itself as one of the most frequently referenced and used classifications since Palmer introduced it in his work Modality and the English Modals (1990), which presents one of the milestones in the linguistic study of modality.

The semantic analysis of modal verbs in the present study also follows Palmer’s three-fold division, which, as the author (ibid., pp. 15-17) explains, is based on the “multi-dimensional framework” that, in effect, could be paralleled to the polysemantic approach to modality. The semantic analysis of modal verbs in logistics scientific and professional discourse thus sets out to classify all the occurrences of modal verbs according to their meanings in a given context, whereby the main goal is to identify which, if any, modal meanings and related functions are predominantly used with these modal verbs and how their use reflects genre- and discipline-specific conventions.

This brief introduction into the semantic classification of modal meanings will now be followed by a brief chronological overview and discussion of fundamental theoretical studies of modality.

2.3.1 Jespersen (1924)

Jespersen’s discussion of moods (1924, pp. 313-321) presents a pioneering work on semantic analysis of moods (Faquire, 2012, p. 4; Palmer, 1986, pp. 9-10). According to the author (1924, pp. 53, 313), only the first three of the five moods,

13 i.e. imperative, indicative, subjunctive, infinitive and participle, fully merit their inclusion in the category of moods. These three moods can also be referred to as “will-mood”, “fact-mood” and “thought-mood” respectively and are best defined as a category that is used to “express certain attitudes of the mind of the speaker towards the contents of the sentence” (ibid., p. 313). As further explicated by the author, the choice of mood can be determined not only by the attitude of the speaker but also by “the character of the clause itself and its relation to the main nexus on which it is dependent” (ibid.). Another important significance of Jespersen’s pioneering work is his proposal of logical categorisation of notional ideas expressed through verbal moods and auxiliaries (ibid., pp. 320-321). He proposes a two-fold division into moods “containing an element of will” and moods “containing no element of will” and further division of these two major categories into twenty sub- categories (ibid.):

I. Containing an element of will: Jussive: go (command). Compulsive: he has to go. Obligative: he ought to go/we should go. Advisory: you should go. Precative: go, please. Hortative: let us go. Permissive: you may go if you like. Promissive: I will go/it shall be done. Optative (realizable): may he be still alive! Desiderative (unrealizable): would he were still alive! Intentional: in order that he may go. II. Containing no element of will: Apodictive: twice two must be (is necessarily) four. Necessitative: he must be rich (or he could not spend so much). Assertive: he is rich. Presumptive: he is probably rich; he would (will) know. Dubitative: he may be (is perhaps) rich.

Potential: he can speak. Conditional: if he is rich. Hypothetical: if he were rich. Concessional: though he is rich.

As pointed out by the author himself, his categorisation of moods based on the notional ideas they express may have some deficiencies, such as overlaps (ibid., p. 320); nevertheless, his introduction of a two-fold categorisation of notional moods, which roughly parallels the epistemic/deontic distinction, is of vital importance for linguistic studies of modality.

2.3.2 Von Wright (1951)

Another fundamental work on modality is von Wright’s essay on modal logic (Palmer, 1986, pp. 10-11), which introduces the following four discrete modal categories or modi: (i) the alethic modes or modes of truth; (ii) the epistemic modes or modes of knowing; (iii) the deontic modes or modes of obligation; and (iv) the existential modes or modes of existence (von Wright, 1951, pp. 1-2). The author, nevertheless, suggests that there may be other modal categories, but limits his discussion on these four. The first one, i.e. the category of alethic modes, has traditionally been the main concern of modal logic (ibid., p. 1; Palmer, 1990, p. 6) but is of no real importance to studies of linguistic modality, which focuses on modalities that are clearly recognizable in ordinary language (Palmer, 1990, p. 6). An example of alethic use of the verb MUST, may, as suggested by Palmer (1986, p. 11, 1990, p. 6), be found in: “ He is a bachelor, so he must be unmarried.”. Contrary to alethic modes, the second and third category, i.e. epistemic and deontic modes, are typical representatives of modal meanings used in ordinary language and thus considered to be the two central notions in linguistic modality. As pointed out by Palmer (1986, p. 11), these two central modes roughly correspond to the two major sets of modal meanings proposed by Jespersen (cf. 2.3.1). While the mentioned second and third category attract little attention of logicians, the fourth, i.e. the category of existential modes, is most often not even considered as a branch of modal logic but as a matter of quantificational logic (Palmer, 1990, p. 7) and, accordingly, in ordinary language it is more frequently associated with quantifiers,

15 such as some, any and all , than with modal expressions. Although these issues raise the question whether existential modes exhibit modal attributes, similarities between alethic, epistemic and deontic modes on the one hand and quantifiers on the other seem to justify the treatment of existential modes together with the other three categories (von Wright, 1951, p. 2). The author (ibid.) describes these similarities as:

alethic epistemic deontic existential necessary verified obligatory universal possible permitted existing contingent undecided indifferent impossible falsified forbidden empty

Von Wright’s proposal of four modal categories frequently serves as a starting point for the categorisation of modal meanings in linguistics, whereby epistemic and deontic modal meanings are typically treated as the two central categories, while alethic and existential modal meanings are frequently integrated into the category of epistemic modes (e.g. in Palmer, 1986). Another important legacy of von Wright’s discussion of modes is his recognition of dynamic modality, which he discusses in a footnote to alethic modality. He namely observes that modal words used to express alethic modal meanings, for example the modal verb CAN, may in colloquial language be used with the notions of ability and disposition, as in: “Jones can speak German ” (von Wright, 1951, p. 28). Despite his observation that many modal words used for the expression of alethic modality can also be used for the expression of dynamic modality, the author leaves the question open as to whether dynamic modality should be integrated into alethic modality or not (ibid.). Actually, the dilemma whether dynamic modal meanings should be treated as a separate category or be integrated into any of the other of the two central modal categories of linguistic modality, i.e. epistemic or deontic, is still unresolved, which is evident from different approaches to this issue. Some authors even suggest that because contrary to epistemic and deontic modality, dynamic modality does not relate to the speaker but rather to the ability or volition of the subject of the sentence, it may,

16 strictly speaking, not be modality at all (Palmer, 1990, p. 7). Accordingly, (at least part of) dynamic modal meanings are frequently treated under the umbrella category of epistemic on the one hand and non-epistemic modality on the other (e.g. Coates, 1983; Palmer, 1986) or as a separate modal category (e.g. Palmer, 1990, 2001, 2003), as will be seen in 2.3.3 and 2.3.4.

2.3.3 Coates (1983)

Coates’ work The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries (1983) represents one of the first comprehensive studies of linguistic modality. The study is based on the corpus analysis of modal auxiliaries in written and spoken language, which distinguishes it as one of the first comprehensive corpus-based studies. As explained by the author, evidence derived from the corpus analysis makes the study less dependent on subjective interpretations, which she recognises as one of the main defects of previous studies that approached the study of modal auxiliaries from different perspectives, as, for example, in terms of speech acts (Boyd & Thorne, 1969), of systemic grammar (Halliday, 1970), of feature analysis (Marino, 1973) and of stratificational grammar (Johannessen, 1976) (reproduced from Coates, 1983, p. 3). Despite the fact that the corpus analysis of written and spoken authentic texts provides a lot of invaluable information about modal auxiliaries, there are still areas needing further evidence, with one of them being the area of indeterminacy 1. In Coates’ work, further evidence needed for resolving indeterminate uses is provided by informant tests (ibid., pp. 2-3), while her corpus analysis examines modal auxiliaries in written material taken from the Lancaster corpus (1,000,000 words) and spoken material taken from the corpus of the Survey of English Usage (545,000 words) (ibid., pp. 1-2). A comparative study of the frequencies and semantic characteristics focuses on the following ten modals: CAN, COULD, MAY, MIGHT, MUST, OUGHT, SHALL, SHOULD, WILL and WOULD as well as the semi-modals BE ABLE TO, BE BOUND TO, BE GOING TO and HAVE TO

1 Relating to the Root-Epistemic distinction, the author explains indeterminacy by the fact that examples assigned to these two categories cover a range of meaning (Coates, 1983, p. 10). Furthermore, she explains that there were three types of indeterminacy in the corpora included in her study: gradience, ambiguity and merger (ibid., p. 14). For a more detailed explanation of ambiguity and merger see 2.4.2.4.

(ibid., p. 5). Balancing the merits of the monosemantic (proposed for example by Joos (1964)) and the polysemantic approach (used for example by Leech (1971) and Palmer (1979)) (cf. 2.3) the author concludes that since both of them are relevant to the semantic analysis of modal verbs, a combination of both should be used for this purpose.

Based on the results of the analysis of corpus examples of modal auxiliaries, Coates thus proposes a two-fold division into epistemic and root modality. Namely, the results of her analysis showed that both epistemic and root modals show certain grammatical, syntactic as well as stress and intonation patterns that distinguish them from each other; for example, with epistemic modals negation normally affects the proposition and they have no past tense forms, while animate subjects and agentive verbs are typically associated with root modals (ibid., pp. 20-21). Besides that, the author finds further evidence for discrete distinction between epistemic and root modal meanings in the occurrence of ambiguous cases, i.e. cases for which one of the possible meanings must be chosen (e.g. “He must understand that we mean business.” – based on the evidence provided in the broader context of use must here should be read as either epistemic or root (ibid., p. 16)), as well as in the existence of distinct paraphrases: “It is possible that”/ “I confidently infer that”/ “In the light of what is known, it is necessarily the case that” for epistemic and “It is possible/necessary for” for root modal meanings (ibid., pp. 10, 33, 41). With reference to her analysis of root modal meanings, Coates further argues that although root modals cover a range of different meanings, which some authors divide into deontic and dynamic modal meanings, these differences in modal meanings should rather than that be treated in terms of a cline extending from subjective to objective and a cline extending from strong to weak meaning, whereby the latter reflects essential unity of non-epistemic modal meanings (ibid., pp. 10, 14, 15).

Coates’ analysis of English modal auxiliaries presents an invaluable insight into their use and meanings in natural language and is frequently referenced not only by authors who support a two-fold division of modality, be it the epistemic/non- epistemic or the epistemic/root distinction (e.g. Sweetser, 1990) but also by authors

18 who argue that differences within the category of non-epistemic or root modality merit further division, typically into deontic and dynamic modality (e.g. Palmer, 1990). This thus brings us to another distinguished scholar in the field of linguistic modality, that is, Palmer.

2.3.4 Palmer ([1979], 1990 and [1986], 2001)

Besides Coates’ seminal corpus study of English modal verbs, Palmer’s works on modality and modal verbs in English ([1979], 1990) as well as his works on typological studies of modality ([1986], 2001) are among works which are often referenced as fundamental works on linguistic modality.

Following von Wright’s proposal of four modal categories, i.e. alethic, epistemic, deontic and existential, Palmer in his earlier works (e.g. 1986) proposes a two-fold division of modal meanings, i.e. epistemic/deontic division. He maintains that these two modal meanings are “the two most semantically fundamental” types of modality (Palmer, 1990, p. 2). The centrality of epistemic and deontic modality is reflected also in Lyons’ proposal (1977, p. 452) for the definition of modality which, as Palmer (1986, p. 2) summarizes, could be defined as a category “concerned with the ‘opinion and attitude’ of the speaker”. This definition thus focuses on subjectivity, which in English is predominantly associated with epistemic and deontic modality, and is thus less relevant to dynamic modality, which due to its subject-orientation is typically objective (Palmer, 1990, p. 36). Subject-orientation of dynamic modality, in fact, made some scholars question its status, i.e. whether or not it should be included in the modal system (Palmer, 1990, pp. 2, 7). This dilemma is reflected also in Palmer’s approach to dynamic modality in his first edition of the work Mood and Modality (1986, p. 12), where, following von Wright (1951), he mentions it as a set of modal meanings used for the expression of ability and disposition, but decides not to deal with it in the form of a separate modal category. Rather than that, he discusses “its status in relation to other modalities” (Palmer, 1986, p. 12). Later, his approach to dynamic modality changes and the author recognises that this somewhat peripheral modal category does merit the inclusion in the modal system. In the second edition of the same work (2001) he thus introduces a three-fold division of modality, i.e. division into epistemic,

19 deontic and dynamic modality (Palmer, 2001, p. 8), which roughly corresponds to his earlier proposal of division of modals into epistemic, discourse-oriented and subject-oriented modals (Palmer, 1990, p. 36). In his typological account of modality (Palmer, 2001, pp. 7-10), Palmer further refines his approach to classification of modality by the introduction of two super categories, i.e. propositional and event modality. The first one refers to “the speaker’s attitude to the truth-value or factual status of the proposition” while the second one refers to events that are “merely potential”, i.e. necessary or possible (ibid., p. 8). As further explained by the author, the two main types of propositional modality are epistemic and evidential modality, the main difference between them being the bases for the speakers’ conclusions; with epistemic modality conclusions are based on the speakers’ “judgments about the factual status of the proposition” while with evidential modality conclusions are based on the evidence speakers have for the factual status of the proposition (ibid.). The two main categories of event modality, on the other hand, are deontic and dynamic, whereby the main difference between these two meanings lies in conditioning factors; namely, with deontic modality permission and obligation typically come from factors “external to the relevant individual”, while with dynamic modality ability and volition typically come from factors “internal” to the individual concerned (ibid., p. 9). With reference to this characterisation of deontic and dynamic modality, it should be further noted that with deontic modality conditioning factors may occasionally be internal, for example when deontic modals of necessity are used with I or we to express “weak necessity” (Palmer, 1990, pp. 74-75). Likewise, conditioning factors with dynamic modality may also be external, i.e. when actualisation of the event expressed by the main verb relies on general circumstances that immediately affect the subject’s ability, as in: “He can escape.” (Palmer, 2001, p. 10).

This brief overview of Palmer’s approach to the categorisation of modality well illustrates the fact that modality is a rather vague category, which was pointed out also by the author himself (Palmer, 1986, p. 2). This is also reflected in the fact that he starts out from a two-fold division into epistemic and deontic modality, but later introduces a three-fold division into epistemic, deontic and dynamic modality. The

20 latter division has gradually established itself as one of the most widely referenced models and will be presented in greater detail in 2.4.2.

2.3.5 Leech ([1971], 1987)

In addition to the above discussed works, Leech’s discussion of modal verbs ([1971], 1987) provides another invaluable insight into their use and modal meanings. As the author points out in the preface of the second edition of this work, his analysis of modal verbs in this edition is refined and primarily based on “important new thinking” presented in Coates’ The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries (1983) and in Palmer’s Modality and the English Modals (1979) (reproduced from Leech, 1987, p. viii). Like Coates’ (1983) and Palmer’s (1979) analysis, Leech’s analysis (1987, pp. 73-88) of modal verbs and modal meanings they express, too, is based on the polysemantic approach. Nevertheless, while Coates’ and Palmer’s discussion of the analysis is structured on the basis of meaning (cf. 2.3.3 and 2.3.4), Leech’s discussion “takes grammatical forms as its point of departure” (ibid., p. 2). Despite these differences, parallels could be drawn between these two approaches: in both cases the analysis of modal meanings is based on the notions of possibility and necessity as well as their function in colloquial language (ibid., p. 70).

As mentioned above, Leech’s systematic explanation of the semantics of the English modal verbs is based on the form, that is, on the modals MAY, CAN, MUST, HAVE (GOT) TO, WILL and SHALL, to which different meanings are ascribed. With reference to these modal meanings, Leech acknowledges two important points: the first being that the ratio between modal meanings expressed by individual modal verbs is predominantly unbalanced and the majority of modals show a preference for one modal meaning, i.e. “the most common and most important meaning”, the only exception being the modal MUST, with which modal meanings of obligation (i.e. deontic necessity) and logical (i.e. epistemic) necessity are shared almost equally (ibid., p. 72). The second important observation is that the differences between modal meanings and related categories are not always clear-cut, which is why the author proposes that modal meanings of individual modal verbs should be discussed in terms of “scales of similarity and difference”

(ibid.). Using the example of the three modal meanings of CAN, i.e. possibility, ability and permission, he illustrates that representing differences between these three meanings in the form of a scale is a useful resource when it is difficult to decide which modal meaning is used (ibid.):

possibility

permission ability

Providing a different perspective on modal verbs and their meanings, which to a great extent is based on the findings by Coates and Palmer, Leeches’ work (1987) undoubtedly importantly contributes to the understanding of English modal meanings, which is why it will serve as a basis for the presentation of the categorisation of modal meanings by modal verbs also in this thesis (cf. 2.4.2).

2.4 CHARACTERISATION OF MODALITY

Since modality is a rather vague category, there is still no real consensus among scholars, logicians, philosophers or linguists alike, on its characterisation, the two most frequently disputed issues being which modal meanings should be included in the wider category of modal meanings and how the category of modality should be divided.

When narrowing the question of characterization of modality to linguistics, it can be characterised either in terms of meaning or in terms of form. The first approach was, among others, used by Coates (cf. 2.3.3) and Palmer (cf. 2.3.4), while the second was used by Leech (cf. 2.3.5). Nevertheless, of all the mentioned approaches, the one introduced by Palmer ([1979], 1990), i.e. dividing modality into epistemic, deontic and dynamic modal meaning, is one of the most widely credited categorisations of modality. Of the mentioned Palmer’s three main modal meanings, epistemic and deontic meaning are typically recognised as “semantically fundamental kinds of modality” (Palmer, 1990, p. 2), while the status of dynamic modality is less certain and frequently even disputed. Uncertainties regarding the status of dynamic modality are primarily related to its subject-orientation, which

Palmer illustrates with the modal verbs CAN and WILL, which are used for the expression of ability and volition, respectively, and in this function refer not to the speaker, as do epistemic and deontic modality, but to characteristics of the subject of the sentence (ibid.). Despite this difference, in the broader sense, modal verbs used dynamically seem to show some similarities with epistemic and deontic modality, including “lack of factuality” and related involvement of the notions of possibility and necessity (Depraetere & Reed, 2006, p. 269). Accordingly, dynamic modal meanings seem to merit the inclusion into the modal system, but when compared to “the more central [epistemic and deontic] modal meanings”, they occupy a more peripheral position (Palmer, 1990, p. 2).

Linguists have thus approached the characterisation of modality either from meaning to form or in the opposite direction. To provide a comprehensive overview of linguistic modality, both approaches and respective categorisations will now be presented, first, the categorisation of modality by modal verbs proposed by Leech (1987) and then the analytic three-fold division of modality into epistemic, deontic and dynamic modal meanings, as proposed by Palmer (1990). The latter will also serve as a starting point for semantic analysis of modal verbs in logistics scientific and professional texts. As further semantic analysis of modal verbs in logistics texts will focus on their communicative functions in their context of use, findings of studies focusing on communicative functions of modality in a given context of use, including studies of Brewer (1987), Giltrow (2005), Vihla (1999), and Vold (2006), will also be discussed.

2.4.1 Characterisation by modal verbs

This brief overview of the characterisation of modality by modal verbs will start with an introduction of the system of English modal verbs, which are far from the only, but undoubtedly the principal and best-known means of expressing modality in English (Depraetere & Reed, 2006, p. 270; de Haan, 2006, p. 32). Although categorisation of modal verbs as a separate and distinct grammatical category has been questioned by some scholars, they are, nevertheless, frequently treated as a separate grammatical category, i.e. the category of modal verbs or modal auxiliaries, based on the following six formal criteria (Palmer, 1990, p. 4):

a) Negative form n’t b) Inversion with the subject c) Code d) Emphatic affirmation e) No -s form of the 3 rd person singular f) No non-finite forms (infinitives, past and present participles) g) No co-occurrence

The first four criteria, the so called NICE properties (Huddlestone, 1976, p. 333), distinguish primary and modal auxiliaries from all other verbs, which is why further criteria, the last three, are used to distinguish modal auxiliaries from both primary auxiliaries and all other verbs (Palmer, 1990, p. 4).

Based on the abovementioned seven criteria, the following ten modal verbs can be set out as the core or central modal verbs: CAN, COULD, MAY, MIGHT, MUST, WILL, WOULD, SHALL, SHOULD and OUGHT TO (Coates, 1983, p. 4; Palmer, 1990, p. 4). Although the modal OUGHT TO fits all the formal criteria and semantically belongs to the system, it is sometimes considered marginal (Coates, 1983, pp. 4-5) and as such is not included among the core modals (e.g. Biber et al., 1999, p. 484; Facchinetti, Krug, & Palmer, 2003, p. vi). Unlike the mentioned central modals, however, the modals DARE and NEED fit only the first two of the NICE properties and are clearly distinguishable from their non-modal forms only in the two related contexts, i.e. the context of negation: “ Dare he go ?” and interrogation: “ He daren’t go.” (Palmer, 1990, p. 4). The modal use of these two verbs is rare and more marginal (Coates, 1983, p. 5), the only exception being the interrogative and negative forms of NEED, which supply the missing non-assertive forms of MUST. Another important group of modal verbs are semi- or quasi-modals BE ABLE TO, BE BOUND TO, BE GOING TO and HAVE TO/HAVE GOT TO. Although they formally do not belong to the system and are far less frequent than modals, semi-modals nevertheless occupy an important position in the modal system by supplementing or contrasting the modals (Palmer, 1990, p. 25).

The main purpose of this section being to present characterisation of modality by modal verbs, it will now continue with the listing of modal verbs and their meanings based on Leech’s listing of modal verbs (1987, pp. 72-104) and related findings of other researchers on modality in English. This presentation will be limited to the modal verbs included in the analysis of the present thesis which are the modals CAN, MAY and MUST and related forms MIGHT and COULD, all of which hold “the central position” and are “clear exponents of possibility and necessity”, the modals OUGHT TO and SHOULD, which are formally modals and used for the expression of a part of necessity, and the semi-modals BE ABLE TO, BE BOUND TO, BE GOING TO and HAVE TO/HAVE GOT TO, which are formally not modal verbs but are semantically closely related to the system and supplement or contrast with the modals (Palmer, 1990, p. 25). Following Van der Auwera and Plungian (1998) and Depraetere (2014), the modals WILL and SHALL, which do not enter the “possibility vs. necessity paradigm” (Depraetere, 2014, p. 161), will not be included in the study. To show best how modal meanings of Leech’s (1987) and other related studies correspond to Palmer’s three-fold division of modality, parallels will be drawn to it.

2.4.1.1 CAN

The modal CAN is used for the expression of possibility, ability and permission (Leech, 1987, pp. 73-74) as well as a combination of possibility and ability meaning. Of these three meanings, the possibility meaning is used most commonly (Coates, 1983, p. 93), with one example being: “ If it rains, we can hold the meeting indoors.” (Leech, 1987, p. 73). If “the circumstances in which an event is possible” are clearly defined, as is the case here, we can talk about “circumstantial possibility” (Palmer, 1990, p. 84). If, on the other hand, no direct reference is made to enabling circumstances and CAN is used to indicate that “an event is possible”, we can speak of neutral possibility or general possibility (ibid.). In the framework of Palmer’s three-fold categorisation of modality both neutral and circumstantial possibility are classified as dynamic.

Likewise, the ability meaning of CAN, which, as observed by Leech (1987, p. 74), appears commonly, but nevertheless less frequently than the possibility meaning,

25 classifies as dynamic. An example of the ability meaning is: “Paula can’t sing, but she can play the guitar.” (ibid.). While ability is normally used with animate subjects, subject-orientation is also possible with inanimate subjects, whereby it indicates that they possess the “necessary qualities or ‘power’” (Palmer, 1999, p. 85). Unlike the possibility meaning, the ability meaning refers to the property inherent to the subject. It should be noted, however, that there is frequently no clear distinction between the ability and possibility meaning of CAN, as “‘ability’ implies ‘possibility’”, or, in other words, if somebody has the ability to do something, it is also possible that this will happen (Leech, 1987, p. 74). Coates (1983, p. 86) maintains that occurrences “intermediate between ‘Ability’ and ‘Possibility’ are linked through the gradient of inherency”.

CAN may also be used for the expression of permission and in this use it is almost interchangeable with MAY, which is more formal (Leech, 1987, p. 75). The permission meaning of CAN, an example of which is “You can stay here as long as you like.”, is used less commonly than the other two meanings (ibid., p. 74) and according to Palmer (1990) classifies as deontic. This permission sense sometimes overlaps with the possibility sense, whereby occurrences “are linked through the gradient of restriction” (Coates, 1983, p. 86) and are classified as the deontic/dynamic merger.

While the positive form CAN may be used for the expression of possibility, ability and permission, only the negative form CANNOT or CAN’T may, as observed by Coates (1983, p. 19) and Palmer (1990, pp. 60-61), also be used for the expression of subjective judgment to supplement the missing negative for MUST, as in: “ He can’t be working at this hour.” (Leech, 1987, p. 73). In terms of Palmer’s three-fold division this meaning classifies as epistemic.

A brief overview of the meanings of CAN shows that it is polysemous, i.e. used for the expression of different meanings and related communicative functions, whereby the most frequently used modal meaning is dynamic possibility, while its deontic and epistemic use are much less frequent, the latter being limited only to the negative form CANNOT or CAN’T. Occasionally, CAN is also used for the expression of a combination of deontic and dynamic meaning.

2.4.1.2 COULD

The modal meanings expressed by COULD are dynamic possibility and ability, deontic permission and epistemic, i.e. logical possibility. The distribution of dynamic and deontic meanings expressed by COULD resembles closely the distribution of these two meanings with CAN, while only the positive form COULD may also be used for the expression of epistemic meaning.

COULD, like CAN, is most frequently used for the expression of circumstantial and neutral possibility, i.e. dynamic modality, which is either past or tentative (Coates, 1983, p. 107): a) “I could get up and go to the kitchen whenever I wanted to.” (Palmer, 1990, p. 94) b) “Alternatively I could ask you to ring the lady concerned direct.” (ibid., p. 101)

The second most frequent meaning of COULD is ability, which may also be past or tentative: a) “I could never take to knitting except on those double O needles with string .” (Coates, 1983, p. 108) b) “They [Germans] are wonderful producers. They could produce the steel that we need .” (ibid.)

When used for the expression of past possibility or ability, COULD occurs where there is no implication of actuality or where reference is made to habitual actions (Palmer, 1990, pp. 92-96).

Besides being used for the expression of dynamic possibility, COULD, unlike CAN, may also be used for the expression of conceptual or logical 2, i.e. epistemic possibility, as for example in: “ A General Election could well be with us before the shape of local government in Greater London is settled .” (Coates, 1983, p. 166). Although still relatively low, this epistemic use, which has developed gradually, is growing in importance as “COULD is filling the gap left by MIGHT [which in most

2 As proposed by Palmer (1990), epistemic modal relations may also be understood in terms of logical or conceptual modal relations.

27 contexts is synonymous with MAY]” (ibid., p. 167). As “the new exponent of tentative Epistemic possibility” (ibid.), COULD may thus also be used for hedging or mitigation of claims 3 (White, 2003, p. 261).

With COULD, this epistemic use may overlap with dynamic use as there is frequently near equivalence between conceptual possibility and conditional experiential possibility: what is conceptually possible would also be possible in the world of experience (Palmer, 1990, p. 185). Occurrences for which both meanings are possible and do not exclude each other could be classified as epistemic/dynamic mergers, one example being: “ This could be the all important round. ” (ibid.).

COULD may also be used to ask for permission. In this deontic use COULD is more “diffident or polite” than CAN, as can be seen in: “ Well, could we go on to modern novels, then?” (ibid., p. 80).

To sum up, COULD, unlike CAN, may be used for the expression of all three modal meanings, i.e. dynamic, deontic and epistemic, of which dynamic modality is used most frequently. Besides that, COULD may also express a combination of epistemic and dynamic meaning, i.e. epistemic/dynamic mergers.

2.4.1.3 MAY

According to different authors, including Coates (1983), Facchinetti (2003), Palmer (1990) and Vold (2006), MAY is characterised by complexity arising from its polysemous nature. As one of the main exponents of conceptual possibility, MAY is most frequently used for the expression of epistemic modality (Coates, 1983, pp. 131-138; Fachnetti, 2003, p. 305; Leech, 2003, pp. 232-233). Alongside this, it can also be used for the expression of univalent dynamic and deontic meaning as well as epistemic/dynamic and deontic/dynamic modal mergers.

The epistemic use of MAY, through which speakers or writers qualify their commitment to the truth value of a proposition or express subjective attitude towards the proposition (Fachinetti, 2003, p. 305), is most frequent and typically recognised as an important feature of academic discourse, where it is employed for

3 For more on hedging or mitigation of claims see 2.4.1.3, 2.4.2.1 and 2.4.3.

28 hedging or mitigation of claims. The latter is crucial for shaping the textual voice in a manner that introduces new knowledge with appropriate “accuracy, caution and humility” (Hyland, 1996, pp. 434-436) and thus frequently employed by the authors to gain ratification for claims they make and to persuade their readers. An example of MAY used for hedging is: “This increase may well play a significant role in regulating the phosphorylation of PEPc .” (Hyland, 1998, p. 119).

Besides being commonly used for the expression of conceptual possibility, which can be paraphrased by “It is possible that…” and classified as epistemic, in formal English MAY can also be used for the expression of “theoretical possibility” 4: “During the autumn, many rare birds may be observed on the rocky northern coast of the island.” (Leech, 1987, p. 82). This root or dynamic use of MAY in scientific texts has been discussed also by Coates (1983, pp. 105-106, 139-146), Fachinetti (2003, p. 304) and Palmer (1990, pp. 109-111), who recognised it as a stylistic variation used by writers to constrain their clams by objective data rather than their “subjective appreciation of the proposition” (Fachinetti, 2003, p. 305). As observed by Coates (1983, p. 105), this use of MAY “is marked for formality”.

With MAY several meanings can co-occur, whereby “each meaning contributes to the understanding of the utterance” (Vold, 2006, p. 71). One such example is co- occurrence of factual and theoretical possibility (Palmer, 1990; Vold, 2006), which can be classified as the epistemic/dynamic merger and is found in the following sentence: “I’d go further. There are things outside what may be called normal sexual intercourse.” (Palmer, 1990, p. 110). Coates (1983) observes that in her corpus these mergers do not occur in spoken discourse but are quite frequently used in more formal written texts.

Due to its formality, the permission use of MAY, which belongs to deontic modality, is rather rare at present and primarily occurs in more formal contexts than CAN: “If you wish to consult another doctor, you may do so.” (Leech, 1987, p. 76).

4 In the introduction of the modals MAY and CAN, Leech (1987, p. 81) explains that the former generally represents “factual” possibility, while the latter typically represents “theoretical” possibility. In terms of Palmer’s (1990) classification of modality factual possibility and necessity correspond to epistemic modality, while theoretical possibility and necessity correspond to dynamic modality.

This permission meaning can co-occur with experiential 5 possibility (Palmer, 1990, pp. 103-104) in the so-called deontic/dynamic mergers, especially with rules and regulations, which can be interpreted “either as reports of deontic modality or as saying what is dynamically possible or necessary”. One such example is: “…and it is subject to the final prerogative of mercy of the Home Secretary who may recommend a reprieve” (ibid., p. 103).

Very rarely MAY is used to express exclamatory wish: “ May he never set foot in this house again.” (Leech, 1987, p. 76). This use is very formal and in English closest to “formulaic subjunctive” (ibid., p. 77), which, strictly speaking, does not fit the modal system, and accordingly will not be dealt with in the present thesis.

This brief overview of the main meanings of MAY reveals the complexity of this modal, which is used for the expression of the three main modal meanings, i.e. epistemic, deontic and dynamic meaning, as well as a combination of epistemic and dynamic meaning and a combination of deontic and dynamic meaning. Another important specificity of MAY is its dynamic use in scientific discourse, which has been observed by several authors.

2.4.1.4 MIGHT

MIGHT, like MAY, is primarily the modal of conceptual possibility (Coates, 1983, p. 146). In this use MIGHT is either interchangeable with MAY (ibid., p. 147) or used for the expression of a “slightly different [tentative or unreal] sense of possibility” than MAY (Palmer, 1990, p. 30). Accordingly, some linguists, including Palmer (ibid.), argue that MIGHT should be treated as the unreal or tentative form of MAY, while others, including Coates (1983, p. 146), prefer to treat it as a modal “in its own right”, expressing the same meaning and degree of tentativeness as MAY (ibid., pp. 146, 149). Besides epistemic modality, MIGHT can also be used for the expression of dynamic and deontic modality as well epistemic/dynamic and deontic/dynamic mergers.

5 Palmer (1990, p. 103) introduces the term “experiential” possibility when characterising dynamic modality as opposed to epistemic or “conceptual” possibility.

In its epistemic use MIGHT, like MAY, is used for the expression of subjective evaluation of the truth value of a proposition, which frequently functions as a hedge, as in: “Well/…/ I might ‘see you or I might not.” (Coates, 1983, p. 149). MIGHT, like MAY, is thus a resource that speakers and writers frequently use to qualify their commitment to the claims they make. Besides being used for the expression of a more tentative possibility than the one expressed by MAY (Palmer, 1990), MIGHT may also be used as a past tense form in “a weak sense”, i.e. in reported speech (Coates, 1983, p. 155).

Another modal meaning of MIGHT is experiential or also reasonable possibility (Palmer, 1990), the main difference between MAY and MIGHT frequently lying in the degree of likelihood of the event. This dynamic use is primarily limited to written texts (Palmer, 1990, p. 110) and can be found in: “ We operate what might be described as a gigantic tutorial system” . Besides being used for the expression of a tentative dynamic possibility, the past tense form MIGHT may also be used dynamically in “a weak sense” in reported speech as well as in direct speech, where it refers to habitual activity in the past : “In those days we might go for a walk through the woods.” (Palmer, 1990, p. 110) .

With MIGHT, conceptual possibility sometimes overlaps with experiential possibility, as in: “I’ve just spotted something that might by a very horrible pedant be thought a solecism.” (Coates, 1983, pp. 163-164). This use is an example of the so called epistemic/dynamic merger.

The deontic use of MIGHT is limited to tentative asking for permission, as in: “Might I come in at the moment, on this, Chairman?” (Palmer, 1990, p. 80), and past permission in reported speech: “He said that, if he wanted to call the doctor, he might do so.” (ibid., p. 79). In very formal discourse, MIGHT may, nevertheless, also be used in direct speech to report rules of the past: “No one but the duke might build castles.” (Scheurweghs, 1959, p. 365 (as cited in Palmer, 1990, p. 104)). Following Palmer’s observation (ibid., pp. 103-104), that rules can be read as reports of deontic or dynamic possibility, this use of MIGHT may also be read as a merger between permission and possibility in the past, i.e. the deontic/dynamic merger.

To sum up, MIGHT, like MAY, is primarily used for the expression of epistemic possibility, while its deontic and dynamic uses are predominantly limited to formal contexts. Further proof of the polysemous character of MIGHT is provided by two mergers, i.e. epistemic/dynamic and deontic/dynamic mergers.

2.4.1.5 MUST

The three main meanings of MUST are obligation, external or neutral necessity and logical necessity. In addition to this, MUST may also be used for a combination of the following modal meanings, i.e. a blend of epistemic and deontic meaning and a blend of deontic and dynamic meaning.

The stereotypical meaning of MUST is deontic obligation, which is normally performative and subjective (Coates, 1983, p. 33; Palmer, 1990, p. 11). With this subjective use, the conditioning factor is some kind of authority, which may arise from a speaker’s or some other authority, such as a set of rules or a social norm (Depraetere & Reed, 2006, p. 274). One such examples is: “You must be back by ten o’clock.” (Leech, 1987, p. 77). Occasionally, obligation MUST is used with a first person subject to express self-obligation emanating from a sense of duty, self- discipline or a sense of expediency (ibid., p. 77). When used deontically, MUST may also indicate professional rules, as in: “In collapsed or unconscious persons, the state of ventilation and circulation must be determined immediately.” (Vihla, 1999, p. 64).

Alongside this discourse-oriented and directive necessity based on some kind of authority, MUST is also used for the expression of neutral or circumstantial necessity, i.e. dynamic modality (Palmer, 1990, pp. 113-114). In this use there is frequently “little or no indication of the involvement of the speaker”, as in: “ If the ratepayers should be consulted, so too must be the council tenants.” (Palmer, 1990, p. 113). Dynamic MUST may also be used with I or we where there is no sense of obligation and MUST is used to express what “is necessary for me/us to”, one such use being: “I have no doubt that I must do what I can to protect my wife.” (Palmer, 1990, p. 113).

The dividing line between the discourse-oriented and neutral necessity of MUST is frequently blurred, which is why MUST can be read in terms of a merger of both meanings. Blending of deontic and dynamic modal meaning frequently occurs in rules and regulations (Palmer, 1990, pp. 103-104), as for example in “low-power people must adhere to [the smiling requirement]” (Giltrow, 2005, pp. 192-193). According to the author, MUST can here be read either dynamically as “a recognition of the cognitive structures of human social experience” or deontically “as a report of a social obligation”, or even as a combination of both (ibid.).

The other commonly used meaning of MUST is logical necessity, whereby the speaker bases his/her judgment on knowledge based on logical inference or reasoning, as for example in: “He must be working late at the office.” (Leech, 1987, p. 78). As proposed by Palmer (1990, p. 50), the most accurate paraphrase for epistemic uses of MUST is: “The only possible conclusion is that…”. While in his discussion of the epistemic logical necessity of MUST Palmer (1990) does not focus on the difference between the subjective and objective element of meaning, Coates (1983, p. 41), on the other hand, explains that the logical necessity meaning of MUST “extends from a subjective core meaning ‘I confidently infer that x’ (…) to an objective periphery meaning ‘In the light of what is known, it is necessarily the case that x’”, whereby the subjective meaning is used much more commonly than objective.

With MUST logical necessity, be it subjective or objective, can blend with obligation meaning in the so called epistemic/deontic mergers (Brewer, 1987, p. 251; Giltrow, 2005, p. 192), which occur less frequently than deontic/dynamic mergers (Giltrow, 2005, p. 192).

In terms of distribution of modal meanings, the most frequent use of MUST is neutral or external necessity, i.e. dynamic modality, which is more or less closely followed by logical, i.e. epistemic necessity, while the stereotypical deontic modality, which is subjective and performative, occurs rather infrequently (Coates, 1983, p. 33). As proposed by Biber et al. (1999, p. 495), the infrequent use of subjective deontic meaning, especially in spoken discourse, could be due to its face- threatening nature, while a relatively high frequency of its use in written discourse,

33 especially academic one, could be ascribed to the fact that as “there is no individual addressee” the deontic use of MUST is not perceived confrontational and is thus more suitable. In addition to this, authors of academic texts can further neutralize their expressions of obligation by constraining them by “shared wants”, which are frequently interpreted in terms of social or professional responsibility to act on research findings (Giltrow, 2005, pp. 182, 189, 193). Occasionally, MUST is also used for the expression of deontic/dynamic and epistemic/deontic modal mergers.

2.4.1.6 OUGHT TO

OUGHT TO, like SHOULD, is used for the expression of “a facet of necessity” (Palmer, 1990, p. 25) and compared with MUST it is less categorical both in “its sense of ‘obligation’ and its sense of ‘logical necessity’” (Leech, 1987, p. 99) and accordingly allows for the event not to take place (Palmer, 1990, p. 123). The difference between OUGHT TO and SHOULD, on the one hand, and MUST, on the other, could thus be considered in terms of actuality, that is “whether or not there is an implication that the event referred to will” or has taken place (Palmer, 1990, p. 123). Because of the mentioned semantic similarity, OUGHT TO and SHOULD are largely interchangeable (Coates, 1983, p. 69; Palmer, 1990, p. 122), and could, in fact, co-occur in tag questions: “He ought to come tomorrow, shouldn’t he?” (Palmer, 1990, p. 122). It should, nevertheless, be pointed out that interchangeability applies to most uses of OUGHT TO “but only to certain uses of SHOULD” (Westney, 1995, p. 162). In terms of modal meanings, OUGHT TO can be used for the expression of all three univalent meanings as well as the epistemic/deontic modal merger.

The epistemic use of OUGHT TO expresses a weaker necessity than MUST, the necessity being weakened by the indication of the speaker’s doubts about the soundness of his/her conclusion, as can be seen in the following sentence: “Our candidate ought to win the election.” (Leech, 1987, p. 100). Furthermore, unlike MUST, OUGHT TO in the sense of logical necessity expresses “a favourable attitude towards the event or state referred to” (ibid.).

In its obligation sense OUGHT TO, like SHOULD, indicates that “the speaker takes responsibility for the judgment without actually involving himself in a performative action” (Palmer, 1990, p. 70). While subject involvement typical of the obligation use of OUGHT TO could imply that this use should be categorised as deontic, lack of performativity as another characteristic typical of deontic modality, on the other hand, could, as pointed out by Palmer (1990, pp. 81-82), imply that this use should be categorised as dynamic rather than deontic. Coupled with the fact that with OUGHT TO, like with other necessity modals, meanings extend along the subjective-objective and strong-weak cline (Coates, 1983, p. 10), this could imply that occurrences of OUGHT TO constrained by subjective/strong obligation may be classified as deontic, while occurrences constrained by objective/weak necessity may be classified as dynamic. The respective examples of deontic and dynamic use are given in the following two sentences: a) “…you ought to tell the viewers roughly the areas where you think taxes ought to go up.” (Brewer, 1987, p. 271) b) “I think people ought to be better informed about what marriage entails.” (Palmer, 1990, p. 123)

As observed by Coates (1983, p. 78), the obligation (deontic) meaning of OUGHT TO may also blend with epistemic meaning, whereby both meanings are not only available but also intended, as for example in:

A: Newcastle Brown is a jolly good beer. B: Is it? A: Well it ought to be at that price. (ibid., p. 17)

To sum up, OUGHT TO may be used for the expression of deontic, dynamic and epistemic necessity, in which the last modal meaning is used least frequently. Besides being used for the expression of univalent modal meanings, OUGHT TO may also be used in contexts in which epistemic and deontic interpretation overlap in the so called epistemic/deontic merger. In all these uses, OUGHT TO is frequently synonymous and interchangeable with SHOULD, however, when compared to other modals, including SHOULD, OUGHT TO is used relatively

35 infrequently (Coates, 1983, p. 70; Palmer, 1990, p. 122), especially in written texts (Coates, 1983, p. 70).

2.4.1.7 SHOULD

Although SHOULD is formally the past tense of SHALL, it functions as such only in reported speech. Accordingly, it is frequently treated as an independent modal (Palmer, 1990, p. 13), which like OUGHT TO, is used to express the author’s “lack of full confidence in the [necessity of] fulfilment” of a propositional content (Leech, 1987, p. 99), and as such it can indicate obligation or logical necessity. In both senses SHOULD is more common than OUGHT TO (ibid., p. 100) and in terms of Palmer’s categorisation of modal meanings can be classified as an epistemic, dynamic and deontic as well as epistemic/dynamic modal. Additionally, SHOULD can also be used in epistemic/deontic and deontic/dynamic mergers.

Most commonly SHOULD is used to express (weak) obligation, which, when used for giving advice, is subjective, while, when used for describing correct procedure, it is objective (Coates, 1983, p. 58). Although in terms of Palmer’s classification (1999), these two uses are classified as dynamic, occurrences expressing subjective/strong necessity in this thesis will thus be classified as deontic, while the ones expressing objective/weak necessity will be classified as dynamic. As proposed by Vihla (1999, p. 32), the rhetorical use of SHOULD with speech-act verbs, which shows “what is possible or reasonable in a given situation,” may also be classified as dynamic and can, for example, be found in “It should also be stressed that IgE bound to receptors on mast cells and basophils persists for long periods of time.”.

When used epistemically, SHOULD expresses “a tentative assumption” (Coates, 1983, p. 64) and “allows for the speaker to be mistaken”, as demonstrated by: “Mitoff comes in, takes a stunning left hand to the chin or what should be a stunning left hand.” (Palmer, 1990, p. 59). In this epistemic use SHOULD is semantically related to MUST, not to SHALL (ibid.), and, in contrast with MUST and like OUGHT TO expresses “a favourable attitude towards the event or state referred to”

(Leech, 1987, p. 100). In this function SHOULD, like MAY, MIGHT and COULD, is thus used for hedging or mitigation of claims.

With SHOULD there is also frequent indeterminacy between dynamic and epistemic meaning arising from the fact that if “it is reasonable for an act to take place” it may be equally reasonable “to expect that it will” (Palmer, 1990, pp. 59- 60). When these two meanings blend, we can speak of the epistemic/dynamic merger, one such example being: “Well, Sir. Don’t ask me. You ask the people here. They should know.” (Coates, 1983, p. 78).

Although following Palmer’s postulate (1990, p. 82) that due to the lack of performativity, SHOULD predominantly expresses dynamic necessity, occurrences exhibiting “highly deontic characteristics” (ibid.), which in terms of Coates’ cline express subjective/strong obligation, may, as already mentioned, also be classified as deontic. This deontic use of SHOULD is frequently associated with “the moral or social desirability of some future state-of-affairs” (Brewer, 1987, p. 272) or “professional rules” (Vihla, 1999, p. 64).

The subjective/strong obligation meaning of SHOULD sometimes overlaps with “circumstantial necessity” of dynamic modality (Palmer, 1990, p. 113) in the so called deontic/dynamic mergers. In terms of Coates’ subjective-objective and strong-weak cline examples of deontic/dynamic mergers cluster between these four extremes.

Another possible modal merger with SHOULD is the epistemic/deontic modal merger, where “pure” logical necessity overlaps with deontic necessity (Brewer, 1987, p. 249; Larreya, 2003, p. 38) as what “happens (or may happen)” contradicts with “what one would hope for/have hoped for” (Larreya, 2003, p. 38). This use, which is predominantly limited to “emotive contexts”, may be referred to as putative and can be found in the following sentence: “Why should pension increases be announced in March but not paid until November.” (Brewer, 1987, pp. 249-250).

This brief overview of modal meanings of SHOULD shows that the main meaning of this modal is dynamic necessity, while epistemic and deontic modal meanings

37 occur less frequently. Besides being used for the expression of the three univalent modal meanings, with SHOULD all three modal meanings can overlap, the result being epistemic/dynamic, epistemic/deontic and deontic/dynamic modal mergers.

2.4.1.8 BE ABLE TO

The semi-modal BE ABLE TO is predominantly used to express ability, while it can also be used to express possibility and even permission (Leech, 1987, p. 74) and thus covers the same range of meanings as CAN (Coates, 1983, p. 124).

The stereotypical use of BE ABLE TO is its use for the expression of ability, which can refer either to “innate capacity” or to “learned skills” (Coates, 1983, p. 124). BE ABLE TO can also be used for the expression of neutral possibility, which, in fact, is more frequent and can be found in: “The editor thanks you for submitting the enclosed ms but regrets he is unable to use it.” (ibid.). Both ability and neutral possibility meaning classify as dynamic (Palmer, 1990). While both the ability and the neutral possibility meaning of BE ABLE TO are frequently interchangeable with CAN, a further comparison shows that BE ABLE TO always seems to include some sense of ability and accordingly is seen as “more strictly subject oriented than CAN” (Palmer, 1990, p. 89). Furthermore, another important difference between BE ABLE TO and CAN is that only the former can be used where there is “indication of the actuality of a single event” (ibid., p. 91), be it in the past or in the present.

Like CAN, BE ABLE TO may also be used for the expression of permission, i.e. deontic modality, as in: “ But it’s a bit ridiculous that I should be able to work in another college and not allowed to work in my own.” (Coates, 1983, p. 124).

As shown above, BE ABLE TO covers the same range of meanings as CAN and also resembles its distribution of modal meanings. Like CAN, it namely shows a marked preference for neutral possibility meaning, while the ability and the permission sense are used much less frequently. An important difference between BE ABLE TO and CAN, nevertheless, is that the former as a semi-modal occurs freely in a wide range of syntactic contexts, as for example with modals, in non- finite forms and with complex tense and aspect markings, and thus frequently

38 supplies the missing forms of the latter (Coates, 1983, pp. 125-126). In terms of the frequency of use, it should, however, be pointed out that, generally speaking, BE ABLE TO occurs much less frequently than CAN and COULD (ibid., p. 129), while “the proportion of occurrences of BE ABLE TO to occurrences of CAN is much greater” in more formal than in spoken discourse (Palmer, 1990, p. 90).

2.4.1.9 BE BOUND TO

In most of its occurrences the semi-modal BE BOUND TO is used for the expression of logical necessity, i.e. epistemic modality (Palmer, 1990, p. 55). The comparison of the epistemic use of BE BOUND TO and MUST shows that the first one normally refers to the future and is used with a verb of action, while the second normally refers to the present state and is used with a stative verb (ibid., 55), as demonstrated by: a) “It’s bound to come out though, I think… It’s received such rave notices that somebody’s bound to put it on.” (ibid.) b) “The odds must be slightly with them in these tight, tense situations.” (ibid., p. 53)

When used epistemically, BE BOUND TO and MUST show another important difference, which is that BE BOUND TO is the more certain option, as evident from the sample sentences below: a) “John’s bound to be in his office.” (ibid., p. 55) b) “John must be in his office.” (ibid.)

As a semi-modal, BE BOUND TO is used far less frequently than the modal MUST, the main exponent of epistemic necessity. It, nevertheless, importantly substitutes the latter when the judgment refers to states or activities in the future, since with MUST used with future time reference there is frequently ambiguity between dynamic and epistemic or even deontic and epistemic meaning (Palmer, 1990, pp. 53-55).

2.4.1.10 BE GOING TO

The two main modal meanings of the semi-modal BE GOING TO are intention and prediction (Coates, 1983, p. 198), that is, dynamic and epistemic modality respectively.

In its dynamic use BE GOING TO implies immediacy, as evident in: “ I hear they’re going to put an increased tax on coupons in cigarette packets.” (ibid., p. 199).

When used epistemically, it usually has some indication of “present orientation” (Wekker, 1976 (as cited in Coates, 1983, p. 201)), or, as explained by Coates (1983, p. 201), some indication of the future event is already present at the moment of speaking, which is why BE GOING TO can frequently be interpreted in terms of inference: “the speaker’s prediction is based on a process of deduction”.

Of the two modal meanings typically expressed by BE GOING TO, i.e. dynamic and epistemic, the latter is used more frequently (ibid., p. 199). In terms of its total use, it should nevertheless be pointed out that the frequency of this semi-modal is higher in spoken than in written and formal texts, with another characteristic of its use in spoken texts being its common use for the indication of futurity (Palmer, 1990, pp. 142, 144).

2.4.1.11 HAVE (GOT) TO

The semi-modals HAVE TO and HAVE GOT TO are used for the expression of necessity. They are closely related, but nevertheless differ not only in formal terms but also in terms of their semantic range (Coates, 1983, p. 52). Namely, HAVE GOT TO possesses five defining modal properties, including the negative form n’t , inversion, emphatic affirmation, no non-finite forms and no co-occurrence, while HAVE TO possesses none of them. Semantically, both verbs can be used for the expression of obligation and logical necessity, the main difference between the two being that with HAVE GOT TO obligation meaning can be subjective or objective while with HAVE TO it is always objective (Coates, 1983, p. 52; Leech, 1987, p. 83). Besides differing in terms of form and semantic range, HAVE TO and HAVE GOT TO differ also in terms of formality, with HAVE GOT TO being the less

40 formal option of the two. In order to show the semantic similarities and differences between these two verbs, they will be discussed together.

Both HAVE TO and HAVE GOT TO can be used for the expression of logical necessity, this use being infrequent and typically associated with American English, but nevertheless becoming more common also in British English (Leech, 1987, p. 83). When compared with MUST, which is the modal verb normally used for the expression of logical necessity, the necessity of HAVE (GOT) TO may have a stronger meaning, as demonstrated by the pair: a) “Someone must be telling lies.” (ibid.) b) “Someone has (got) to be telling lies.” (ibid.)

Of the two sentences, the second one has “the uncompromising effect of: It’s impossible for everyone to be telling the truth.” (ibid.). Another possible difference between HAVE (GOT) TO and MUST, as observed by Palmer (1990, p. 65), is that with the former modality might be marked for past, while with must have it is the proposition that is marked for past, as evident from the following two sample sentences: a) “It had to be there – there wasn’t anywhere else it could have been.” (ibid.) b) “Well, he must have been flying too low.” (ibid., p. 64)

HAVE TO and HAVE GOT TO can also be used for the expression of obligation, which with HAVE TO typically comes “from a source outside the speaker” (Leech, 1987, p. 83) and is thus always objective, i.e. dynamic, while with HAVE GOT TO obligation meaning can range from subjective to objective (Coates, 1983, p. 53), i.e. from deontic to dynamic (Collins, 2009, p. 69).

Both verbs also have the past tense form, however, had got to is rather infrequent and acceptable only in indirect speech, while had to can be used in both direct and indirect speech (Coates, 1983, pp. 56-57). The latter can thus function as the past form of neutral obligation expressed by HAVE (GOT) TO as well as MUST. It should, nevertheless, be noted that although had to may be used as a suppletive

41 form of MUST and HAVE GOT TO, it can never be used in a deontic, i.e. discourse-oriented, sense (Palmer, 1990, p. 79).

To sum up, HAVE TO and HAVE GOT TO are used for the expression of logical necessity and obligation, where the second meaning is the more common one with both verbs. With HAVE TO obligation always comes from the outside source, which is typical of dynamic modality, while with HAVE GOT TO it can come from the outside source or from the speaker, which classifies these occurrences as dynamic or deontic, respectively. While both verbs have the past tense form, had got to is used very infrequently. The more frequent had to , on the other hand, may be used as the past tense form of HAVE (GOT) TO or MUST. Besides providing a substitute form for the past, HAVE TO as the only verb with non-finite forms supplies not only past but also other missing forms of HAVE GOT TO and MUST.

2.4.2 Basic semantic categories of modality

The three basic semantic categories of modality introduced by Palmer in his seminal work Modality and the English Modals ([1979], 1990) are epistemic, deontic and dynamic modality. The first two, i.e. epistemic and deontic modality, are frequently recognised as fundamental types of modality (Palmer, 1990, p. 2), which evolved from dynamic modality, the path running from dynamic to deontic to epistemic modality. This path applies both in diachrony and ontogenesis (Nuyts, 2006, p. 16, drawing on Goosens, 1983; Shepherd, 1993; Bybee & Pagliuca, 1985; Stephany, 1986). Further evidence for this path is provided by Gerhardt (1992), who explains that dynamic and deontic modality gradually shade into epistemic modality, when the event referred to by the main verb loses its anchoring in the subject’s agency and the speaker’s control respectively “and begins to be the content of the speaker’s beliefs” (Gerhardt, 1991, p. 536 (as cited in Choi, 2006, pp. 156-157)). Accordingly, in recognition of the fact that dynamic and deontic modality “predicate conditions on an agent with regard to the completion of an action referred to by the main predicate”, these two modal meanings are sometimes grouped together under the term “agent-oriented modality” and set apart from speaker- oriented, i.e. epistemic, modality, which indicates “a speaker’s commitment to the truth of a proposition” (Bybee & Fleishman, 1995, p. 6). Similarly, Coates (1983)

42 distinguishes between Root and Epistemic modality, the former including deontic and non-deontic possibility and necessity. Further support for a “systematic developmental relationship” (Nuyts, 2006, p. 16) between dynamic, deontic and epistemic modality is provided by the order of acquisition of modality by children, who, especially in languages in which modality is expressed by auxiliary verbs, thus also English, normally start acquiring dynamic and deontic modality before epistemic modality (Choi, 2006, p. 165; Sweetser, 1990, p. 50).

Differences and similarities between the three main modal meanings can also be discussed in terms of the notions of subjectivity and objectivity. In this respect deontic and epistemic modality are typically viewed as subjective, i.e. expressing the speaker’s attitude and opinion respectively (Lyons, 1977, p. 452), while dynamic modality is typically viewed as objective and subject oriented (Palmer, 1990, p. 36).

As presented above, the notion of “agentivity” (Coates, 1983, p. 233) groups together dynamic and deontic modality under the so-called “agent-oriented” modality as opposed to “speaker-oriented” (Bybee & Fleishman, 1995, p. 6), i.e. epistemic modality, while the notion of subjectivity sets deontic and epistemic modality apart from dynamic modality, the latter being typically used for making objective statements (Palmer, 1990, p. 36). While these four notions focus on similarities and differences between dynamic, deontic and epistemic modal meaning, the notions of possibility and necessity cut across and connect all three meanings.

Taking into consideration what has been discussed in this brief overview of the most important similarities and differences between dynamic, deontic and epistemic modality, characterisation of the three modal meanings will start with epistemic modality, the latter being frequently recognised as the most fundamental or even the most modal of meanings (Brewer, 1987, p. 315).

2.4.2.1 Epistemic modality

Epistemic modality covers meanings with which speakers express their judgment that the proposition expressed by the main verb is “possibly or necessarily true”

(Depraetere & Reed, 2006, p. 269) and is accordingly subsumed under the term propositional modality (Palmer, 2001, p. 8). As judgment normally comes from the speaker, epistemic modality is always subjective. Although in this respect it resembles deontic modality, it should, nevertheless, be pointed out that syntactically and semantically epistemic modality is distinct from both deontic and dynamic modality, the so called event modality (ibid.).

The two basic degrees of epistemic modality, i.e. possibility and necessity, are marked by the modals MAY and MIGHT and by the modal MUST, respectively (McEnery & Kifle, 2002, p. 183): a) “He may be qualified to be recognized as a teacher of French or of German or of something like that.” (Palmer, 1990, p. 50) b) “This must be one of the finest views of the whole processional route.” (ibid.)

While epistemic MAY can be paraphrased by “It is possible that...”, epistemic MUST can be paraphrased by “The only possible conclusion is that…” (ibid., p. 50). Besides these two basic degrees, further degrees of epistemic modality are expressed by the modal WILL as well as the tentative forms COULD, MIGHT, SHOULD and WOULD and the semi-modals BE BOUND TO and HAVE TO (ibid., p. 51).

As already pointed out, epistemic modality is normally subjective, i.e. performative, and, relatedly, epistemic modal verbs can occur only in the present tense “for the judgment and the act of speaking are simultaneous and so can only be present” (ibid., p. 51). Although epistemic modals themselves are normally limited to the present tense, they can refer either to the present or the future. However, as with future time reference there is frequently ambiguity between epistemic and deontic or even dynamic modality, the progressive form of the main verb may be used to force an epistemic interpretation, one such example being: “He must be coming tomorrow.” (ibid., pp. 54, 63). An epistemic modal verb may also be followed by the proposition in the past, whereby reference is made to judgments about past events, e.g. “You may have guessed that it’s a dress of pure silk.” (ibid., p. 64).

This association with perfective aspect is predominantly limited to epistemic modality.

Epistemic modal verbs may occur in combination with harmonic forms, i.e. forms expressing the same degree of modality as the relevant modal verb (Coates, 1983, p. 45). These forms typically include adverbs expressing the speaker’s judgments or confidence and thus frequently occur pleonastically, the most frequently used adverbs being possibly and perhaps for possibility and surely and certainly for necessity (Palmer, 1990, p. 67). Two other adverbs frequently associated with epistemic modality are well and just , whereby the former is used to “strengthen the possibility”, while the latter is used “to express a bare possibility” (ibid., p. 68). Epistemic modal verbs may also co-occur with harmonic phrases which, like epistemic modal verbs, function as hedges. The most frequently used such phrases are ‘I think’, ‘I mean’, ‘I suppose’, ‘I don’t know’ (Coates, 1983, pp. 46, 138).

In terms of its communicative function, epistemic modality is recognised as dialogic, i.e. representing “the textual voice as taking ‘argumentative position’”, which, in effect, helps construct “the textual voice as engaged in persuasion and some other communicative participant (…) as being in the role of ‘persuadee’” (Verstraete, 1998, p. 201 (as cited in White, 2003, p. 274)), or, in other words, epistemic modal verbs help speakers “to negotiate views and ideas and qualify claims at an appropriate level of commitment” (McEnery & Kifle, 2002, p. 184). This dialogic positioning of claims is also recognised as hedging (Hyland, 1998, p. 2) or “the mitigation of claims” (Vold, 2006, p. 62). Although important in all types of discourse, hedging is especially important in academic discourse, where it shapes the textual voice in a manner that introduces new knowledge and findings with appropriate “accuracy, caution and humility” (Hyland, 1996, p. 434) and thus helps the authors to gain ratification for claims they make and to persuade their readers (ibid., pp. 434, 436).

2.4.2.2 Deontic modality

Deontic modality relates to the possibility or necessity of the actualisation of the event expressed by the main verb (Depraetere & Reed, 2006, p. 269) and is

45 accordingly also referred to as “Event modality” (Palmer, 2003, pp. 7-8) and seen as directive - “getting things done”. Relatedly, two other important characteristics of deontic modality are control, typically coming from some kind of authority external to the subject of the sentence (Depraetere & Reed, 2006, p. 274), and discourse-orientation (Palmer, 1990, p. 69). An authority or deontic source of permission (i.e. deontic possibility) and obligation (i.e. deontic necessity) most frequently is a person, which is why deontic, like epistemic modality, is typically subjective. Alongside this, the deontic source of permission or obligation may also be “a set of rules, or (…) a social norm” (Depraetere & Reed, 2006, p. 274), whereby obligation becomes more objective and thus less face threatening to the addressees (Giltrow, 2005, pp. 182, 189, 193). Although deontic permission and obligation are most frequently directed at the subject referent external to the speaker, the subject referent may also coincide with the speaker (Depraetere & Reed, 2006, p. 279), especially in the case of the so called “‘weak’ necessity”, whereby the speaker imposes obligation on himself, as in: “I think I must make a confession here.” (Palmer, 1990, pp. 74-75).

The two basic degrees of deontic modality are possibility, i.e. permission, and necessity, i.e. obligation. The first is marked by CAN and MAY while the latter is marked by MUST, as demonstrated in the following examples: a) “If you want to recall the doctor, you may do so.” (Palmer, 1990, p. 71) b) “I’ve been telling Peter, as I’ve been telling several people, you know, ‘You must get into permanent jobs’.” (ibid., p. 73)

Deontic utterances with CAN and MAY can be paraphrased by “It is possible/permissible for”, while utterances with MUST may be paraphrased by “It is necessary/obligatory for”. Besides these two basic degrees, there is also the third degree of deontic modality marked by SHALL, with which “the speaker gives an undertaking or guarantees that the event will take place”, which, in a way, makes it stronger than MUST (ibid., p. 74). Other uses that are associated with deontic modality based on their relation to the performative uses, although, strictly speaking, they themselves are not performative, are asking for permission, the use of SHOULD and OUGHT TO in which “the speaker takes responsibility for the

46 judgment without actually involving himself in a performative action”, and the use of deontic modal verbs for rules and regulations (ibid., p. 70).

Deontic modals, like epistemic ones, are normally performative, i.e. “the act takes place at the moment of speaking” (Palmer, 1990, p. 70) and, accordingly, they normally have only the present tense form, the past tense form being limited only to reported speech. The tentative forms MIGHT and COULD may, nevertheless, be used instead of MAY and CAN when asking for permission, however, they appear “more diffident or polite” (ibid., p. 80). While modality with deontic modals is limited to the present, the event is always future: “one can only give permission etc. for events to happen after the time of speaking” (ibid., p. 80).

The most important communicative functions of deontic modals are giving (or refusing) permission (CAN and MAY), laying an obligation (MUST) or making a promise or threat (SHOULD) (Palmer, 1990, pp. 69-70). When used for the expression of obligation, deontic modality may, however, be perceived as face threatening, especially when the author’s authority is used as a constraining factor. To neutralise this face-threatening effect of obligation, speakers frequently resolve to constraining their expressions of deontic necessity by “shared wants” rather than by their authority (Giltrow, 2005, pp. 182, 189, 193), especially in spoken discourse.

2.4.2.3 Dynamic modality

Dynamic modality, like deontic one, refers “to events that are not actualized, (…) but are merely potential” and may thus, together with deontic modality, be subsumed under “Event modality” (Palmer, 2001, p. 8). There is, however, one important difference between these two modal meanings lying in the source of possibility and necessity: with deontic modality, as a rule, possibility is granted or necessity is imposed based on some kind of authority typically “external to the subject of the sentence” (Palmer, 2003, p. 7), while dynamic modality may refer to the possibility or necessity of the event arising from the subject of the sentence or from general or external circumstances (Palmer, 1990, pp. 83-84). Accordingly,

47 with dynamic modality we can speak of subject-oriented and neutral or circumstantial possibility and necessity.

With dynamic modality the notion of possibility is marked with CAN and ABLE TO, while the notion of necessity is marked with MUST and HAVE (GOT) TO (Palmer, 1990, pp. 83, 113). As already pointed out, dynamic possibility can be either neutral or subject oriented, as demonstrated by the following pair of sentences: a) “Signs are the only things you can observe.” (ibid., p. 83) b) “They can’t speak a word of English, of course, not a word, but, you know, they can say what they like.” (ibid., p. 85)

The fact that CAN in the first sentence may be paraphrased by “It is possible for…”, while CAN’T in the second may be paraphrased by “They are not able to/don’t have the ability to” (ibid., p. 84), clearly shows the difference between neutral and subject-oriented possibility. Dynamic necessity, on the other hand, is typically neutral or circumstantial, as can be seen in the following two sentences: a) “I’ve got to be at London airport at fourish.” (ibid., p. 114) b) “If the ratepayers should be consulted, so too must the council tenants.” (ibid., p. 113)

In these two sentences, dynamic necessity is besides being constrained by factors external to the subject of the sentence also typically characterised by “little or no indication of the involvement of the speaker” (ibid., p. 113). Occasionally, dynamic necessity may also be subject oriented, as in: “ Protoplasm, the living substance of all plants, contains nitrogen and the rose tree must absorb the nitrogen in the form of nitrates.” (Palmer, 1990, pp. 129-130). The author explains that with subject- oriented necessity MUST frequently refers to “a necessary characteristic” (ibid.).

Dynamic modals can occur in the past, present or even future tense. While modality itself may be marked for past (with could, was able to and had to ) or future (will/shall be able to and will have to ) (Palmer, 1990, pp. 92-101), the modals may be used either “in a general ‘timeless’ present sense” or “to refer to future events” (ibid., p. 97). Besides indicating past time of modality, the dynamic modals

COULD and COULD NOT may also be used to suggest unreality or tentativeness, as in: “I couldn’t do anything like that you see, I mean, I couldn’t paint an ordinary sort of portrait.” (ibid., p. 100).

In terms of communicative functions, dynamic modality predominantly functions as a tool that speakers can use when they want to distance themselves from claims they make by constraining the possibility or necessity of the event referred to by the main verb by general or external circumstances rather than by their subjective judgment (with epistemic modality) or by their authority (with deontic modality). It should, nevertheless, be noted that objective reporting of events typical of dynamic modality may overlap with subjectivity of epistemic modality, in the so called epistemic/dynamic mergers, or with subjectivity of deontic modality, in the deontic/dynamic mergers (Palmer, 1990, pp. 103-109).

2.4.2.4 Modal mergers

The three main modal meanings, i.e. epistemic, deontic and dynamic, may be used for the expression of univalent modal meanings, which may also blend in the so called polyvalent modal meanings or modal mergers, whereby modal meanings can “be read in terms of one another” (Giltrow, 2005, p. 192). The phenomenon of modal mergers with modal verbs was discussed by different authors, including Coates (1983, pp. 16-17), who explains that “examples of merger, like those of ambiguity, are indeterminate in the sense that the context fails to exclude one of the two possible meanings”. An important distinction between ambiguity and merger, however, lies in the fact that with the former either of the two meanings must be chosen to understand the intended meaning, while with the latter “it is not necessary to decide which meaning is intended before the example can be understood” as “the two possible meanings involved are not in certain contexts mutually exclusive” (ibid., pp. 16-17). This phenomenon has been recognised as contextual neutralisation (ibid., p. 17) and has been discussed by several other scholars, including Giltrow (2005) and Vihla (1999).

The most frequently observed modal mergers are deontic/dynamic ones, i.e. merges in which social obligation or obligation arising from the author’s authority overlaps

49 with external or neutral circumstances as the factor necessitating the outcome (Giltrow, 2005, p. 192). One such example is the occurrence in which deontic permission overlaps with “mere” possibility, as in: “The dose can be doubled to last through the night or for long car journeys." (Depraetere & Langford, 2012, p. 211). Giltrow (2005, pp. 192-193) explains that in deontic/dynamic mergers circumstances constraining the event dynamically are typically natural, i.e. biological, physical or psychological, or they may also be economic, while conditions constraining the event deontically are typically interpreted as social and/or professional factors influencing the actualisation of the event. In academic discourse, particularly, deontic/dynamic mergers are frequently interpreted as occurrences in which “the research-based fact of inescapable circumstance (dynamic modality) is simultaneous with the obligation to act (deontic modality) accordingly” (ibid., p. 193), or in other words “so commanding are the conditions that have been discovered that they impose their own obligation and rational motivation – social obligation ‘neutralized’ by the authority of research” (ibid.). Besides this use typical of academic discourse, rules and regulations are another more general example of the deontic/dynamic merger. According to Palmer (1990, p. 103), the latter may be perceived as indeterminacy between dynamic and deontic modal meanings because what “is experientially possible” may overlap with “what I permit”, as in: “In the library you can take a book out and keep it out for a whole year unless it is recalled.” .

Another frequently observed merger is the epistemic/deontic merger in which the speaker’s qualification of his/her commitment to the truth value of the proposition overlaps with obligation. One such example of overlapping of epistemic and deontic modality is:

A: Newcastle Brown is a jolly good beer. B: Is it? A: Well it ought to be at that price. (Coates, 1983, p. 17)

Here, the meaning of OUGHT TO is indeterminate between the speaker’s expression of “a logical assumption” (epistemic necessity) and reference “to the maker’s obligation to provide good beer” (deontic necessity) (ibid.).

The last possible modal merger is epistemic/dynamic one, in which logical possibility or necessity overlaps with experiential possibility or necessity, as “if it is reasonable for an act to take place [dynamic modal meaning], we may equally consider that it is reasonable to expect that it will [epistemic modal meaning]” (Palmer, 1990, p. 60). Palmer explains that in epistemic/dynamic mergers epistemic meaning can typically be inferred from the dynamic one. One such example is: a) “He therefore presents his reforms with, in the back of his mind, a strengthening of European unity which, in his philosophy, (…) may be made solid and irreversible by the pure development of mass .” (Nuyts, 2001, p. 192).

2.4.3 Genre variation

Modal verbs and their modal meanings, which are typically distinguished based on semantic properties, present a linguistic feature that is determined not only by semantic but also pragmatic factors, which is why a combination of both semantic and pragmatic reasoning is required for their proper interpretation in a given context. This interdependence of semantic and pragmatic features of modality as well as language in general is reflected also in the recognition that:

according to pragmatic linguistic analyses, language has to be analyzed and interpreted in relation to the social context which generates and uses it. Language is not to be considered an isolated system of either symbols or mental rules, but a system used in a specific setting and for specific communicative purposes. (Piqué- Angordans, Posteguillo, & Andreu-Besó, 2002, p. 49).

One such setting in which modality and related linguistic phenomena, e.g. hedging (ibid., p. 50), play a critical role is academic discourse, in the framework of which a “specific setting” and “specific communicative purposes” are identifiable on two levels, i.e. the level of genre and the level of discipline (Hyland, 2000). Frequently, these two levels are seen as mutually dependent and genres as cutting across disciplinary boundaries and displaying different degrees of variation across disciplines (Bhatia, 2002, p. 25). Accordingly, following the view that academic discourse involves an apparent paradox, which Mauranen (1993) defines as a paradox between being “universal (because it originates in the universality of

51 science) and simultaneously variable (because it reflects cultural variation)” (Mauranen, 1993 (as cited in Pisanski Peterlin, 2008, p. 11)), this paradox could in terms of academic discourse and academic genres and disciplines also be viewed as a paradox between being universal (i.e. originating in the universality of the setting shared by different genres and disciplines) and at the same time variegated (i.e. being further defined by genre- and discipline-specific discourse conventions). In practice, this paradox shows as a paradox between a view on academic discourse propagated in more recent researches, i.e. recognising the importance of genre and disciplinary variations in the use of modal verbs, on the one hand, and the more traditional view of the EAP community, which has “consistently taken it to be a single and uniform entity, with a ‘common core’ across disciplines and often genres” (Bhatia, 2002, p. 29), on the other.

The present discussion of variation in the use of modal verbs and their meanings will first focus on discourse conventions that are recognised as shared across academic discourse as a uniform entity (ibid.). This approach is taken also by a large number of studies on modality and related phenomena, many of which are based on the view that academic discourse in general, especially written, should be “purely objective, impersonal and informational, designed to disguise the author and deal directly with facts and the search for an independent truth” (Hyland, 1998, p. iix). However, the results of more recent studies on academic texts have shown that besides striving to keep the tone neutral and remain “objective, faceless and impersonal”, the authors of academic texts today also aim to personalise their writing by presenting claims in a way that projects their stance on the findings and views put forward and encourages the readership to actively engage in the process of reading and evaluating the text (Hyland, 2005, p. 173).

In terms of modality, the prevailing impersonality and related objectivity (Hyland, 2002, p. 1095) of academic discourse is predominantly expressed through dynamic modality, which authors of academic texts frequently employ to distance themselves from their statements by constraining them by neutral or circumstantial factors rather than by subjective judgment or obligation. However, a certain amount of personalisation can in the recent years be observed in academic writing, possibly

52 as a reaction to the prevailing impersonality. Personalisation of academic writing (Symánska, 2013, p. 4) is primarily achieved through epistemic and deontic modality, the first being predominantly used for the expression of the speaker’s qualification of his/her commitment to the truth value of the proposition and the second for the expression of the author’s or social or professional obligation to act in line with the presented knowledge and findings. Of these two typically subjective modal meanings, the latter, which is “commonly employed to place somebody under an obligation” (Gotti & Dossena, 2001, p. 14 (as cited in Giltrow, 2005, p. 173), is used less frequently, but, nevertheless, presents an important discoursal resource of personalisation frequently used to evoke respect for research findings and to impose “responsibility to act on research outcomes” (Giltrow, 2005, p. 196).

Alongside the above mentioned dichotomy between subjectivity and objectivity reflected in the proportion of epistemic, deontic and dynamic modality and respective functions, hedging or “mitigation of claims” (Vold, 2006, p. 62) is another important “linguistic and communicative” phenomenon (Piqué-Angordans, Posteguillo, & Andreu-Besó, 2002, p. 49) typical of academic discourse, especially written. As a rule, hedging is expressed through epistemic modality and has accordingly been recognised as a part of it (Hyland, 1998, p.3). As an argumentative strategy, hedging is crucial to authors of academic texts, who typically use it when putting forward “statements conveying new knowledge (…), because they have not yet gained acceptance in the scientific community” (Myers 1989, p. 13 (as cited in Vold, 2006, p. 62)). Accordingly, hedging presents an important “communicative resource” for academics as it “both confirms the individual’s professional persona and represents a critical element in the rhetorical means of gaining acceptance of claims” (Hyland, 1996, p. 433). Although frequently associated with vagueness, it should, nevertheless, be pointed out that rather than being used for conveying vagueness, hedging is used for the author’s qualification of his/her commitment to the truth value of statements, which makes hedges one of the most suitable expressions in academic discourse, which, according to various authors, should also aim for precision and objectivity: “Alley (1987: 28) is of the opinion that precision is the most important goal in scientific language use and that vagueness should be avoided, and Hedge (1994: 92) states that directness, precision and objectivity are

53 among the central guidelines for scientific writing” (Varttala, 2001, p. 54). Hedging, like modality, can be expressed through various linguistic features; however, “the most frequent surface forms of hedging are the modal verbs” (Vassileva, 2001, p. 91). In this context MAY and MIGHT and increasingly more frequently also COULD “are often considered to be prototypical hedges” (Hyland, 1998, p. 116). Occasionally the list also includes SHOULD.

The view of academic discourse as a single entity has been questioned by a number of linguists, including Bhatia (2002), according to whom academic discourse could be viewed as “a colony of academic” genres (J. Flowerdew, 2002, p. 8). In line with this view and the related recognition that within the broader category of academic discourse further attention should, among others, be paid to genre-specific discourse conventions and related variations (Bhatia, 2002, p. 29), attention will in this thesis be given to the two most influential and consequently most widely 6 researched academic genres or text types , that is, research papers and textbooks. Bhatia (1993, pp. 32-33) maintains that besides displaying important overlap in the “field of discourse, especially patterns of specialist lexis and certain rhetorical functions”, these two genres “also have their own ‘generic integrity’”. This is frequently reflected in discourse content, participant relationship, discourse characteristic as well as discourse strategies (ibid.). The genre-specific approach has been pursued by several linguists, including Vihla (1999, p. 14), who in her study of academic genres in medical writing starts from the postulate that “genre is a central notion in current analysis of professional languages”. The results of her study show that different genres, including textbooks, research papers, and handbooks or manuals – use epistemic and deontic expressions in different ways, or, as she explains in more detail: “scientific textbooks use mainly categorical statements, research articles proceed to hypotheses modified by epistemic hedges, (…), and manuals contain abundantly deontic modals” (ibid., p. 135). The author relates this variation to “a model of medicine proceeding from background

6 Following Mondorf (2010) and the like-minded scholars the notions genre and text type will be used synonymously here. It should, nevertheless, be noted that this view is not undisputed, as, for example, historical pragmaticians typically distinguish between a functional category of genre (based on text-external criteria) and linguistically (text- internally) determined text types (Carroll et al., 2005, p. 8).

54 knowledge and new hypotheses to recommendations” (ibid., p. 126). Following the results of Vihla’s and other related studies, all three modal meanings expressed by modal verbs, i.e. epistemic, deontic and dynamic meaning, thus perform important communicative functions across different disciplinary genres, whereby the proportion of modal meanings and related functions as well as the frequency of individual modal verbs show a different degree of variation reflecting the genre- specific conventions.

As a key vehicle for disseminating new knowledge and findings, on the one hand, and “as an indicator of academic achievement and professional success, on the other”, research papers are the academic genre that has received most attention (J. Flowerdew, 2002, p. 5). In this, like other academic genres, objectivity is recognised as “a prime value” (Giltrow, 2005, p. 195), which is why dynamic modality as a type of modality typically allowing the authors to distance themselves from their claims is the prevailing modal meaning. However, although used less frequently than dynamic modality, epistemic modality, which is typically used for “signalling academic hedging” (Vihla, 1999, p. 54), is also critical for research paper writing, especially in the event of publishing (Vázquez & Giner, 2008, p. 171). The function and importance of hedging in research papers is well documented and its high occurrence in this genre is:

justified by the assumption that they can fulfil a number of functions, such as projecting an image of honesty and humility (Swales 1990:443), conveying vagueness and tentativeness to make propositions more acceptable to readers (Salager-Meyer 1994:150), expressing positive and negative politeness (Myers 1989, Varttala 2001) or negotiating the right representation of the state of knowledge discussed (Banks 1994). (Vázquez & Giner, 2008, p. 172)

As noted above, hedging and related epistemic modality is typically used by authors to express their subjective attitude or evaluation and to engage with readers, which, in effect, emphasises the author’s role “as the construer of knowledge” (Vihla, 1999, p. 118). Another linguistic source of subjectivity in research papers is deontic modality, which the authors can use to impose obligations and to indicate desirability, acceptability or even morality of an action or state (Giltrow, 2005, p.

172). Although both epistemic and deontic modality are typically subjective, they can also be objectified (Hyland, 2008, p. 552) when the possibility or necessity of the proposition is constrained not only by subjective opinions but also by factors external to the author, such as scientific evidence or professional or social norm. As a consequence, formal research papers besides exhibiting univalent modal expressions, e.g. epistemic, deontic or dynamic, exhibit also occurrences with which epistemic or deontic meaning may be neutralised by dynamic modality.

Textbooks, too, present an academic genre which has attracted much attention of linguists due to its relationship to other academic genres as well as its “centrality as a pedagogical genre” (Love, 2002, p. 76). The latter is greatly so due to the fact that textbooks not only introduce students to disciplinary knowledge but also to the epistemology of the discipline (ibid.). In this as well as some other respects, e.g. “patterns of specialist lexis and certain rhetorical functions” (Bhatia, 2002, p. 32), textbooks resemble research papers. Despite the mentioned similarities, there are also important differences, one of them being that the latter present “the primary vehicle for presenting new knowledge claims” while the former present “the disciplinary consensus, providing accepted knowledge rather than the disciplinary conflicts and debate” (Hewings, 2006, p. 13). Given the main function of modalised utterances, i.e. to express (subjective) opinions and attitudes of the speaker (Palmer, 1986, p. 2), the mentioned difference between research papers and textbooks might imply lower frequency of modal verbs in textbooks, as “what is recounted (…) is seen with hindsight to be reliable information” (Bloor & Bloor, 1995, p. 58) and as such can be represented as a straightforward fact. Although textbooks are typically used for the presentation of “the disciplinary consensus” (Hewings, 2006, p.13), there is, however, increasing evidence that some of them may also present the discipline as complex and including conflicting arguments and contested interpretations (ibid.), which could, in effect, result in a higher incidence of modal verbs, especially epistemic and even deontic ones. A similar variation was observed by Vihla (1999), who in her study of academic genres in medical discourse, compared two types of textbook, i.e. scientific and clinical textbooks. As the first are used for the presentation of “basic knowledge and findings” and the second for the presentation of “practically oriented information”, this division reflects the two

56 different aspects of medicine, i.e. basic research and praxis (ibid., p. 39). As observed by the author, in terms of the use of modal expressions, this epistemological variation in her corpus samples resulted in the prevalence of categorical statements in scientific textbooks and a relatively high proportion of deontic and epistemic modality in clinical textbooks (ibid., pp. 126-129). Besides clinical textbooks, handbooks as an example of professional directive texts proved another genre showing a relatively high use of subjective, i.e. deontic and epistemic modal meanings (ibid.).

To sum up, academic discourse in general has been viewed as characterised by objective presentation of new knowledge and findings. However, more recent studies of academic discourse have shown that another feature critical to effective academic writing is personalisation. Accordingly, it could be concluded that in academic genres, including research papers and textbooks, as well as handbooks as an example of professional texts, of the three modal meanings, dynamic modality will be used most frequently, while epistemic and deontic modality will occur less frequently but nevertheless importantly contrast objective reporting of claims, in which “the balancing between reporting objective data and signalling subjective evaluation” (Fachinetti, 2003, p. 321), which is perceived as fundamental to effective academic writing, will show genre-specific variations.

2.4.4 Discipline variation

The previous section (cf. 2.4.3) demonstrated how a typical approach to academic discourse may focus on “the presence of a ‘common core’ based on generalisations across genres and disciplines” (Bhatia, 2002, p. 31). However, in recognition of the importance of genre and disciplinary variation, more recent approaches to the analysis of academic discourse take a “more differentiated view based on generic as well as disciplinary models” (ibid., pp. 30-31). The fact that disciplinary norms importantly cut across different academic genres is evident also in Hyland’s definition of a genre:

Genre represents how writers typically use language to respond to recurring situations, pointing to the fact that texts are most successful when they employ conventions that other members of the community ﬁnd familiar and convincing. This

community-based nature of genres suggests that their features will differ across disciplines… (Hyland, 2008, p. 543)

The role of genre and disciplinary norms has been questioned by a number of genre- and/or discipline-focused studies of academic discourse, the historical overview of which shows that over the history the focus shifted from disciplinary to genre and back to disciplinary variation, while today the commonly taken approach to the analysis of academic discourse takes “into account disciplinary variations in ways that complement the genre-based view of discourse” (Bhatia, 2002, p. 29). This interdependence of disciplinary and genre variation has been studied and evidenced by a number of linguists, including Hyland (2008). In line with the findings of these and other related studies, academic as well as more general texts in a chosen discipline should conform not only to genre- but also discipline-specific discourse conventions cutting across different genres since “every discipline has its own terminology and also (…) its own preferred rhetorical strategies” (Vold, 2006, p. 63). In recognition of the interdependence of genre- and discipline-specific norms a great number of more recent linguistic studies analyse specific linguistic features in disciplinary genres and compare their frequency and function across disciplines (Hewings, 2006, p. 14). One such feature is undoubtedly modality and the related use of modal verbs whose analysis has shown that it normally reflects not only the conventions of different genres but also the conventions of different disciplines. The resulting differences are predominantly associated with “the diverse nature of (…) research data” of different disciplines (Vázquez & Giner, 2008, p. 180).

One of the most prominent scholars studying how different disciplines define discourse conventions is Hyland, who in his seminal work on resources of stance and engagement in academic discourse examined “how the discoursal preferences of disciplinary communities construct both writers and readers” (Hyland, 2005, p. 173). In his work Genre and Academic Writing in the Disciplines (2008), the author further explores the interdependence of genre and disciplinary norms, basing his assumption on the postulate that different disciplines have their own perspectives and preferences for their own set of methods, concepts and instruments and can accordingly be arranged along the cline of “hard knowledge” sciences (i.e. science

58 and engineering sciences, including, for example, medicine, biology, and engineering) and “softer” humanities (i.e. humanities such as literary criticism, sociology, and marketing) with social sciences falling between these two extremes (Hyland, 2008, p. 549). The first extreme, that is hard sciences, are traditionally associated with “positivist epistemologies” where “the authority of the individual is subordinated to the authority of the text and facts are meant to ‘speak for themselves’” (ibid., p. 552). Accordingly, hedging and related epistemic modality are less frequent in hard sciences, where the authors tend to “disguise their interpretative responsibilities behind linguistic objectivity” (ibid.). In soft disciplines, on the other hand, claims are primarily accepted “on strength of argument” (ibid.). As further explained by the author, these differences importantly shape the professionally acceptable textual voice, in which increased “interpretative variation” in soft sciences compels the authors to “rely to a greater extent on a personal projection into the text” (Hyland, 2005, p. 187), while “the use of a highly formalized reporting system” in hard sciences allows the authors “to minimize their presence in the texts”. In terms of modality, this is reflected in a significantly higher frequency of epistemic modality in the humanities and “the preference for [dynamic] modal verbs over cognitive verbs” in the sciences (Hyland, 2008, p. 552).

To sum up, in recognition that in academic discourse “genres are typically employed in specific disciplinary cultures in the fulfilment of specific disciplinary objectives” (Bhatia, 2002, p. 31), today, a growing number of researches on modality and related phenomena, especially hedging, are based on a comprehensive analytic approach combining genre and disciplinary models. The results of respective studies, including Giltrow (2005), Piqué-Angordans, Posteguillo, and Andreu-Besó (2002), Varttala (2001), and Vázquez and Giner (2008), testify to the fact that rhetorical organisation of academic texts reflects both genre and disciplinary variation. There are, however, also linguists, like for example Markannen and Schröder (1997), who claim that “disciplinary variation (…) is not as great as has often been assumed” (as cited in Vold, 2006, p. 64). In line with the view that academic texts demonstrate both genre and disciplinary variation, the present study, however, aims to detect genre- and discipline-specific characteristics

59 and conventions in logistics scientific and professional genres, with which we wish to provide empirical evidence of genre- and discipline-specific use of modal verbs, which could help students as well as researchers in the field of logistics in “becoming successful communicators within their chosen specialisation” (Hewings, 2006, p. 9).

2.4.5 The discipline of logistics

Following the recognition that disciplinary variation of academic discourse is “inextricably related to the purposes of the discipline” (Hyland, 2005, p. 187), the present section will focus on the purpose and epistemology of logistics, the discussion of which will reflect the role of logistics today and continue with the historical development of logistics as a scientific discipline and its epistemology.

Today, logistics and the related supply chain management (SCM) are key aspects of the business world (Mangan, Lalwani, & Butcher, 2008, p. 4). The role of logistics has been addressed by various definitions, one of which is:

Logistics is the strategic management of movement, storage and information relating to materials, parts and finished goods in supply chains, through the stages of procurement, work-in-progress and final distribution. Its overall goal is to contribute to maximum current and future profitability through the cost effective fulfilment of customer orders. (Cooper, Ed., 1994 (as cited in Rushton, Oxley, & Croucher, 2000, p. 5))

Although the roots of logistic activities date back to the early beginnings of the human history (Heskett, Glaskowsky, & Ivie, 1973, p. 5), logistics as a scientific discipline began to develop only in the 1970s, when it started emerging as a cross- disciplinary field within the field of marketing (Klaus & Müller, 2012, p. 3). The beginnings of logistics as a discipline in its own right are frequently associated with the establishment of logistics professional associations like the “Council Logistics Management (CLM)” and “Bundesvereinigung (BVL)” as well as the establishment of dedicated university departments, professorship, academic curricula and academic journals (ibid., p. 4). While identification of logistics in terms of the mentioned “external manifestations” of a scientific discipline is more or less

60 indisputable, its identification in terms of “shared conceptual, intrinsic ties” remains the subject of ongoing debate (ibid.). The latter is greatly due to the fact that logistics has developed from a wide range of disciplines, including mathematics, engineering, the organisation sciences, business administration and economics (ibid., p. 6). All of these disciplines have their own perspectives and preferences for their own set of methods, concepts and instruments (ibid.), and accordingly can be arranged along the cline of “hard knowledge sciences” and “softer humanities” (Hyland, 2008, p. 549). Logistics thus brings together perspectives and methods of both hard and soft sciences and develops them further (Delfmann et.al, 2010, p. 5) to better suit the specific paradigm, i.e. “the intrinsic elements of the identity”, of logistics (Klaus & Müller, 2012, pp. 4-6).

In line with the already discussed recognition that knowing the disciplinary conventions plays a critical role in becoming and remaining a successful communicator in a chosen discipline (cf. 2.4.4), the discussed interdisciplinary nature of logistics exemplifies the importance of a holistic, i.e. combining conventions of hard and soft sciences, approach in dealing with reading and writing and respective discourse conventions. Since the latter is a primary concern to students and researchers, this view predominantly shows the importance of knowing and respecting disciplinary conventions in the academic world. However, logistics has at present been recognised as one of the key aspects of the business world (Mangan, Lalwani, & Butcher, 2008, p. 4), which is why it should be noticed that the importance of a holistic approach to problem-solving has also been recognised in the business world, which has increasingly been facing a greater need for “highly qualified, cross-disciplinary aware professionals” who are able to “bridge the gap between the ‘soft’ system issues and the ‘hard’ engineering requirements that characterize any logistical problem” (Naim et al., 2000, p. 78).

Previous paragraphs show that logistics is a relatively young scientific discipline importantly characterised by its interdisciplinary nature, which defines all logistical activities, be it academic or business related. As logistics has in the last few decades established itself firmly not only as a scientific discipline but also “as a profession, an important field of sophisticated managerial practices, and as a large, powerful

61 industry” (“The Roots of Logistics” [Springer], n.d.), awareness of the importance of a holistic approach, combining conventions of hard and soft sciences, is evidently critical not only to students and researchers but also to practitioners in the field of logistics. However, since the focus of the present thesis is the use of modal verbs in different text types in the field of logistics, the interdisciplinary nature of logistics in the chapters to follow will be discussed through the prism of its impact on the discourse conventions, which is most relevant to the academic world, but nevertheless has important implications also for the business world, where the need for “highly qualified, cross-disciplinary aware professionals” (Naim et al., 2000, p. 78) has also been recognised.

2.4.6 Language variation

While the previous sections have dealt with genre- and discipline-conditioned variation in the use of modal verbs, both of which are typically studied within a chosen language, attention will now be given to a comparison of the use of modal verbs across languages. The latter perspective is in line with the recognition that with modality like any other typological grammatical category:

it is necessary to recognize not only the language-specific formal features that establish the grammatical status of the category in individual languages, but also the shared cross-linguistic notional or semantic features across languages. (Palmer, 2003, p. 5).

In line with this view and in recognition of the fact that the use of modal verbs in the second language is influenced by mother tongue inference, the present study aims to shed light on modal verb use in English and Slovene as well as to establish whether categorisation of modal meanings into epistemic, deontic and dynamic can be applied to modality in both languages.

Differences and similarities between the use of modal verbs in English and Slovene will also be analysed through the prism of contrastive rhetoric, which, as defined by J. Flowerdew (2002, p. 3), analyses two languages with the aim of detecting similarities and differences between them. A related research into rhetorical conventions in English and Slovene academic writing conducted by Pisanski

Peterlin (2005) “has already established considerable cross-cultural differences” between the two languages: “Slovene writing seems to be more reader-responsible than English” (as cited in Pisanski Peterlin, 2010, p. 173). Following these findings and the observation that “as a Slavic language, Slovene has a relatively different system of modality from English” (ibid.), the present study aims to establish how the use of modal verbs in Slovene scientific logistics texts compares to their use in English scientific texts.

In the course of the last decades English has gradually but steadily established itself as a lingua franca in academia (Hyland, 2007) and has, accordingly, for many scholars become the first language in terms of academic writing (Connor, 1999 (as cited in J. Flowerdew, 2002, p. 7)), which is why the present study wishes to focus on the analysis of modal verbs in English scientific and professional genres and in the mother tongue (in this case in the Slovene language).

3 CORPUS AND METHODOLOGY

Having discussed the theoretical basis of the general notion of modality, the system of modal verbs as the most commonly used modal expression in English and the respective role of genre-, discipline- and language-specific discourse conventions, the following chapters provide a more detailed analysis of the primary objective of the present study, that is, the analysis of modal meanings in scientific and professional discourse in the field of logistics.

The present chapter first outlines the motivation, research problem, research questions and hypotheses. This will be followed by the presentation of the methodological framework of the study, including an overview of corpus linguistics and corpus-based methodology, the design of the corpus of logistics texts and finally research methods employed in the present thesis.

3.1 MOTIVATION

The main goal of the present thesis is to investigate the use and function of English modal verbs in scientific and professional logistics texts to detect potential genre- and discipline-specific similarities and differences and show how they may reflect

63 respective genre-conventions and the institutional setting of logistics as well as what practical implications the observed modal verb use could have for students, researchers and practitioners in the field of logistics.

3.2 RESEARCH PROBLEM

As discussed in Chapter 2, the importance of modality and related modal meanings in academic discourse has already been recognised by a number of authors, many of whom have, in recognition of genre- and discipline-specific discourse conventions, studied expressions of modality in a chosen genre, most frequently research papers, across different disciplines. Recognizing the importance of knowing and respecting respective discourse conventions both in English and any other language used as a mother tongue, a growing number of researches on modality employ either a typological or contrastive rhetoric approach or a combination of both. Accordingly, previous studies on modality vary not only in their focus, with some of the foci being one or some of the expressions of modality, a chosen modal meaning and its related expressions, etc., but also in the approach, namely a cross-genre, cross-disciplinary or cross-linguistic approach or their combination. Some of the previously published studies relating to the phenomenon of modality thus include Vihla’s (1999) study of modality across different genres in medical discourse, Piqué-Angordans, Posteguillo, and Andreu-Besó’s (2002) cross-disciplinary study of epistemic and deontic modal verbs in research papers, Giltrow’s (2005) cross-disciplinary study of modalities of obligation in research papers in English, Vold’s (2006) cross-linguistic (extending analysis of English, French and Norwegian) and cross-disciplinary study of epistemic modality markers in research papers, and Pisanski Peterlin’s (2010) cross-linguistic study of hedging devices in Slovene-English translation.

Although modality and modal verbs have been discussed widely, either in terms of their use in general, in academic discourse, or in a chosen discipline or disciplines, especially in disciplines with long traditions, such as medicine, economics and literary criticism, logistics as a relatively young discipline has not yet received attention with respect to genre- and/or discipline-specific use of modality and modal verbs. To contribute to filling this gap the present thesis focuses on the analysis of

64 modal verb use in scientific and professional logistics discourse, with the main goal to provide an objective insight into the potential genre- and discipline-specific use of modal verbs.

3.2.1 Research questions

In line with the presented research problem the thesis aims to provide answers to the following research questions: a) The field of logistics is a broad, interdisciplinary area offering many opportunities for the study of different text types and related linguistic features. In line with the view that scientific and professional discourse of a given genre is shaped by genre- and discipline-specific conventions, the present thesis sets out to establish whether using a corpus-based analysis of logistics texts in English the use and function of modal verbs in different text types in the field of logistics could be researched and presented with the main goal to provide answers to the following research questions: RQ1: Does the use of modal verbs in logistics scientific and professional genres show a preference for any modal meaning, i.e. epistemic, deontic or dynamic, and related communicative functions? RQ2: Does the use of modal verbs in logistics scientific and professional genres demonstrate any genre-specific differences? RQ3: Is the interdisciplinary nature of logistics reflected in the use of modal verbs and their respective communicative functions? b) Modality, like any other typological grammatical category, is characterised not only by language-specific but also shared cross-linguistic features. The latter could provide an invaluable insight into the language use, especially when the target foreign language use is compared with the mother-tongue use. Relatedly, another research question addressed by the present thesis is: RQ4: Does the use of modal verbs in a Slovene scientific textbook show any specific similarities and/or differences with the use in an English scientific textbook?

65 c) As traditional classification of modal verbs based on their lexical meanings, i.e. ability, permission, possibility, obligation, necessity, volition and predictions (Biber et al., 1999, p. 485), does not provide grounds for their in-depth understanding, the thesis also endeavours to reflect on the following research question: RQ5: Can the analytic approach to modality, i.e. from the perspective of epistemic, deontic and dynamic relations, used as a method contribute to a better understanding and interpretation of modal verb use in different languages in the field of logistics?

3.2.2 Research hypotheses

Relating to the research questions outlined in 3.2.1 the present thesis aims to test the following research hypotheses: a) Building on the view that modal verbs are typically polysemous, i.e. communicate different modal meanings, their contextual meaning and function thus greatly depending on “contextually provided modal restriction” (Kratzer, 2013, p. 7), which in scientific and professional discourse is predominantly associated with genre- and discipline-specific norms, the thesis will test:

Hypothesis 1: Polysemous modal verbs used in scientific and professional texts will show a preference for dynamic, epistemic or even deontic modal meaning and related communicative functions.

Hypothesis 2.1: Due to differences in their communicative functions, research papers, a scientific textbook and an application handbook will demonstrate different proportions of dynamic, epistemic and deontic use of individual modal verbs.

Hypothesis 2.2: Different percentages of dynamic, epistemic and deontic use with individual modal verbs will be reflected also in different ratios between the three meanings in the total use of modal verbs in the three text types.

Hypothesis 3: In terms of modal verb use, the interdisciplinary nature of logistics, i.e. the inherent dichotomy between hard and soft sciences, will be reflected in the dichotomy between objective and subjective presentation of claims. b) Based on the observation that, compared to English, Slovene has a relatively weak system of modal verbs (Ilc, 2008, p. 10) and the observation that in Slovene the range of epistemic modal verbs is limited to only two verbs: UTEGNITI and MOČI (Pisanski Peterlin, 2010, p. 183), the thesis will also test:

Hypothesis 4.1: The total use of modal verbs in a Slovene scientific textbook will be (much) lower than in an English textbook.

Hypothesis 4.2: Compared to English, modal verb use in a Slovene scientific textbook will show a (markedly) lower epistemic use than in English. c) In addition to drawing parallels between modal verb use in English and Slovene, the thesis finally aims to test:

Hypothesis 5: Palmer’s three-fold division of modality could be applied also to the Slovene system of modal verbs.

The analysis referring to the research questions and the hypotheses outlined in this and the previous section will be carried out on the corpus of logistics written texts in English, including research papers, a scientific textbook, a professional application handbook and two separate sections, a section of spoken discourse on logistically related issues and a section of logistics scientific discourse in Slovene. As the latter two sections will be used to provide only a preliminary view of modal verb use, they are limited in size and not included in the corpus of logistics texts.

At present, the majority of scientific and professional texts in any discipline, including logistics, is written in English, which is why the present study will predominantly focus on the analysis of modal verbs in scientific and professional logistics texts in English, or, to be more precise, on their use in research papers, a scientific textbook and an application handbook. The first two genres, i.e. research

67 papers and a textbook, have been chosen because they have been recognised as a key source of disciplinary knowledge and epistemology (Love, 2002, p. 76) and, accordingly, also present two of the most frequently exploited genres in the pedagogical practice. Although they share some of the features, these two genres, however, importantly differ in terms of discourse content, the first being typically used as the main source of “new and often contested knowledge” (Bhatia, 2002, p. 32) and the second as the main source of “established disciplinary knowledge”. Also, the genre of a handbook, as a source of information “such as facts on a particular subject or instructions how to do something” ( Oxford Learner’s Dictionary of Academic English , 2014, p. 375), differs from both research papers and a textbook in terms of discourse content. In recognition of different discourse contents (Bhatia, 2002, p. 32) as well as “the intended readership and communicative purpose” (Vihla, 1999, p. 40) of these three genres, the present analysis will first focus on the use of modal verbs in each of these genres. This will be followed by a comparative analysis of the results for all three genres as well as for a chosen pair of genres, i.e. for the research papers and the scientific textbook, for the research papers and the application handbook, and finally also the scientific textbook and the application handbook, where the ultimate goal is to detect potential genre-specific conventions in the shared disciplinary context.

Last but not least, the attempt will be made to draw parallels between the use of modal verbs in English and Slovene scientific logistics texts. The latter line of research has been undertaken in recognition of the importance of mother tongue interference, which in terms of the comparison of the use of modal verbs in Slovene and English proves very complex. Namely, Slovene possesses a relatively modest system of modal verbs.

3.3 CORPUS LINGUISTIC SETTING

At present, most studies of language issues, including modality, are based on methods of corpus linguistics, which is “concerned with the collection, structuring, and analysis of large amounts of discourse, usually with the assistance of computers” (J. Flowerdew, 2002, p. 3). The mentioned orientation is largely due to an important advantage of corpus-based research, which is that language research

68 is based on authentic data of language use, most of which today are computer readable and can be efficiently analysed quantitatively as well as qualitatively, or, as Biber et al. see it (1998): due to advancements in computer technology, more recent corpus-based research is characterised by the following four features: a) it is empirical, analysing the actual patterns of use in natural texts; b) it utilises a large and principled collection of natural texts, known as a ‘corpus’, as the basis for analysis; c) it makes extensive use of computers for analysis, using both automatic and interactive techniques; d) it depends on both quantitative and qualitative analytical techniques. (p. 4)

In recognition of the mentioned advantages of corpus-based research, different types of corpora have been developed. Kennedy (1998), for example, introduces two chronologically-based groups of corpora, i.e. the first generation corpora and the second generation mega corpora. The two most frequently referenced and used corpora from the first generation corpora are the one-million Brown Corpus of American English and the Lancaster-Oslo/Berger (LOB) Corpus of British English. While these two corpora are based on written texts published in 1961, another frequently referenced first generation corpus, the London-Lund Corpus (LLC), which forms a part of the Survey of English Usage Corpus, includes samples of spoken British English compiled in the 1960s. As the first generation corpora soon proved too small for a number of lexical and semantic analyses, the 1980s and 1990s witnessed the development of the so called second generation mega corpora (ibid., pp. 45-46), which changed not only in terms of their size but also in terms of their internal composition, as they typically include spoken and written texts. Another important difference is that the mentioned Brown Corpus and the LOB Corpus are based on 2,000 word samples, while the new generation corpora contain full texts (L. Flowerdew, 2004, p. 12). Some examples of these mega corpora are the 450 million word Bank of English Corpus, the 100 million word British National Corpus and the 22 million American National Corpus (ibid.). Leech (1991, pp. 9-10) correctly envisaged that due to the “exponentially increasing size of corpora” the third generation corpora would now be in the phase of developing.

Also, the onset of the related era of giga-corpora is being marked by the English Gigaword Corpus, which has been compiled by the Linguistic Data Consortium and comprises English newswire text exceeding a billion words (L. Flowerdew, 2004, p. 12).

All the above discussed corpora belong to the group of the so-called general corpora, i.e. corpora comprising different types of spoken and written texts (ibid.), which have long dominated corpus-based research. However, during the last few years the focus of corpus-based research has shifted from the analysis of lexical, grammatical or lexico-grammatical items in general context, i.e. across various text types or genres set in different disciplines or domains, to the analysis of these items and their respective meanings and functions in terms of a “specific setting” and “specific communicative purposes” (Piqué-Angordans et al., 2002, p. 49), the latter being identifiable on two levels, i.e. the level of discipline and the level of genre (Hyland, 2000). Accordingly, corpora specialised in terms of discipline and/or genre have been developed parallel to large-scale general corpora (L. Flowerdew,

2002, p. 96). The majority of the latter, i.e. specialised genre-based (ibid.) and domain-based corpora (Vihla, 1999, p. 37), range from 20,000 to 200,000 words and are frequently used for the analysis of academic discourse, the ultimate goal of which is informing its pedagogy (L. Flowerdew, 2002, p. 96).

One of the linguistic features that has frequently been studied in the framework of both general and specialised genre- or domain-based corpora is modality. As already discussed in 2.3.3, Coates’ seminal work on modality (1983) is based on two general corpora: written material is taken from the Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen Corpus while both spoken and unprinted material is taken from the Survey of English Usage Corpus (Coates, 1983, p. 1). A more recent study of modality based on the analysis of general corpora is Leech’s diachronic study of changes in the use of modal verbs (2003), which compares the respective results obtained in matching written electronic corpora (material taken from the LOB Corpus, the Brown Corpus, the F-LOB Corpus, and the Frown Corpus 7) and (very small) spoken electronic

7 As explicated by the author the LOB Corpus (1961) in terms of size and design closely matches the F-LOB (Freiburg-Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen) Corpus (1991), while the Brown

70 corpora (material taken from the SEU Corpus and the ICE-GB Corpus 8). While the two mentioned studies use general corpora for their study of modal verbs, a growing number of more recent studies on the role of modal verbs in a specific setting, for example academic discourse, use genre- or domain-specific corpora, occasionally also in combination with general corpora. Some such studies are: Piqué-Angordans, Posteguillo and Andreu-Besó’s study (2002) based on three distinct corpora, including a corpus of medical research papers, a corpus of research papers in biology and a corpus of research papers in literary criticism; Pisanski Peterlin’s study (2010) based on a corpus of research papers belonging to the discipline of geography, including papers originally written in English, papers written in Slovene as well as English translations of Slovene papers; Vázquez and Giner’s study (2008) based on a corpus of research papers on marketing, mechanical engineering and biology; Vihla’s study (1999) based on the Medicor, i.e. a corpus of medical texts; and Vold’s analysis (2006) based on the analysis of the Subcorpus of the KIAP Corpus containing research papers in English, French and Norwegian and belonging to the disciplines of medicine and linguistics.

As the main goal of the present study is to show how the use of modal verbs in different text types in the field of logistics reflects the disciplinary and genre conventions, the analysis of modal verbs will be undertaken in the domain-specific corpus, the design of which will be presented in more detail in the following section.

3.4 CORPUS OF LOGISTICS TEXTS

The present study of modality in logistics texts is based on the 260,076 word domain-specific corpus of contemporary logistics texts published in English. Here, the term logistics texts is used to include texts covering logistics and other inextricably related topics, including supply chain (management), distribution and transport. The corpus comprising three divisions, i.e. a division of the research papers, the scientific textbook and the professional application handbook, was

corpus (1961) closely matches the Frown (Freiburg-Brown) Corpus (1992) (Leech, 2003, p. 225). 8 Spoken material taken from the SEU Corpus (1959-65) matches materials taken from the ICE-GB (the International Corpus of English-Great Britain) (1990-92), both in terms of size and design (Leech, 2003, p. 230).

71 compiled specifically for this study with the overall goal of providing an insight into the discipline-specific use of modal verbs. The range of the corpus sections, which henceforth will also be referred to as subcorpora (Sc1, Sc2 and Sc3 respectively), varies in size from 72,003 to 94,438 word count and includes materials frequently used and referenced by Slovene students, researchers as well as practitioners in the field of logistics. Accordingly, the selected material represents scientific and professional discourse typically encountered by the mentioned people, who are also the people that will presumably benefit most from the results of the present study.

As mentioned, the corpus comprises contemporary materials which were published between 2010 and 2014 and are written in British or American English. The decision on making no distinction between the two variations is in line with the overall goal of the present study, which is to examine the genre- and the discipline- specific use of modal verbs in English frequently encountered by students, researchers as well as practitioners in the field of logistics, which will typically include sources written in either of the two variations. It should, nevertheless, be noted that the potential differences between British and American English may be of interest to further linguistic study but do not fall within the scope of the present study. Based on the name(s) of the author(s) and affiliation (where the latter is given), it is possible to determine that most of the texts included in the corpus were written by native speakers of English. However, the goal here is to present the use of modal verbs in sources typically used in practice, so the corpus includes also some papers authored by non-native speakers.

Table 1 shows the design of the corpus of logistics texts.

Table 1. Corpus of logistics texts

Year of Word count publication Research papers (Sc1) 2014 93,648 International Journal of Logistics Management (IJLM) International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management (IJPD&LM) Journal of Enterprise Information Management (JEIM) Scientific textbook (Sc2) 2010 72,003 Handbook of Logistics & Distribution Management Professional application handbook (Sc3) 2010 94,425 Supply Chain Operations Reference Model. Version 10.0

The first subcorpus (Sc1) consists of 14 research papers chosen from the recent volumes of three peer-reviewed journals from the field of logistics: International Journal of Logistics Management (5 papers totalling 35,928 words), International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management (4 papers totalling 22,600 words) and Journal of Enterprise Information Management (5 papers totalling 35,120 words). The first journal (IJLM) was chosen as a well-recognised and representative sample of a journal focusing on the central theme of the present thesis, i.e. logistics, and the inextricably related theme of supply chain management. Besides focusing on logistics management, the second journal (IJPD&LM) focuses on another key area in logistics, i.e. physical distribution, and is thus used as a typical source of papers concentrating on the latest developments in these two fields. The last journal (JEIM), whose previous titles – Logistics World and Logistics Information Management – more directly reflect its affinity with logistics, serves as a typical example of a journal focusing on information technology in logistics. All three journals are aimed at academics, both teachers and researchers, as well as practitioners, including managers, business planners and consultants, and others interested or engaged in the broader field of logistics, each having a central topic being specific to them. The subcorpus 1 includes abstracts and the running text of each paper, but excludes tables and figures, notes and reference lists.

The second subcorpus (Sc2) comprises selected chapters of the fourth edition of the scientific textbook titled The Handbook of Logistics & Distribution Management (2010). This textbook was chosen because it represents a typical and frequently used example of a scientific textbook and introduces the basic concepts from the field of logistics and distribution. The text aims at logistics managers, practising managers and supervisors as well as undergraduate and graduate students of logistics, distribution, supply chain management and other courses covering these subjects (Rushton, Croucher, & Baker, 2010, p. xvii). The text included in the research subcorpus includes the first fourteen chapters, but excludes the introductory information about the book (the publisher’s note, list of figures, list of tables, preface and abbreviations).

Subcorpus 3 (Sc3) comprises selected chapters from the professional application handbook titled The Supply Chain Operations Reference Model. Version 10.0. (2010). This handbook provides an in-depth presentation of the so-called SCOR process reference model, which was designed by the Supply Chain Council (SCC) to serve as a tool “for evaluating and comparing supply-chain activities and performance” (p. 1.1.1). The Summary of the Introduction further explains that this handbook is aimed at practitioners in the field of supply chain who either plan to introduce or already use the framework and structure of the SCOR Model (ibid.). The latter represents an important tool in the professional work of logisticians, which is why the handbook also presents an important source of respective information to both researchers and students in the field of logistics. The text included in the present subcorpus comprises the first three sections, the first of which is the introduction, but excludes the introductory information about the book (acknowledgments and the table of contents). It should, however, be mentioned that compared with the research papers and the scientific textbook, the application handbook, with the exception of the introduction, “distributes information in a more compact form” (Vihla, 1999, p. 39).

As mentioned in this overview of the research corpus, the division into the three subcorpora is genre-based. Such organisation of corpus data is based on Bhatia’s observation (2002, p. 23) that disciplinary genres “have integrity of their own”,

74 which makes it possible for the latter to be identified with reference to text-internal factors, i.e. textual and discursive factors, and text-external factors, i.e. contextual and disciplinary ones. Consequently, the present study sets out to establish the similarities and differences between the three commonly used genres in the scientific and professional logistics world, with the overall goal of defining them in terms of both genre- and discipline-specific conventions.

In order to recognise whether and how the use of modal verbs reflects genre- and discipline-specific conventions in written discourse in English, the study also includes an account of modal verb use in spoken discourse. Although the related analysis is based on data of a limited size, it provides useful information as to how, for example, formality, textual purpose and interpersonal relationship (Fachinetti, Krug, & Palmer, 2003, p. x) specific to spoken professional discourse in logistics shape the use of modal verbs. This orientation is in line with the frequently observed differences in the use of individual modal verbs in spoken and written discourse, which, however, are more or less specific to each verb (Coates, 1983; Fachinetti, 2003; Leech, 2003). Dialogues included in these section are taken from textbooks on business English and English for logistics.

Another separate but equally important source of investigation of modal verbs includes a scientific logistics textbook written in Slovene. Such a section was included to examine the use of modal verbs in Slovene, with the ultimate goal of establishing whether based on their meanings Slovene modal verbs could also be classified into the three-fold semantic category classification of epistemic, deontic and dynamic modality.

The above presented texts included in the corpus of logistics texts in combination with the separate part with English dialogues on logistically related issues were selected with the aim of compiling the best possible comprehensive collection of logistics texts in English frequently encountered by students and researchers in the field of logistics. The size and representativeness of the corpus, however, could be improved, by adding more samples of scientific textbooks and application handbooks. However, as this would exceed the scope of the present study, the

75 mentioned expansion of corpus remains a challenge to be addressed by further studies.

3.5 RESEARCH METHODS OF ANALYSIS

The present study of modal verbs in different text types in logistics is, as already explained, based on corpus-based analysis and combines a basic quantitative (i.e. frequency counts and the χ2 test) and semantic analysis of the corpus examples of modal verbs. The analysis of modal verbs was carried out in three stages.

Firstly, the corpus of logistics texts was compiled. As the scientific textbook (Sc2) and professional application handbook (Sc3) were available only in printed form, they were first scanned to provide a computer readable form. Then, these two subcorpora as well as the subcorpus of the logistics research papers (Sc1) and the two separate sections, including samples of English dialogues and the Slovene scientific textbook, were subjected to quantitative analysis. In the framework of the latter, all the texts included in the corpus were computer searched with MS Word for each modal verb in turn, where each occurrence and a suitable amount of context were stored in a separate file for semantic analysis that followed in step 2. The files were named after the respective subcorpus and modal verb, for example Sc1-CAN, Sc2-CAN and Sc3-CAN, etc. In this way a profile for each modal in a given subcorpus was established, showing the proportions of epistemic, deontic and dynamic use as well as important correlations and patterns (Coates, 1983, p. 2). Modal verbs included in the study are the modals CAN, COULD, MAY, MIGHT, MUST, OUGHT TO and SHOULD and the semi-modals ABLE TO, BOUND TO, GOING TO and HAVE (GOT) TO. After performing the manual coding of each modal verb with MS Word, I used the concordance programme AntConc (available at: http://www.laurenceanthony.net/software.html) to confirm validity of the data. The corpus linguistic and statistical methods employed in this part of the study provide numerical data, including absolute frequencies and normalised frequencies per 100,000 words.

In line with the recognition that “differences in meaning which can be assigned to each modal arise from their contexts of use” (Leticia, 2009, p. 124), all the

76 occurrences of the modal verbs included in the study were in the next step semantically analysed in their context of use and classiﬁed according to their meaning as epistemic, deontic or dynamic or when two modal meanings merged as epistemic/dynamic, deontic/dynamic or epistemic/deontic. The context within which occurrences were classified through the use of paraphrases and independent modal expressions, e.g. adverbs and verbs (Brewer, 1987; Giltrow, 2005; Leech, 1987; Palmer, 1990, 2003; Vold, 2006), was a sentence or, when necessary, even a full paragraph or a complete section (Piqué-Angordans et al., 2002). Semantic qualification was based on the paraphrases proposed by Palmer (1990): a) “It is possible that” and “The only possible conclusion is that” for epistemic possibility and necessity respectively; b) “It is possible for” and “It is necessary for” for deontic possibility and necessity respectively; c) “It has the ability/necessary characteristic to” or “It is possible for” and “It is necessary for” for dynamic possibility and necessity respectively.

As these paraphrases do not always provide sufficient evidence for the classification into discrete categories, they were, when necessary, supported by further tests, including a substitution test, i.e. replacement of the polysemic marker like MAY with “an intrinsically epistemic marker” such as perhaps , a test in which a phrase like “but I’m not sure” was added after “the marker/proposition”, or an attempt “to formulate a less hedged version of the proposition” for epistemic modal meaning (Vold, 2006, p. 71). Some of the adverbs that provided further evidence for semantic classification are: a) possibly, perhaps, surely, certainly, well and yet for epistemic modality (Palmer, 1990, pp. 27, 68); b) sometimes and otherwise for dynamic modality (ibid., pp. 107, 115).

It should, however, be noted that despite all the above mentioned, the classification of individual occurrences is always, at least to some degree, subjective (McEnery & Kifle, 2002, p. 186). Accordingly, the results of the semantic analysis presented in the following chapters should be taken as approximations rather than absolute

77 figures (Vihla, 1999, p. 43). Finally, further semantic analysis was applied to determine typical communicative functions of individual modal verbs in a given discourse setting.

In the third step, the results of the semantic analysis were subjected to a statistical comparison through the use of the Chi-square test, where p< 0.05 was used as the level of significance, while p-values between 0.1 and 0.05 were taken as values showing only a tendency towards a statistically significant difference. Or, to be more precise, the use of individual modal verbs across the three genres included in the corpus of logistics texts was first compared between all three genres and then also between the pairs of two genres (Sc1 vs. Sc2; Sc1 vs. Sc3; Sc2 vs. Sc3). The statistical analysis was carried out using the SPSS programme (23).

4 EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS

The following chapters include an in-depth presentation of the results of the quantitative and qualitative (semantic) analysis. The results are interpreted in accordance with the respective research questions and hypotheses, and the related discussion focuses on whether and how the use of modal verbs in logistics texts reflects genre- and discipline-specific discourse conventions as well as whether any parallels could be drawn between the use of modal verbs in English and Slovene cultural settings.

4.1 MODAL VERBS IN ENGLISH SCIENTIFIC AND PROFESSIONAL LOGISTICS DISCOURSE

On the basis of Bhatia’s observation (2002, p. 23) that disciplinary genres have integrity of their own, which develops in response to and can be identified in terms of genre- and discipline-specific discourse conventions, the following discussion will focus on the use of modal verbs in scientific and professional genres in the field of logistics, or more specifically, on the research papers, the scientific textbook and the professional application handbook. Logistics is a discipline with a markedly interdisciplinary nature, either in an academic or a business setting. For this reason, the results of the analysis of modal verbs will be interpreted in accordance with the respective communicative functions and communication skills, with the ultimate

78 goal to show practical implications of the findings for students, researchers and practitioners in the field of logistics.

The presentation of the results sets out from the analysis of modal verb use in research papers as the dominant tool for dissemination of new knowledge and findings. Attention is also paid to the use of modal verbs in a scientific textbook, which is an example of text type typically used for the presentation of knowledge that has already received consensus and approval in the discipline. We should, however, keep in mind that besides presenting “the disciplinary consensus”, textbooks can also present a more complex view on disciplinary knowledge, including conflicting arguments and contested interpretations (Hewings, 2006, p. 13). Finally, attention is given to how modal verbs are employed in a professional application handbook, which serves as an example of text predominantly aimed at practitioners and used to inform and instruct the reader on the given issue. Based on the mentioned communicative functions of the given genres, the present thesis aims to show how the use of modal verbs is defined by these distinctive functions as well as how the given communicative purpose is expressed through modal verbs, as this relationship should be seen as a reciprocal two-way relationship rather than one-way relationship. Additional to the results of this corpus-based study, the results of the analysis of the use of modal verbs in spoken discourse are used to examine an insight into the use of modal verbs in professional spoken discourse. However, due to the limited size of the spoken data, the respective qualitative and quantitative (semantic) analysis is not included in the corpus-based analysis but is rather dealt with separately.

4.1.1 Research papers

As a key vehicle for dissemination of new knowledge and findings, research papers have long been viewed as a type of discourse that should above all aim to remain “objective, faceless and impersonal” (Hyland, 2005, p. 173) in its presentation of scientific facts. This orientation is also close to the positivist view of academic research as “purely empirical and objective” (Hyland, 2002, p. 1095). However, in line with the more recent focus on the importance of the expression of the authorial self in combination with traditional objectivity of research papers (Scollon, 1994,

79 p. 34), it is now advocated that the authors of research papers should also aim to present their claims in a way that projects their stance and views and encourages the readership to actively engage in the process of reading and evaluating the text (Hyland, 2005). Accordingly, the results of the qualitative and semantic analysis of modal verbs in the logistics research papers will be interpreted through the prism of the role of modal verbs in objective presentation of claims on the one hand and in the expression of authorial self and engagement of the readership on the other. Parallels will thus be drawn to previous research on modality and some other related linguistic phenomena, e.g. hedging, in research papers (e.g. Giltrow, 2005; Hyland, 1998, 2005, 2008; Piqué-Angordans, Posteguillo, & Andreu-Besó, 2002; Vázquez & Giner, 2008; Vold, 2006).

The presentation of the results 9 begins with the overview of the findings of the simple quantitative analysis, including absolute frequencies and normalised frequencies per 100,000 words for each modal verb, as well as the findings of the semantic analysis, including absolute (f) and relative frequencies (f%) of different modal meanings of the individual modal verb. Modals and semi-modals are listed and discussed in descending order of frequency.

9 The results and discussion included in this part of thesis are partly presented in the paper “The Role of Modal Verbs in Research Papers in the Field of Logistics” (Vičič & Jurančič Petek, 2016), which relates the result of the analysis of modal verb use in a slightly bigger corpus of the logistics research papers.

Table 2. Modal verbs and their modal meanings in the logistics research papers

Logistics research papers 93,648 words

words

Items per 100,000Items

Modals Absolute (f) frequency Modality f f%

dynamic - neutral 287 84.7 dynamic - subject oriented 49 14.5 CAN 339 362 deontic/dynamic 3 0.9

epistemic 4 2.8 deontic 32 22.7 dynamic 37 26.2 epistemic/dynamic 5 3.5 SHOULD 141 151 deontic/dynamic 63 44.7

epistemic 53 47.3 deontic 1 0.9 dynamic 32 28.6 MAY 112 120 epistemic/dynamic 26 23.2

epistemic 13 16 dynamic 59 72.8 COULD 81 86 epistemic/dynamic 9 11.1

epistemic 1 2.4 deontic 11 26.8 dynamic 16 39 MUST 41 44 deontic/dynamic 13 31.7

epistemic 14 53.8 dynamic 9 34.6 MIGHT 26 28 epistemic/dynamic 3 11.5

OUGHT TO 1 1 dynamic 1 100

Semi- modals

ABLE TO 37 39 dynamic 37 100

HAVE TO 23 25 dynamic 23 100

GOING TO 1 1 dynamic 1 100

Total 802 857

The results in Table 2 show that modals including CAN, COULD, MAY, MIGHT, MUST, OUGHT TO and SHOULD, occur much more frequently than the semi- modals ABLE TO, GOING TO and HAVE TO. A further comparison of the frequencies of modals shows that CAN is by far the most frequently used modal and occurs more than twice as often as SHOULD, which ranked second. The verbs to follow – MAY, COULD, MUST, MIGHT and OGHT TO – show a steady and constant decline in their frequencies of use, while OUGHT TO is used only once. As already mentioned, compared to modals, semi-modals are used much less frequently, with ABLE TO ranking first and HAVE TO second. GOING TO is also used, but only once, while BOUND TO is not used at all.

First, attention will be given to CAN as the most frequently used modal. A more detailed review of the results for this modal shows that the positive form CAN by far outnumbers the negative forms CAN’T and CANNOT (320 out of 339 occurrences are positive). According to Coates (1983) and Palmer (1999), the positive form can only be used for the expression of non-epistemic, i.e. dynamic and deontic modality, while CAN’T and CANNOT are predominantly used for the negation of deontic and dynamic modality. CAN’T, however, may also be used for the negation of epistemic modality, but this use is very infrequent. Relatedly, the subsequent semantic analysis of all the occurrences of CAN in the present subcorpus shows that all the negative forms as well as all but three positive forms used for the expression of deontic/dynamic modality are used dynamically. Palmer (1990, pp. 83-84) further divides dynamic use into neutral or circumstantial possibility and subject-oriented possibility, i.e. ability, where the first one relates to the possibility conditioned by external factors, either specified or not, while the second refers to the possibility conditioned by factors internal to the subject of the sentence. It should, however, be noted that the distinction between possibility conditioned by external factors and characteristics inherent to the subject is not always clear cut as these two conditioning factors frequently overlap, whereby on the one hand ability may rest on possibility (Palmer, 1990, p. 199), while, on the other, ability may also imply possibility, because if someone has the ability to do something then this is also possible (Leech, 1987, pp. 73-75).

Semantic classification of all the occurrences, based on modal meanings expressed by each of them, (see Table 2) shows that the majority (84.7%) of occurrence of CAN are used for the expression of neutral or circumstantial possibility. Although the terms neutral and circumstantial possibility are, strictly speaking, frequently used interchangeably, the first one seems to be more appropriate where the possibility refers to neutral or generic possibility, while the second seems to be more appropriate where external circumstances are specified, as pointed out also by Palmer (1990, p. 84). The difference between these two uses is evident in the following two examples:

[1] “Firms can utilize 10 a variety of approaches…” (Cantor, Blackhurst, Pan, & Crum, 2014, p. 202)

[2] “By deferring the full commitment, a firm can limit its exposure to a technology…” (Lu, Goh, Garg, & De Souza, 2014, p. 24)

In sentence [1] external conditioning factors are not specified, which, in effect, implies that no external circumstances exist to prevent firms to utilize a variety of approaches, while in sentence [2] the possibility that a firm limits its exposure is conditioned by external factors clearly indicated in the introductory clause: “By deferring the full commitment” .

Based on the fact that occurrences in which external circumstances are not specified by far outnumber the ones in which they are, combined with the fact that, although pointing out the possible difference between the two terms, Palmer (1990) uses the terms neutral and circumstantial possibility more or less synonymously, here the term neutral possibility will be used for all the occurrences in which possibility is conditioned by external factors, either specified or not, while circumstantial possibility will primarily be used to emphasise dependence on specific conditioning factors, where relevant.

Sample sentences [1] and [2] show that dynamically modalised utterances in which possibility is constrained by external factors, either specified or not, enables the

10 The bold type of the modal verb and related main verb has been added for emphasis and will henceforth be used in all sample sentences.

83 authors to detach themselves from their claims and report them objectively. Further objectification, however, can be achieved through the use of passive voice, this use, as observed by Coates (1983, p. 96) and Biber et al. (1999, p. 499), being typical of academic discourse, where it allows the authors to further distance themselves from their claims. Accordingly, in the logistics research papers the combination of CAN with passive voice also proved frequently used (144 out of 339 occurrences 11 ). Two examples are:

[3] “Joint ventures can be seen as a type of real options …” (Lu et al., 2014, p. 24)

[4] “Complete power can also be estimated in SAS by using the proc MULTEST statement…” (Clottey & Grawe, 2014, p. 416)

Although, as shown in sample sentences [3] and [4], CAN in combination with passive voice allows the authors to completely detach themselves from their claims and report them objectively and thus almost as facts, it should, nevertheless, be pointed out that modalised statements (including “can be seen” and “can also be estimated”) are still less categorical than related bare assertions (e.g. is a type and is estimated ), the latter being predominantly used for the presentation of already established knowledge, or, in other words, where the readership is expected “to operate with the same knowledge, beliefs and values as those relied upon by the proposition” (White, 2003, p. 263). Contrary to categorical assertions, modalised statements are thus used by authors when they are introducing claims for which they haven’t yet gained full recognition in order to avoid potential opposition from readers. One commonly used method of objective and almost fact-like presentation of claims is the already mentioned combination of CAN and passive voice allowing the authors to minimise their presence, which in effect helps reduce risk of the readers’ opposition “on objective grounds” (Hyland, 1996, p. 437). Further to detaching the authors from their claim by using passive voice per se, in sentence [3] the combination of CAN with the passivized form of the verb see in “can be seen” , used with the meaning understand rather than observe (Palmer, 1990, p. 87), actively engages the readers in the knowledge making process and thus increases

11 The ratio between active and passive voice is given for all the occurrences of CAN (f= 339).

“the argumentative force of the text” (Vihla, 1999, p. 98), while “ can also be estimated” in sample sentence [4] seems to be detached from both the authors and readers and further objectified by the external conditioning factor “in SAS” and by “a nominalized process given in the by-phrase” (Biber et al., 1999, p. 499):”by using the proc MULTEST statement”.

Although used much less frequently than the combination of CAN with passive voice, the association of dynamic CAN with the expression how (Palmer, 1990, p. 84) also merits inclusion in the present discussion as it is commonly used to express objective judgment about the degree of possibility (ibid.). Unlike epistemic judgment, which is typically subjective, the evidenced dynamic judgment with how allows the authors to completely detach themselves from the conditioning of possibility. This use was observed in 18 occurrences of CAN. One of them is:

[5] “…global companies (…) demonstrated how innovative SC concepts can contribute to performance.” (Förster, Keller, von der Gracht, & Darkow, 2014, p. 374)

Besides the above discussed predominant use with neutral possibility sense, another rather frequent use of CAN (49 occurrences out of 339 occurrences) is its ability use, which is typically determined by properties inherent to the subject of the sentence (Coates, 1983, p. 89) 12 , but, as pointed out by Leech (1987, pp. 73-75), always implies also (neutral) possibility. Although this subject-oriented possibility typically occurs with animate subjects (ibid.), it can, however, also be used with inanimate subjects, with which it is used to indicate “the necessary qualities or ‘power’” (Palmer, 1990, p. 85). The latter use is more frequent in written discourse, especially of formal nature, and was thus accordingly frequently observed also in the present subcorpus (44 out of 49 examples of subject-oriented possibility). Examples of ability with both animate [6] and inanimate [7] subjects are given below:

12 It should be noted that, as observed by Coates (1983, p. 93), sometimes it may be difficult, if not impossible, to “decide whether the property in question is inherent or not” or whether “the writer (…) intended the inherent factors to be more or less important than the others”. Accordingly, semantic classification of occurrences in terms of neutral possibility and ability sense should be taken as an approximation rather than absolute truth.

[6] “…change specialists who can develop a plan…” (P. Garg & A. Garg, 2014, p. 440)

[7] “…the repaired products can function similar to the new products…” (Lu et al., 2014, p. 27)

Examples [6] and [7] show that subject-oriented possibility also allows the authors to detach themselves from their claims by reporting them as facts, whereby the possibility is conditioned by the subject’s inherent properties, including both innate and learned abilities with animate subjects and “the necessary qualities or power” (Palmer, 1990, p. 85) with inanimate subjects.

Further to being used for the expression of univalent modal meanings, including neutral and subject-oriented possibility, CAN is also used for the expression of polyvalent deontic/dynamic possibility. Namely, as observed by Brewer (1987), Coates (1983) and Palmer (1990), dynamic (neutral) possibility may occasionally overlap with deontic possibility as what is permitted typically coincides with what is experientially possible. Three such modal mergers were identified in the logistics research papers, with one of them being:

[8] “…stakeholders can require a firm to proactively plan…” (Cantor et al., 2014, p. 208)

Here, the authority vested in stakeholders, i.e. deontic possibility allowing them to require “ a firm to proactively plan”, overlaps with the actual (i.e. dynamic) possibility of doing so. In terms of Coates’ gradient of restrictions (1983, p. 86), examples like this could be placed in the middle position where (deontic) permission merges with (dynamic) possibility.

The results of the qualitative and semantic analysis of all the occurrences of CAN in the logistics research papers show that dynamic neutral possibility is by far the most frequently used meaning with this verb that together with the ability sense allows the writers to distance themselves from the creation of possibility (Lewis, 1986) and thus report claims objectively rather than subjectively. Occasionally, possibility conditioned by external factors (i.e. dynamic sense) overlaps with

86 subjective permission sense in the so called deontic/dynamic mergers. All in all, the present findings show that in the logistics research papers CAN as the most frequently used modal is almost exclusively used dynamically, allowing the writers to downplay their role and “objectify” their research (Hyland, 2008, p. 552).

The second most frequently used modal in the logistics research papers is SHOULD, which is used for the expression of univalent dynamic, epistemic and deontic modal meaning as well as epistemic/dynamic and deontic/dynamic modality. Of these five modal meanings, the latter proved to be the most frequently used (63 out of 141 occurrences) and can, for example, be found in the following sample sentence:

[9] “…Kolk and Pinkse (2006) note the influence of stakeholders should not be underestimated .” (Cantor et al., 2014, p. 208)

Here, SHOULD is used by the authors of the research paper to report deontically modalised utterance of previous research, thus, rather than directly prescribing, the authors are implicating an action (Giltrow, 2005, p. 171). Accordingly, the prescribed action loses its direct anchoring in the original writers’ (Kolk and Pinkse’s) agency and becomes neutralized by acquiring an additional status of general necessity, in which deontic necessity merges with dynamic necessity. Applied more broadly, statements combining deontic and dynamic modality could be read deontically as statements in which necessity is conditioned by professional and/or social responsibility or where the authors take responsibility for judgments without involving themselves “in a performative action” (Palmer, 1990, p. 70), on the one hand, and dynamically as objective reports of claims, in which necessity is constrained by external factors or even a necessary characteristic (ibid., pp. 113- 132), on the other.

The second most frequently expressed modal meaning of SHOULD is dynamic neutral necessity (37 out of 141 occurrences), in which necessity is constrained only by neutral or circumstantial factors. One such example is:

[10] “In order to have strong support (…), all the statistical tests should result in the correct non-rejection…” (Clottey & Grawe, 2014, p. 415)

More precisely, in sentence [10] the necessity is conditioned by the factor defined in the purpose clause: “In order to have strong support…” and could, accordingly, be considered an example of circumstantial necessity.

Although not typically dynamic, another occurrence deserving attention is SHOULD with speech-act verbs. Vihla (1999, p. 32) claims that such occurrences differ from typical circumstantial necessity as they do not refer to the physical world described but are used “to indicate rhetorical emphasis”. Two such occurrences were identified in the logistics research papers, with one of them being;

[11] “However, it should be noted there is less time…” (Xie, Allen, & Ali, 2014, p. 373)

The percentage of dynamic meaning (f%= 26.2) is closely followed by deontic meaning (f%= 22.7), which in the logistics research papers importantly complements epistemic modality in positioning the research findings vis- à-vis the intended audience, or, as Giltrow (2005, p. 175) puts it: “in rendering the sociality of knowledge”. One way of reaching out to the audience through deontic modality is the use of SHOULD for the expression of obligation to pursue knowledge by following the prescribed method for carrying out research findings (ibid., p. 179), as in:

[12] “In future research, additional (…) issues should be examined .” (Förster et al., 2014, p. 387)

The subjective obligation, i.e. the one arising from the writer’s authority, to use the prescribed method in future research may also be neutralised by circumstantial necessity in the already discussed deontic/dynamic mergers, as in:

[13] “From a methodological standpoint, theoretically driven methodology should be utilized …” (Liu, 2014, p. 406)

Another observed univalent deontic use of SHOULD typical of research papers is its use for the expression of the reader’s responsibility to act on research findings, in which, according to Giltrow (2005, p. 183), the necessity emanating from “the authority of research-attested knowledge” directs the envisaged readers in their

88 future field-related activities. One such example can be found in sample sentence [14], in which the necessity relates to 3PLs (Third-Party logistics providers), which are companies specialised in provision of logistics service (Rushton, Croucher, & Baker, 2010, p. 59), here representing practitioners in the field of logistics whom the obligation is addressing:

[14] “German 3PLs should introduce environmental performance measurement…” (Tacken, Sanchez Rodrigues, & Mason, 2014, p. 78)

The discussed uses in which SHOULD expresses obligation “to pursue knowledge” or “take action in the world”, either through univalent deontic meaning or polyvalent deontic/dynamic meaning, typically cluster in the ending sections of the analysed research papers, whether discussion or limitations and future research.

Although detected least frequently (4 out of 141 occurrences), the epistemic use of SHOULD, however, demonstrates an important method of voicing the author’s tentative or reasonable assumption, which is based on facts (Coates, 1983; Palmer, 1990). Coates’ (1983, p. 64) reference to this use as “its most normal” lends further support to its importance, despite the fact that in the corpus used in her study it proved by far outnumbered by deontic use. One example of this epistemic use functioning as a hedge is:

[15] “Certainly, given the evolution (…), there should be numerous topics…” (Liu, 2014, p. 403)

Occasionally (5 out of 141 occurrences), the author’s subjective (epistemic) judgment blends with circumstantial (dynamic) necessity. Such occurrences were classified as epistemic/dynamic mergers, with one of them being:

[16] “In the end, the cities should be well developed .” (Liu, 2014, p. 405)

An overview of all modal meanings expressed by SHOULD shows that the authors of the logistics research papers predominantly use it for the expression of professional and/or social responsibility to act on research findings neutralised by responsibility arising from external circumstances (Giltrow, 2005), i.e. deontic/dynamic meaning. This use is closely followed by the univalent expression

89 of either of these two meanings, while epistemic meaning, i.e. subjective judgment, and the epistemic/dynamic one, i.e. subjective judgment overlapping with neutral or circumstantial necessity, are used far less frequently.

The modal MAY proved to be the third most frequently used modal in the analysed research papers. Its polysemous nature and related complexity has been discussed by different authors, including Facchinetti (2003), Palmer (1990) and Vold (2006). In addition, Facchinetti (2003) and Palmer (1990) pointed out its specific use in scientific texts, in which authors frequently use it to constrain their clams by objective data rather than their “subjective appreciation of the proposition” (Fachinetti, 2003, p. 305). The analysis of MAY in the logistics research papers showed that it is used for all three modal meanings, i.e. epistemic, dynamic and deontic, as well as a combination of epistemic and dynamic use.

The most frequently used meaning with MAY was found to be epistemic meaning (f%= 47.3), which is used by the authors to signal their subjective attitude towards the proposition and is typically associated with hedging. In this function MAY is commonly employed by research paper writers to express new claims with due caution, where the main goal is to avoid or at least minimise the readers’ opposition, but still signal the author’s persona and engage with readers. MAY being recognised as a prototypical hedge, the observed dominance of epistemic or logical possibility in the subcorpus of the logistics research papers thus merely confirms the anticipated prevalence of epistemic use with this modal. One example of MAY that can be interpreted both in terms of epistemic modality as well as hedging is:

[17] “Unfortunately, many firms may make only minor or partial investments…” (Cantor et al., 2014, p. 207)

While this epistemic use is a frequent use of MAY in a broader context, its dynamic use, as already mentioned above, is more specific to scientific texts, where authors frequently employ this modal to detach themselves from their claims by reporting them objectively, as in:

[18] “When suppliers become aware of other suppliers (…), mimetic institutional pressure may come into play.” (Tate, Ellram, & Dooley, 2014, p. 361)

Here, the possibility of the event denoted by the main verb ( “may come into play” ) is evidently constrained by external circumstances specified in the when-clause (“When suppliers become aware of other suppliers…”) rather than the authors’ subjective opinion.

Table 2 shows that the dynamic use of MAY is its second most frequent use in the subcorpus of the logistics research papers (f%= 28.6).

With MAY the epistemic qualification of the author’s commitment to the truth value of a proposition can also overlap with circumstantial, i.e. dynamic, possibility (Palmer, 1990; Vold, 2006). Coates (1983) observes that in her corpus these mergers do not occur in spoken discourse but are quite frequently used in more formal written texts. In the logistics research papers, in 26 out of 112 occurrences of MAY epistemic and dynamic possibility overlap. One typical example is:

[19] “Poor consultant effectiveness (…) can lead to a low quality of BPR and the business processes may match poorly with the ERP systems…” (P. Garg & Agarwal, 2014, p. 405)

There is also one example of deontic use of MAY:

[20] “The finding of this study may not be generalized ...” (P. Garg & A. Garg, 2014, p. 441)

Here, the negative form “may not be generalized” is used by the authors to express their refusal of permission to generalise the study’s finding, whereby the deontic force is reduced by the use of agentless passive.

To sum up, the results of the semantic analysis show that epistemic modality is the most frequently used modality with MAY, followed by dynamic use and a merger of epistemic and dynamic modality, while its deontic use is limited to just one occurrence. The results for MAY thus confirm a preference for one modal meaning, that is epistemic, which is typically associated with the subjective expression of the author’s stance towards his/her claims. Dynamic use characteristic of scientific discourse (Fachinetti, 2003; Palmer, 1990), on the other hand, occurs less frequently

91 and is employed by the authors to show that their claims are based on objective data rather than their personal view.

The modal COULD ranked fourth most frequently used modal verb in the logistics research papers. Like MAY, it is used to express epistemic, dynamic and epistemic/dynamic modality, with dynamic modality being the most frequently used modal meaning (f%= 72.8). When used dynamically, COULD is, like CAN, used for the expression of neutral or subject-oriented possibility, with the main difference being that with COULD these two meanings are either past or hypothetical (Coates, 1983). This is demonstrated in the following two examples:

[21] “The company could predict the return flows…” (Lu et al., 2014, p. 23)

[22] “…a firm is likely to feel pressure (…) to disseminate knowledge regularly so that it can minimize sources of supplier risk that could negatively impact a firm's (…) performance.” (Cantor et al., 2014, p. 206)

In sample sentence [21], “could predict” refers to past possibility, which is related to the remanufacturing process, whose initiation is also set in the past. COULD in sentence [22], unlike in the previous example, is used to express hypothetical possibility, which in this respect may be contrasted with “can minimize” in the preceding sentence. The comparison of these two occurrences, “can minimize” and “could negatively impact ”, however, clearly indicates that with the latter there is “a little less certainty about the possibility” (Palmer, 1990, p. 58) than with the former.

Unlike CAN, COULD can also be used to express epistemic possibility (Coates, 1983; Gresset, 2003). In the analysed research papers this use of COULD ranked second (f%= 16) but it is nevertheless important because COULD might, as suggested by Coates (1983, p. 167), become “the new exponent of tentative Epistemic possibility” used instead of MIGHT, which is increasingly becoming synonymous with MAY. This epistemic use of COULD functioning as a hedge can be found in the following example:

[23] “Taking changes in value chains into consideration, (…) new production technologies could encourage companies to impart broad skills...” (Förster et al., 2014, p. 19)

In the present subcorpus there are also instances in which dynamic possibility overlaps with an epistemic judgment of the possibility of the event denoted by the main verb (f%= 11.1). One such example is:

[24] “Defining any specific task (…) could reduce the response rate…” (Shareef, V. Kumar, U. Kumar, & Dwivedi, 2014, p. 398)

The results in Table 2 show that possibility constrained by external circumstances, i.e. dynamic modality, is the prevailing type of modality with COULD, which is also used to express epistemic and epistemic/dynamic modality. With this, the assumption on a preference for one modal meaning is again confirmed and COULD recognised as a modal verb primarily used for objective reporting of findings.

The modal MUST ranked the fifth most frequently used modal (f= 41) and is used for the expression of all three univalent modal meanings and the deontic/dynamic merger. Besides these 41 instances of MUST used as a modal verb, there was also one occurrence in which it functions as a noun. Falling out of the scope of the present study, this occurrence was excluded from our analysis. The semantic analysis of the modal MUST showed that in the logistics research papers the authors most frequently (f%= 39) use it dynamically, that is, to objectively report necessity arising from external factors, which may (as in sentence [25]) or may not be explicitly stated (as in sentence [26]):

[25] “When a firm chooses to locate its remanufacturing operation in a new location, it must have significant advantage…” (Lu et al., 2014, p. 31)

[26] “Hidden costs (…) blend with other costs (…), yet must be considered and estimated with a certain margin of accuracy.” (Azzi, Battini, Faccio, Persona, & Sgarbossa, 2014, p. 116)

A closer look at these two sentences shows that in sentence [25] the necessity of having a “ significant advantage” depends on circumstances indicated in the when-

93 clause: ‘When a firm chooses to locate its remanufacturing operation in a new location’ , while in sentence [26] the necessity for hidden costs to “be considered and estimated” predominantly relates to the essential characteristic of hidden costs. In both examples MUST is thus used by the authors to disassociate themselves from their claims.

Although used only once, the dynamic use of MUST with the verb assert is another use deserving attention. It is in line with Coates’ assumption (1983, p. 35) that when used with verbs like say, admit, confess and warn , and thus also assert, the authors are actually performing what they are in the act of urging themselves to do. Relatedly, “we must assert” in sentence [27] equals we assert :

[27] “…we must assert that holding cost parameters are at close to 25 percent…” (Azzi et al., 2014, p. 125)

The second most frequent meaning with MUST proved to be deontic/dynamic meaning (f%= 31.7), where external necessity overlaps with necessity arising from professional authority. These mergers typically occur when the necessity arising from the authority of the original authors is reported with hindsight and transferred into the new context acquires an additional status of the necessary characteristic. One example of subjective obligation neutralised by becoming a necessary characteristic is:

[28] “Christopher et al. (2004) proposed that process integration is one of (…) attributes that an agile supply chain must possess .” (Gligor & Holcomb, 2014, p. 164)

Dynamic/deontic meaning is closely followed by univalent deontic meaning (f%= 26.8), where the essentially face-threatening nature of deontic MUST is typically neutralised by constraining the obligation to act on research findings by collective professional responsibility rather than by the author's authority (Giltrow, 2005). One method of achieving the impression of collective professional responsibility as a constraining factor frequently encountered in the logistics research papers is the use of deontic MUST with passive voice (7 out of 11 occurrences), as in the following example:

[29] “It is recommended that all the users must be trained in the ERP basics…” (P. Garg & A. Garg, 2014, p. 440)

Here, the deontic meaning of MUST is strengthened by the verb recommend , which is also in the passive form.

There is also one occurrence in which MUST is used epistemically to quote the original author’s judgment of the possibility (f%= 2.4). As the main verb is in the perfective aspect (“have been through” ), the judgment refers to the past event:

[30] “Dornyei alleged that ‘questions that have been used frequently before must have been through extensive piloting.’” (P. Garg & A. Garg, 2014, p. 427)

To sum up, the results for MUST show that it is used polysemously, most frequently for the expression of dynamic necessity. Although accounting only for approximately one quarter of its total use, deontic modality also importantly contributes to shaping the textual voice by interpersonally positioning the author’s and/or the professional authority vis-à-vi the professional community, which the logistics research papers predominantly address. With MUST dynamic and deontic necessity frequently overlap, whereby the face-threatening nature of the latter is neutralised by the objectivity and author-evacuation of the former, in the so-called deontic/dynamic mergers.

The next examined modal is MIGHT, which is used for the expression of epistemic and dynamic modality as well as a combination of epistemic and dynamic meaning, in the epistemic/dynamic mergers. Like MAY, it is most frequently used for the expression of epistemic modality, which typically functions as a hedge. One example of epistemic use of MIGHT functioning as a hedge is:

[31] “This approach is definitely suitable in case of deteriorating and perishable items (…), but might not necessarily work in different situations.” (Azzi et al., 2014, p. 111)

To further qualify their judgment that the proposed approach “might not (…) work in different situations”, the authors here use the adverb necessarily , which like

95 possibly functions as a harmonic adverb with epistemic MIGHT (Coates, 1983, p. 151).

There is also one sentence in which MIGHT is used in the main clause and MAY in the subsequent relative clause introduced by which , in which MIGHT and MAY seem to express the same degree of possibility. Accordingly, it could be assumed that here first MIGHT and then MAY are used to avoid repetition:

[32] “…government might make transition directly (…) to a (…) morphing stage which may include interactive and transactional services...” (Tripathi & Gupta, 2014, p. 454)

Another frequent use of MIGHT is its use for the expression of possibility constrained by external factors, allowing the authors to detach themselves from their claims. Sample sentence [33] reveals that the external circumstances upon which the possibility is conditioned may be given explicitly (here in the purpose clause: “For these purposes” ):

[33] “For these purposes, different functions of government organizations might be integrated …” (Shareef et al., 2014, p. 387)

Alongside this, the authors can also employ dynamic MIGHT to talk about more general and also hypothetical possibility in the present or future (Coates, 1983, p. 161). One such example, in which MIGHT is used to propose possible future research directions, is given below:

[34] “Future research might test the applicability of Delphi-based SMI…” (Förster et al., 2014, p. 387)

With MIGHT conceptual (epistemic) possibility may overlap with experiential (dynamic) possibility, whereby the authors’ subjective view overlaps with the objective possibility of the actualisation of an event, as in:

[35] “…the manager (…) emphasises that in case of innovation, additional costs might be acceptable .” (Tacken et al., 2014, p. 67)

The discussed distribution of the modal meanings of MIGHT shows that, like MAY, it is most frequently used epistemically, i.e. for the expression of the author’s views and opinions. Besides that, it is also used dynamically, i.e. for objective evaluation of possibility, and even for a combination of subjective and objective evaluation of possibility in the so called epistemic/dynamic mergers.

The fact that the modal OUGHT TO occurs only once comes as no surprise, as its infrequent use, especially in written discourse, has been discussed by various linguists, including Palmer (1990) and Coates (1983). The occurrence recorded in the logistics research papers is used dynamically to express possibility conditioned by external circumstances, which are explicitly stated in the purpose clause introduced by “in order to” :

[36] “…the refurbishment cost ought to be less than one-third of the original manufacturing cost in order to make remanufacturing profitable.” (Lu et al., 2014, p. 27)

Due to its low frequency of occurrence no other conclusions can be drawn for this modal.

Table 2 shows that in the subcorpus of the logistics research papers semi-modals are used much less frequently than modals. ABLE TO is used 37 times, HAVE TO 23 times and GOING TO once. All occurrences of these three semi-modals demonstrate dynamic use only, which supports the assumption on the prevalence of one type of modality and shows that semi-modals typically contribute to the objective nature of the logistics research papers.

The use of modal verbs in the logistics research papers is summarised in Table 3, which gives the percentages of epistemic, deontic and dynamic modality, where modal meanings of epistemic/dynamic and deontic/dynamic uses are equally distributed between the two modal meanings of these two mergers.

Table 3. Proportion of epistemic, deontic and dynamic modality in the logistics research papers

Modality Modals Epistemic Deontic Dynamic

CAN 0 2 337

SHOULD 7 63 71

MAY 66 1 45

COULD 17 0 64

MUST 1 18 22

MIGHT 16 0 10

OUGHT TO 0 0 1

Semi-modals

ABLE TO 0 0 37

HAVE TO 0 0 23

GOING TO 0 0 1

Total (f) 107 84 611

Total (f%) 13 11 76

To sum up, based on the results presented in this section of the thesis, it may be concluded that the majority of the analysed modal verbs used in the subcorpus of the logistics research papers show a preference for one modal meaning, i.e. dynamic one. Or, to be more precise, the fact that the modal verbs ABLE TO, HAVE TO, GOING TO and OUGHT TO are used as monosemous dynamic modal verbs fully confirms the assumption that polysemous modal verbs show a preference for one modal meaning, as do the modal verbs CAN, COULD and MUST, which are used polysemously, i.e. for the expression of different modal meanings, but show a preference for dynamic modality. The modal verbs MAY and MIGHT also appear to be polysemous, but show a preference for epistemic modality. The only modal verb showing no preference for any of the three univalent modal meanings is thus SHOULD, which shows a preference for the polyvalent deontic/dynamic meaning.

The distribution of modal meanings demonstrated in Table 3 and the related communicative functions thus show that the authors of the logistics research papers predominantly use modal verbs to distance themselves from their claims and report them objectively (f%= 76), while they use them far less frequently to qualify their commitment to the truth value of a proposition (f%= 13) or to express obligation to

98 pursue knowledge and/or act on research findings (Giltrow, 2005) (f%= 11). Although used far less frequently, subjective (i.e. epistemic and deontic) modalisation of statements, however, importantly contributes to shaping the textual voice by emphasising the writer’s persona and by directing the readers to engage with the presented knowledge and findings, respectively.

4.1.2 Scientific textbook

Unlike research papers, which are predominantly used for dissemination of new knowledge and findings still needing disciplinary approval, scientific textbooks are traditionally viewed as a source of “the disciplinary consensus” (Hewings, 2006, p. 13), i.e. knowledge which has already gained disciplinary approval and thus presents reliable information. Besides presenting the disciplinary consensus, textbooks, however, can also be used for the presentation of conflicting arguments and contested interpretations (ibid.). Undoubtedly, these two different discourse contents will display different uses of rhetorical functions, including modal verbs, and could result in a relatively low use of modal verbs, especially epistemic and deontic, in the first case, and a markedly higher use of modal verbs with all three modal meanings, i.e. dynamic, epistemic and deontic, in the second. In either case, the evidenced use of modal verbs could be analysed through the perspective of “generic-integrity” (Bhatia, 2002, p. 32), a view which has also been considered in the present thesis.

The analysis of the role of modal verbs in the logistics scientific textbook 13 is based on the presentation of the results of the simple quantitative analysis, including absolute frequencies and normalised frequencies per 100,000 words for each modal verb, as well as the findings of the semantic analysis, including absolute (f) and

13 The results and discussion included in this part of thesis are partly presented in the contribution for a scientific monograph titled “Modalni glagoli in njihovi modalni pomeni v znanstvenih in strokovnih logističnih besedilih” and authored by Vičič and Jurančič Petek (2015). The contribution relates the result of the analysis of modal verb use in a slightly bigger corpus of the logistics scientific textbook, whereby the analysis is limited to the modal verbs CAN, MAY, MUST, ABLE TO, BOUND TO, GOING TO and HAVE TO.

99 relative frequencies (f%) of different modal meanings of the individual modal verb. Modals and semi-modals are listed and discussed in descending order of frequency.

Table 4. Modal verbs and their modal meanings in the logistics scientific textbook

The Handbook of Logistics & Distribution Management

words 72,003 words

Items per 100,000Items

Modals Absolute (f) frequency Modality f f%

dynamic - neutral 309 90.4 CAN 342 475 dynamic - subject oriented 33 9.6

epistemic 120 46.2 dynamic 92 35.4 MAY 260 361 epistemic/dynamic 48 18.5

epistemic 9 6.4 deontic 1 0.7 dynamic 84 60.0 epistemic/dynamic 1 0.7 SHOULD 140 194 deontic/dynamic 45 32.1

1 epistemic 13 18.8 dynamic 31 44.9 MIGHT 69 96 epistemic/dynamic 25 36.2

epistemic 13 27.7 dynamic 29 61.7 COULD 47 65 epistemic/dynamic 5 10.6

dynamic 22 47.8 MUST 46 64 deontic/dynamic 24 52.2

Semi- modals

ABLE TO 27 37 dynamic 27 100

HAVE TO 22 31 dynamic 22 100

epistemic 1 50 GOING TO 2 3 dynamic 1 50

Total 955 1,326

The comparison of absolute frequencies and normalised frequencies per 100,000 words shows that modals are far more frequently used than semi-modals, or to be

100 more precise MUST as the least frequently used modal occurs almost twice as frequently as ABLE TO, which proved to be the most frequently used semi-modal. A more detailed overview of the results for modals shows that CAN, as the most frequently used modal, is followed by MAY, SHOULD, MIGHT, COULD and MUST, and the results show a steady and constant decline. Only the modal OUGHT TO does not occur at all. Of the semi-modals only ABLE TO and HAVE TO occur with substantial frequency, however, much less frequently than modals. GOING TO on the other hand occurs only twice, while BOUND TO does not occur at all.

The discussion of the results for CAN as the most frequently used modal is based on the ratio between the positive and negative form. The results of the respective analysis show that the first by far outnumbers the second, with the ratio between the two forms being 333 to 9. The subsequent semantic analysis shows that of all the possible meanings with both positive (dynamic and deontic meaning) and negative form (all three modal meanings) only dynamic modal meaning is used in the analysed scientific textbook. Relatedly, to provide an insight into the use and functions of CAN, a further distinction will now be made between neutral or circumstantial possibility (cf. 2.4.1.1 and 4.1.1) on the one side and subject-oriented possibility, i.e. ability, on the other. Of the two meanings, the first one occurs much more frequently (f%= 90.4), and the external circumstances may or may not be specifically identified. Accordingly, the term neutral possibility (cf. 2.4.1.1 and 4.1.1) seems more appropriate where enabling circumstances are not specified, while the term circumstantial possibility better suits utterances in which they are. Examples of this type of modality are:

[37] “Channels can be short (…) or long…” (Rushton, Croucher, & Baker, 2010, p. 11)

[38] “In this circumstance, supply can flex …” (ibid., p. 113)

Besides demonstrating the difference between neutral (sample sentence [37]) and circumstantial possibility (sample sentence [38]), these two sentences clearly demonstrate the objective use of CAN.

101

With CAN this neutral possibility sense is even more obvious where the main verb is in the passive form (Palmer, 1990, p. 84). In the analysed logistics scientific textbook 192 out of 342 or 56 percent of occurrences of CAN are followed by a proposition in passive voice 14 , which provides further evidence that this modal is primarily used to reduce the author’s presence and let facts speak for themselves. One such use is demonstrated in the following example, where CAN is combined with both passive voice and how , another commonly used expression with the neutral possibility sense:

[39] “It shows how the concept of total logistics can be ignored …” (ibid., p. 16)

As mentioned in 4.1.1, neutral possibility CAN, especially when used with passive voice, allows the authors to report statements almost as facts. Nevertheless, no matter how objective the claim, statements with CAN are still less categorical than bare assertions, which can well be seen where the two are positioned against each other, as in:

[40] “…logistics structures can and do differ quite dramatically...” (ibid., p. 11)

Besides being followed by a bare assertion, possibility CAN may also be followed by other expressions of possibility, whereby neutral possibility is juxtaposed with different levels of actualisation of possibility. These occurrences could be arranged along the continuum from the lowest to the highest level of actualisation:

[41] “can or might”: “…different service gaps that can or might appear …” (ibid., p. 35)

[42] “can and will” 15 : “…customer service and customer service requirements can and will differ ...” (ibid., p. 30)

14 The ratio between active and passive voice is given for all the occurrences of CAN (f= 342). 15 As already mentioned, WILL does not enter the “possibility vs. necessity” paradigm, and is thus not included in the study. According to Palmer (1990, p. 57), it can, however, be used for the expression of “a reasonable inference”, which can also be observed in sample sentence [42].

102

[43] “can and do”: “…logistics and the supply chain can and do differ dramatically...” (ibid., p. 13)

While neutral possibility proved the prevailing modal meaning with CAN (f%= 90.4), the ability sense proved used much less frequently (f%= 9.6) and typically with inanimate subjects (28 out of 33 occurrences). There is also one example in which the neutral possibility use of CAN, or, to be more precise, the lack of neutral possibility co-occurs with the ability sense:

[44] “Traditionally seen as an operational necessity that cannot be avoided , a good logistics operation can also offer opportunities...” (ibid., p. 21)

Here, the difference between the possibility conditioned exclusively by external factors ( “cannot be avoided” ), on the one hand, and the overlapping of inherent and external conditioning factors (“ can also offer” ), on the other, is clearly visible.

The semantic analysis of all the occurrences of CAN in the logistics scientific textbook showed that dynamic modality is the only type of modality used for this modal or, to be more precise, with the relative frequency of 90.4 percent dynamic neutral possibility was observed to be the dominant modal meaning, complemented by dynamic subject-oriented meaning (f%= 9.6). These findings thus show that this normally polysemous modal verb plays an exclusively dynamic role in the analysed scientific textbook and is employed by the writers to downplay their subjective role by objectively reporting their findings. The obtained results agree with Coates’ (1983, p. 100) observation that formal texts are characterised by a higher proportion of “‘Possibility’ CAN” than less formal texts. Combined with the fact that CAN in the given text more frequently occurs with passive than active voice and this being recognised as another feature typical of academic discourse, these results thus lend further support to the assumption that objective presentation of findings importantly shapes the textual voice of scientific textbooks.

CAN is relatively closely followed by MAY (f (CAN) = 342 and f (MAY)= 260). While the former, despite its polysemous nature, proved to be exclusively used for the expression of dynamic modality, the latter is characterised by complexity largely arising from its polysemous nature. In the analysed logistics scientific textbook the

103 polysemous nature of MAY is reflected in the results of the semantic analysis which showed that besides being used for the expression of univalent epistemic and dynamic modal meaning, it is also used for the expression of a combination of these two meanings in the epistemic/dynamic mergers.

Most frequently (f%= 46.2), MAY is used for the expression of the author’s subjective judgment, i.e. epistemically, and in this use typically functions as a hedge. One such example is:

[45] “This may well be the main area for competitive advantage...” (ibid., p. 58)

Here, MAY is used in association with well , which according to Palmer (1990, p. 68), is used “to strengthen the possibility”. Another important observation about the use of well with MAY is given by Coates (1983, p. 134-135), who first emphasises that in her corpus all the occurrence of this modal proved subjective. She continues to explain that the collocation may well may seem quasi-objective, as the authors typically use it when they want to give an impression that they are not qualifying their commitment to the truth value of the proposition. Despite the mentioned, she concludes that, because here, too, MAY seems to be primarily used by the speakers to signal their lack of confidence, it should be interpreted as “essentially subjective” (ibid.). This essentially subjective nature of may well can be observed also in sample sentence [45] and occurs 6 more times in the given text.

Alongside well, other harmonic expressions used with MAY are possible , possibility and indeed . According to Coates (1983, p. 138), when used together, MAY and a given harmonic expression mutually reinforce each other, which is why the latter may also occur pleonastically. Examples of the mentioned harmonic combinations with MAY are given below:

[46] “It may not be possible to make precise quantitative comparisons…” (ibid., p. 134)

[47] “…there may be a possibility of removing some of the associated transport costs…” (ibid., p. 220)

104

[48] “All of these different aspects can be key requisites (…) – indeed , each of them may be essential…” (ibid., p. 32)

Besides demonstrating how harmonic expressions reinforce each other, sample sentence [48] also clearly shows the difference between the possibility constrained by external factors, i.e. dynamic possibility (“can be ”), and the possibility constrained by the authors’ judgment, i.e. epistemic possibility (“ indeed, each of them may be ”). This combination also reflects the dichotomy between objective and subjective presentation of claims.

This epistemic use functioning as hedging (cf. 4.1.1), however, is not the only use typical of formal texts and thus also of scientific discourse. Another use of MAY predominantly associated with academic discourse is its dynamic use. Unlike the former, i.e. epistemic use, the latter, however, allows the authors to disassociate themselves from their claims and present them objectively. This use ranked second (f%= 35.4) and can also be found in the following sentence:

[49] “…the movement of industrial products, of which there are very many. This may cover raw materials…” (ibid., p. 54)

A closer look at the possibility sense of “ may cover ” in sample sentence [49] shows that it is used for the expression of general possibility constrained by factors external to the authors, which, however, are not specified but implied (nothing prevents for this industrial products to be raw materials, components, part- assembled products, etc. ).

The third modal meaning of MAY in the scientific textbook is the epistemic/dynamic merger (f%= 18.5), where the possibility expressed by MAY could be seen as constrained by both the authors’ judgment and the external factors, as in the following example:

[50] “...the stock holding of these may be centralized so as to minimize safety stocks.” (ibid., p. 112)

Here, the external conditioning factors overlapping with the authors’ subjective view are specified in the purpose clause: “so as to minimize safety stocks”.

105

An overview of modal meanings expressed by MAY shows that it is predominantly used for subjective voicing of the authors’ views and opinions, this use being followed by an objectified presentation of claims and a combination of both meanings. The results thus confirm the assumption on the preference for one modal meaning, that is epistemic, and they show that the three different uses of MAY reflect the objective/subjective dichotomy typical of academic discourse.

The modal SHOULD ranked the third most frequently used modal in the logistics scientific textbook. Like MAY, it proved complex and markedly polysemous, i.e. used for the expression of epistemic, dynamic, deontic, epistemic/dynamic as well as deontic/dynamic meaning, whereby the prevailing modal meaning proved to be dynamic necessity (f%= 60). Frequently, SHOULD with this dynamic use points to external circumstances as necessitating outcomes (Giltrow, 2005, p. 192). One such example is:

[51] “For realistic measurement, any discrepancies should be assessed cumulatively.” (ibid., p. 46)

Besides this circumstantial and neutral necessity meaning, where external circumstances may be specified as in sample sentence [51] (“ For realistic measurement ”) or not, especially when referring to general necessity or lack of it, another dynamic use of SHOULD is its use with speech act verbs (cf. 4.1.1). This use has 7 occurrences in the logistics scientific textbook. One such example is:

[52] “It should be re-emphasized that this continues to increase…” (ibid., p. 79)

Here, the speech act verb is re-emphasize . Besides this verb, which is used once, other speech act verbs used with SHOULD are emphasize (used once) and notice (used seven times). As observed in sample sentence [52], the main function of these utterances is “to indicate rhetorical emphasis” (Vihla, 1990, p. 32), whereby their basic meaning relates to what is necessary in a given situation.

This objective use referring to what is necessary in a given situation frequently overlaps with obligation sense, in the so called deontic/dynamic mergers (f%= 32.1). In this use deontic force of necessity arising from the author’s or professional

106 authority is neutralized by necessity arising from external circumstances which may or may not be specified. One such example in which external circumstances necessitating the event are specified (“ when deciding on a particular site ”) is:

[53] “…there are various practical considerations that should be taken into account when deciding on a particular site.” (ibid., p. 139)

This neutralised necessity sense ranked second, however, the univalent deontic sense was observed only once. A low frequency of the latter could imply that scientific textbooks, including the analysed logistics textbook, primarily aim at explaining and describing facts (Vihla, 1999, p. 40), which is why deontic modality as the meaning typically used to instruct the readers to perform the prescribed action or to see things in a way determined by the writers (Hyland, 2005, p. 184) might prove less suitable than dynamic and epistemic modality which are typically used to present facts objectively or to give the author’s perspectives on them, respectively. However, the one example in which SHOULD seems to be used to instruct the readers on the desired course of action is:

[54] “…potential for trade-off should continually be borne in mind .” (ibid., p. 90)

The third most frequently used modal meaning proved to be epistemic modality (f%= 6.4), which is used for the expression of the author’s subjective perspectives or assumptions and as such typically functions as a hedge. One such example is:

[55] “Thus, they should be streamlined and should not be affected or delayed because they cross functional boundaries.” (ibid., p. 88)

Here, the authors’ logical assumption is based on the fact relating to business methods introduced in the preceding sentence. Alongside this epistemic use, in which SHOULD is used to voice the author’s subjective assumption based on (objective) facts, there is also one epistemic/dynamic occurrence in which SHOULD is used to express necessity emanating from both the authors’ subjective perspective and objective, external factors:

[56] “On completion of this initial phase (…) it should be possible to identify corporate strategy…” (ibid., p. 87)

107

In this sample sentence epistemic meaning is stressed by the harmonic expression possible , while dynamic meaning is based on the introductory adverbial phrase: “On completion of this initial phase…”.

One more example in which possible is used as a harmonic expression is:

[57] “From these (…) it should be possible to generate a long list of alternative options...” (ibid., p. 134)

Here, possible is used with univalent epistemic SHOULD and the two epistemic expressions mutually reinforce each other.

To conclude, the results of the semantic analysis of SHOULD in the logistics scientific textbook show that this modal is predominantly used objectively, i.e. to report neutral or circumstantial necessity. Another frequent use is professional necessity meaning neutralised by external necessity, i.e. deontic/dynamic meaning. Although presenting a minor share, epistemic meaning functioning as a hedge presents an important resource for interpersonal positioning of the author’s and/or the professional authority vis-à-vi the readers.

The next modal is MIGHT, which like MAY, is traditionally associated with epistemic modality. The most frequently used meaning in the logistics scientific textbook, however, proved to be the dynamic one, which is closely followed by epistemic/dynamic meaning, while epistemic meaning ranked third.

Ranking first (f%= 44.9), dynamic meaning with MIGHT is predominantly used for the expression of general possibility, as in:

[58] “Typical information systems that may support logistics process and network design might be electronic point of sale…” (ibid., p. 89)

[59] “…it is very important for companies to know how their distribution networks might be improved .” (ibid., p. 118)

In sample sentence [58], general possibility expressed by MIGHT (“ might be electronic point of sale ”) is preceded by general possibility expressed by MAY (“ may support logistics process and network design ”), whereby both modals seem

108 to express the same degree of possibility. The fact that MAY is used in the relative clause and MIGHT in the main one lends further support to this observation as otherwise it would be more logical for MAY to be used in the main clause and MIGHT as the modal which could be used to express more tentative possibility in the relative clause. Sample sentence [59] provides an example of another general possibility use worthy of attention, that is the use of SHOULD with how , which occurs 5 times and is used for the expression of objective judgment about the degree of possibility (“ how their distribution networks might be improved ”).

The discussed objective possibility sense of MIGHT frequently overlaps with subjective (i.e. epistemic) possibility sense in epistemic/dynamic mergers. This use ranked second (f%= 36.2) and can, for example, be found in:

[60] “This definition can be expanded into what might be considered as the seven ‘rights’…” (ibid., p. 32)

The fact that pure (dynamic) possibility here overlaps with conceptual (epistemic) possibility is even more obvious when the possibility of “ might be considered ” is compared to the possibility meaning of the preceding univalent modal phrase “ can be expanded ”. While the latter shows only that it is possible for the definition to be expanded, the former shows that it is both possible for this expansion to be considered as the seven rights as well as reasonable to believe that this expansion will be considered as such. According to Palmer (1990, p. 60), the second modal expression could thus be paraphrased by if “it is reasonable for an act to take place” it may be equally reasonable “to expect that it will”.

The univalent epistemic meaning proved the least frequently used meaning (f%= 18.8), which, at first glance, might appear surprising. However, when compared to the relatively frequent use of MAY and the proportion of epistemic use with it, it could be assumed that in the analysed sample of scientific textbook MAY is the preferred expression for the expression of subjective judgment. One utterance in which the only meaning implied by MIGHT, however, seems to be the authors’ subjective view on the possibility of the event (“ need to be differentiated ”) is:

109

[61] “Processes might need to be differentiated for variations in customer type…” (ibid., p. 89)

The overview of the results for MIGHT show that in the analysed logistics scientific textbook this modal is primarily used objectively, thus allowing the authors to distance themselves from their claims. This use is importantly complemented by more subjective use, either in combination with pure possibility meaning, i.e. in epistemic/dynamic merger, or in a univalent epistemic use which is typically used as a hedge.

The modal COULD ranked fifth and, like MIGHT, it proved primarily used for the expression of dynamic, i.e. pure possibility, meaning with epistemic meaning ranked as the second and the epistemic/dynamic merger as the third.

The dynamic possibility sense accounts for 61.7 percent of this modal’s use in the analysed logistics scientific textbook and is used for the expression of either past or hypothetical possibility. An example of each is given below:

[62] “…there was a positive ‘value added’ role that logistics could offer …” (ibid, p. 9)

[63] “Supply chain segmentation can therefore be very complex as there is a wide range of factors that could be used ...” (ibid., p. 116)

In sample sentence [62] “could offer” is used in the relative clause that follows the main clause in the past and thus it also clearly relates to the past. In sample sentence [63], the hypothetical possibility of “could be used” used in the relative clause is in juxtaposition with the general possibility of “ can therefore be very complex ” used in the main clause. As here CAN is used in the main clause and COULD in the subordinate relative clause, the difference in the remoteness between CAN and COULD thus coincides with and also deepens the difference in the remoteness of the main and the subordinate clause.

Dynamic modal meaning is followed by epistemic meaning, which is used more than twice less frequently (f%= 27.7), and unlike the former reflects the authors’ subjective perspective and as such typically functions as a hedge, as in:

110

[64] “One definitive pattern may not be sufficient, as sourcing could change …” (ibid., p. 135)

Again, the more tentative COULD occurs in the subordinate clause and is juxtaposed with MAY NOT used in the main clause. Here the latter seems to express a higher degree of possibility than the former. Similar to sample sentence [63], the difference in remoteness between the modals thus reflects and reinforces the difference between the subordinate clause and the main one.

The least frequently used meaning of COULD is epistemic/dynamic meaning (f%= 10.6), in which conceptual possibility overlaps with the expression of theoretical possibility. One such example from the logistics scientific textbook is sample sentence [65], in which circumstantial possibility limited by when seems to intricately overlap with the authors’ professional judgment:

[65] “These methods (…) have the potential risk of optimizing only part of a logistics operation when greater economies or benefits could come from changes…” (ibid., p. 135)

To sum up, in the logistics scientific textbook COULD is primarily used for the expression of dynamic possibility, hence allowing the authors to distance themselves from their claims. The second most frequently used meaning is epistemic meaning. Combined with the fact that with MIGHT epistemic modal meaning proved used least frequently, the respective result for COULD could thus lend further support to Coates’ observation (1983) that in this function COULD may be replacing MIGHT and establishing itself as another exponent of hedging. As mentioned above, this subjective meaning occasionally overlaps with objective possibility meaning, where epistemic possibility meaning is neutralised by dynamic possibility meaning.

COULD is closely followed by MUST, whose stereotypical meaning is deontic obligation. Scientific textbooks are typically recognised as an example of expository texts (Vihla, 1999, p. 65), which is why this obligation meaning is less suitable than the more objective, i.e. dynamic, meaning, which is reflected also by the results for MUST in the logistics scientific textbook, where the latter meaning

111 accounts for almost 48 percent of all meanings, while univalent deontic meaning does not occur at all. Objective necessity meaning, however, frequently overlaps with subjective deontic meaning, where the directive force of the latter is neutralised by ‘pure’ necessity meaning constrained by external factors, which are frequently specified. This latter meaning proved most frequent (f%= 52.2) and can, for example, be found in:

[66] “Because there are so many different elements of customer service, this policy must be very clearly and carefully defined .” (ibid., p. 37)

[67] “It must also be remembered (…) that freight exchanges work with a limited number of transport contractors…” (ibid., p. 73)

In sample sentence [66] the necessity for the policy to be clearly and carefully defined is based on the conditions specified in the adverbial clause: “Because there are so many different elements of customer service ” and could accordingly be read as circumstantial necessity. This meaning, however, seems to overlap with the obligation meaning arising from the authors’ professional authority, and could thus be read as a deontic/dynamic merger. Unlike in sample sentence [66], external factors are not specified in sentence [67] but implied as general necessity. This objective necessity meaning here overlaps with the directive, i.e. deontic, force of MUST, which again arises from the authors’ authority.

This polyvalent modal meaning is, as already mentioned, closely followed by univalent dynamic necessity meaning (47.8%), which constrains the necessity only by external factors, thus allowing the authors to disassociate themselves from their claims. Two example of this objective use are given below:

[68] “The extent of the lead-time gap (…) determines how much inventory must be held .” (ibid., p. 195)

[69] “The approach to logistics strategy planning outlined here must of course flex to suit particular industries…” (ibid, p. 141)

In sample sentence [68] MUST is used for the expression of objective judgment of necessity introduced by how , while in sample sentence [69] it is used for the

112 expression of a necessary characteristic which is clearly subject oriented and as such allows the authors to completely detach themselves from their statement.

In dynamic use MUST, like SHOULD, occurs with speech act verbs (twice with emphasize and once with address ):

[70] “It must be emphasized , however, that the figures (…) are average ones.” (ibid., p.11)

As shown above, MUST is in the logistics scientific textbook predominantly used with polyvalent, i.e. deontic/dynamic meaning, and as such shows no preference for any of the three univalent modal meanings. Coupled with the fact that the second most frequently used modal meaning is univalent dynamic modality we could, however, conclude that it is primarily employed by authors for objective reporting of claims.

The use of semi-modals in the logistics scientific textbook proved very limited with ABLE TO ranking first (f= 27), HAVE TO second (f= 22) and GOING TO third (f= 2). The semantic analysis of these three verbs showed that the first two, ABLE TO and HAVE TO, play an exclusively dynamic role, while GOING TO shows an equal share of dynamic and epistemic use. Since the latter occurred only twice, semi-modals could be said to be predominantly used dynamically, i.e. for objective reporting of statements.

Table 5 summarizes the above discussed modal verb use in the analysed logistics scientific textbook. It gives the percentages of epistemic, deontic and dynamic modality, where modal meanings of epistemic/dynamic and deontic/dynamic uses are equally distributed between the two modal meanings of each of these two mergers.

113

Table 5. Proportion of epistemic, deontic and dynamic modality in the logistics scientific textbook

Modality Modals Epistemic Deontic Dynamic

CAN 0 0 342

MAY 144 0 116

SHOULD 10 24 106

MIGHT 25 0 44

COULD 16 0 31

MUST 0 12 34

Semi-modals

ABLE TO 0 0 27

HAVE TO 0 0 22

GOING TO 1 0 1

Total (f) 196 36 723

Total (f%) 20 4 76

To conclude, the results of the semantic analysis show that in the logistics scientific textbook dynamic modality is either the dominant (with SHOULD, MIGHT and COULD) or even the only (with CAN, ABLE TO and HAVE TO) modal meaning used with most of the modal verbs. The only three exceptions, however, proved to be the modal verbs MAY, MUST and GOING TO; the first one for showing a preference for epistemic modality, the second one for being predominantly used to express polyvalent, i.e. deontic/dynamic modal meaning, and the last one for showing an equal share of epistemic and dynamic use.

In terms of communicative function, the results (see Table 5) thus show that in the analysed logistics scientific textbook modal verbs are predominantly used by the authors to evacuate their claims and report them objectively, i.e. as constrained by external factors (f%= 76). This meaning is complemented by a relatively high proportion of subjective judgment (f%= 20) and only a small proportion of obligation meaning (f%= 4). However, of the two subjective meanings, i.e. epistemic and deontic, especially the first as the more frequently used meaning seems to more importantly shape the textual voice by providing personal insights, while the latter, although importantly contributing to interpersonal positioning of the authors’ and/or the professional authority vis-à-vi the professional community,

114 due to its low frequency seems to play a limited role in subjectifying the textual voice.

4.1.3 Application handbook

The logistics application handbook Supply Chain Operations Reference Model. Version 10.0. presents the third text type, i.e. a handbook. Unlike the first two text types, i.e. the research papers and the scientific textbook, which are typically associated with argumentative and expository writing respectively, handbooks have primarily been recognised by their concise and directive style of writing (Vihla, 1999). Based on this observation it could thus be expected that in the analysed logistics handbook dynamic modal meaning and related functions will be importantly complemented by deontic modality and related functions and to a lesser extent by epistemic modality, which is more typically associated with argumentative and expository writing. To see how this expectation compares with the actual use of modal verbs in the analysed handbook, attention will now be directed to the interpretation of the results yielded by the quantitative and sematic analysis of modal verb use in this text type.

The results of the simple quantitative analysis 16 , including absolute frequencies and normalised frequencies per 100,000 words for each modal verb, as well as the findings of the semantic analysis, including absolute (f) and relative frequencies (f%) of different modal meanings of the individual modal verb are set out in Table 6, in which modals and semi-modals are listed and discussed in descending order of frequency.

16 The results and discussion included in this part of thesis are partly presented in the contribution for a scientific monograph titled “Modalni glagoli in njihovi modalni pomeni v znanstvenih in strokovnih logističnih besedilih” and authored by Vičič and Jurančič Petek (2015). The contribution relates the result of the analysis of modal verb use applied in the same selection of chapters as included in the present subcorpus (Sc3). However, the previous analysis (Vičič and Jurančič Petek, 2015) is limited to the modal verbs CAN, MAY, MUST, ABLE TO, BOUND TO, GOING TO and HAVE TO, while the present analysis includes also COULD, MIGHT, OUGHT TO and SHOULD.

115

Table 6. Modal verbs and their modal meanings in the application handbook

Supply Chain Operations Reference Model. Version 10.0 94, 425 words words words

Absolute frequency (f)

Modals per 100,000Items Modality f f%

deontic 1 0.5 dynamic - neutral 178 84 CAN 212 224 dynamic - subject oriented 33 15.6

epistemic 43 42.6 dynamic 28 27.7 MAY 101 107 epistemic/dynamic 30 29.7

deontic 2 6.3 dynamic 19 59.4 SHOULD 32 34 deontic/dynamic 11 34.4

1 epistemic 1 3.7 dynamic 21 77.8 COULD 27 29 epistemic/dynamic 5 18.5

dynamic 9 90 MIGHT 10 11 epistemic/dynamic 1 10

dynamic 6 75 MUST 8 8 deontic/dynamic 2 25

Semi- modals

HAVE TO 2 2 dynamic 2 100

ABLE TO 1 1 dynamic 1 100

Total 393 416

The results in Table 6 show that in the analysed logistics handbook both modals and semi-modals occur relatively infrequently (total no. of modal verbs per 100,000 words= 416), especially when compared to their occurrence in Sc1 (total no. of modal verbs per 100,000 words= 857) and Sc2 (total no. of modal verbs per 100,000 words= 1,326). These results are thus in line with Vihla’s (1999) observation that handbooks are primarily marked for a concise style. Whether, and, if so, how this specific setting and related communicative functions might be reflected in the use of modal verbs in the analysed logistics application handbook will be discussed

116 below, based on the results of the quantitative analysis. The latter show that only the modals CAN and MAY are used relatively frequently, while the remaining modals SHOULD, COULD, MIGHT and MUST occur much less frequently and OUGHT TO does not occur at all. Of semi-modals only HAVE TO and ABLE TO were observed to be used, however, very infrequently.

As in the first two subcorpora, i.e. the logistics research papers and the logistics scientific textbook, in the logistics application handbook, too, CAN proved by far the most frequently used modal. Most of the occurrences are in the positive form (98%), while only 2 percent are in the negative form. As already discussed and observed in 4.1.1 and 4.1.2, the former is predominantly used with dynamic modal meaning, i.e. neutral or subject-oriented possibility, which is the dominant meaning also in the present subcorpus (Sc3), where all but one occurrence are used dynamically. The only exception is one occurrence in which CAN is used deontically. Further analysis of dynamic CAN showed that the ratio between neutral possibility and subject-oriented possibility is 178 to 33.

First, attention will be given to neutral possibility, in the framework of which examples for general [71] and circumstantial [72] possibility meaning are given below:

[71] “Some elements can be measured and taken as a basis...” (The Supply Chain Council, Inc., 2010, p. 2.3.3)

[72] “By describing supply chains using these process building blocks, the Model can be used to describe supply chains…” (ibid., p. 1.2.1)

In both examples the main verb is in passive voice, which by far outnumbers occurrences in active voice (69.8% to 30.2%17 ). Passive voice itself is traditionally recognised as “a formal and impersonal choice” (Biber et al., 1999, p. 943), which is why the observed prevalence of CAN followed by the passive form could be interpreted as a marked objectification of the textual tone, allowing the authors to achieve the impression of author-evacuated (Hyland, 2002) and thus highly

17 The ratio between active and passive voice is given for all the occurrences of CAN (f= 212).

117 objectified writing. Interestingly, while the ratio between the occurrence of passive and active forms in Sc3 compared to the ratio in Sc1 (42.5% to 57.5%) and Sc2 (56% to 44%) shows a marked preference for passive voice, in Sc3 there are no examples of CAN with how , another commonly used expression with neutral possibility, which, however, occurred in both Sc1 and Sc2.

Compared with neutral possibility sense, subject-oriented possibility sense presents a relatively small but important proportion of the total use (f%= 15.6). Further analysis of these subject-oriented uses showed that the ratio between the use with inanimate and animate subjects shows a preference for the former (79% to 21%), which is typically associated with more formal texts. Examples of CAN with animate and inanimate subjects are:

[73] “…the possibility to directly reach the right person – who can better handle the information…” (ibid., p. 3.1.56)

[74] “The wide-spread use of the Model results in (…) software systems that can better support members through the use of common measurements and terms…” (ibid., p. 1.1.1)

In both sentences CAN is used for the expression of the necessary characteristic to do something better: in sample sentence [73] the ability to “better handle the information about a crisis situation ” relates to “the right person ” while in sample sentence [74] the ability to “ better support members ” relates to “ software systems ”. Although the possibility of CAN in sentence [74] is further constrained by the external factor “ through the use of common measurements and terms” , the ability sense seems to dominate. Whether used with an inanimate or animate subject, by focusing on the ability or characteristic of the subject, these two types of utterance are clearly objective.

As already mentioned, there is also one utterance in which CAN is used for the expression of deontic possibility:

[75] “Control who can create, revise and access information.” (ibid., p. 3.3.46)

118

Here, the permission sense expressed by CAN seems to be constrained by the authority related to “the document control” (The Supply Chain Council, Inc., 2010, p. 340), which is mentioned in the introduction to the given example. However, although this “document control” itself is inanimate, it implies professional authority relating to people who prepared this document, which makes this use of CAN more clearly interpretable as deontic.

To sum up, the results for CAN show that it is almost exclusively used for the expression of dynamic possibility with the only exception being one deontic use. It should, however, be stressed that the inherent objectivity of CAN is here predominantly (in 69.8% of all occurrences) further enhanced by passive voice, thus allowing the authors to present their statements in a highly objective and concise manner.

CAN is followed by MAY, which occurs more than twice less frequently (f= 101). It is typically associated with epistemic modality, which was the prevailing modal meaning also in the application handbook (f%= 42.6). One occurrence in which subjective judgment (“ may need ”) is juxtaposed with pure fact expressed by the main verb (“ need ”) in the preceding clause is given below:

[76] “Large scope changes need managed projects, small changes may need a memo...” (ibid., p. 1.2.10)

Interestingly, Sc3 contains no harmonic expressions (cf. 4.1.1 and 4.1.2) used directly with MAY. However, there is one occurrence in which the relative clause with MAY is introduced by “ one can argue ”, which is used for personalisation and thus functions as a hedge (Lewin, 2005, p. 165). Consequently, argue can be classified as a harmonic expression, which introduces and reinforces the epistemic meaning of the subsequent MAY, as in:

[77] “On the contrary, one can argue that it may increase the ability of the organization…” (ibid., p. 2.2.1)

The second most frequent modal meaning with MAY proved to be epistemic/dynamic meaning, where subjective judgment typical of epistemic

119 modality overlaps with objective, general or circumstantial, possibility (f%= 29.7). One example of the overlapping of these two modal meanings is given below:

[78] “Companies may develop standard process descriptions...” (ibid., p. 1.2.6)

This polyvalent modal meaning is closely followed by univalent dynamic meaning (f%= 27.7), where possibility is constrained only by external factors, as in the following sentence:

[79] “Metrics codification has been introduced in SCOR 9.0 to ensure companies may adopt SCOR metrics...” (ibid., p. 1.2.6)

This brief overview of MAY shows that the authors most frequently use it for voicing their subjective perspectives, i.e. epistemically. This meaning is followed by the epistemic/dynamic merger and dynamic modal meaning, allowing the authors to partially or completely detach themselves from their claims.

Ranked third, the modal SHOULD (f= 32) is used more than three times less frequently than MAY. The three modal meanings expressed by SHOULD are univalent dynamic modality (f%= 59.4) and deontic modality (f%= 6.3) as well as a combination of both, i.e. deontic/dynamic merger (f%= 34.4). Contrary to Sc1 and Sc2, it is not used epistemically, either as a univalent epistemic or polyvalent epistemic/dynamic modal, which could be interpreted as more proof that handbooks primarily rely on highly objective style, which is occasionally complemented by directive style of presentation of claims.

Two examples of objective (i.e. dynamic) meaning, which proved the most frequently used meaning with SHOULD, are:

[80] “Sourced from the book ‘Risk Management Essentials - What Every Business Professional Should Know ’”. (ibid., p. 2.4.10)

[81] “It should also be noted that a corresponding evaluation of suppliers’ performances could be determined…” (ibid., p. 2.1.2)

While in sample sentence [80] “should know ” relates to the necessary characteristic of “Every Business Professional ”, “ should also be noted ” in sample sentence [81]

120 is used with speech act verb note and thus performs the function of rhetorical emphasis. Besides note , which occurs twice, no other speech act verbs are used with SHOULD in the present subcorpus.

A merger of deontic and dynamic modality ranked second (f%= 34.4) and occurs almost twice less frequently than univalent dynamic use. One example of professional obligation meaning overlapping with circumstantial possibility emanating from factors set out in the preceding sentence is:

[82] “…idle time should not be deducted from the gross order fulfillment cycle time.” (ibid., p. 2.2.1)

Although they cover only a small proportion of total use (f%= 6.3), deontic occurrences, however, importantly contribute to creating the directive style of the handbook. Interestingly, in both of the two occurrences deontic SHOULD is preceded by a verb of insisting (sample sentence [83]: “ determined ”; sample sentence [84]: “ prescribe ”) which themselves are “an indication of the performative” (Palmer, 1990, p. 188):

[83] “Revisions of the Model are made when it is determined by Council members that changes should be made …” (ibid., p. 1.1.1)

[84] “The Council (…) does not attempt to prescribe how a particular organization should conduct its business…” (ibid., p. 1.2.1)

A more detailed analysis of sample sentence [84] shows that “ does not attempt to prescribe” is actually used to introduce lack of obligation, i.e. deontic necessity, however, SHOULD here retains deontic force, which becomes even more obvious when compared with the use of SHOULD in sample sentence [85], where it follows a verbal phrase with no deontic force (e.g. “ are chiefly concerned ”):

[85] “…there are other highly qualified organizations that are chiefly concerned with how an organization should train, retain, organize, and conduct their quality programs.” (ibid., p. 1.2.2)

Here, SHOULD accordingly seems to be used exclusively dynamically.

121

In sum, the results of the semantic analysis of SHOULD show that it has predominantly objective use. However, although used less frequently, deontic force of deontic/dynamic mergers or univalent deontic uses importantly contributes to the directive style typical of handbooks.

SHOULD is closely followed by COULD (f= 27), which is used for the expression of dynamic, epistemic and epistemic/dynamic meaning. Of the three modal meanings, the first by far outnumbers the other two meanings (f%= 77.8). One such example is:

[86] “Risk event here could be defined as the deviation from expected metrics value...” (ibid., p. 2.3.51)

Here, COULD is clearly used for the expression of possibility constrained exclusively by external factors, which are denoted by here .

This highly objectified use is followed by occurrences in which neutral or circumstantial possibility overlaps with subjective judgment (f%= 18.5). Although ranked in second place, this epistemic/dynamic meaning occurs more than four times less frequently than dynamic use, with one example being:

[87] “Calculating VaR from historical data requires a large database (…), and it could be computationally intensive.” (ibid., p. 2.3.7)

There is also one occurrence in which COULD seems to be exclusively used for the expression of the authors’ subjective opinion (f%= 3.7), which is introduced by a modalised utterance “ It should also be noted ”:

[88] “It should also be noted that a corresponding evaluation of suppliers’ performances could be determined by extending these standards…” (ibid., p. 2.1.2)

This brief overview of the results of the semantic analysis of COULD shows that it is predominantly used for objective reporting of facts, while only a relatively small proportion combines both objective and subjective presentation of claims and even a smaller one is used with univalent epistemic meaning.

122

The next modal is MIGHT, which occurred 10 times and proved predominantly used for the expression of pure, i.e. dynamic, possibility (f= 9), while only one occurrence combines both pure and conceptual possibility in the epistemic/dynamic merger. A sample sentence for each is given below:

[89] “In a DC, both cross docking (…) and traditional (…) operations might take place .” (ibid., p. 3.4.14)

[90] “There are not clear assignable causes – but a multitude of causes might exist to give rise to such variation.” (ibid., p. 2.4.10)

MIGHT, unlike MAY, in Sc3 thus does not show a preference for its stereotypical, that is epistemic, meaning, but rather the dynamic one, which is predominantly associated with scientific discourse and used by the authors for constraining possibility by external factors rather than their personal opinion. The documented use of MIGHT could thus serve as more proof of a primarily objective tone of the handbook.

MIGHT is closely followed by MUST (f= 8), which is predominantly used for the expression of objective, i.e. dynamic, necessity (f%= 75) and only twice for the expression of deontic/dynamic merger (f%= 25).

With univalent dynamic meaning necessity is typically constrained by external factors, which may be specified, as, for example, in the following sample sentence (“ For an order line to be perfect ”):

[91] “For an order line to be perfect, all of the individual components must be perfect.” (ibid., p. 2.1.1)

Unlike in sample sentence [91], necessity in sample sentence [92] seems to be constrained by both external factors and subjective obligation sense arising from professional authority, which classifies this use as deontic/dynamic:

[92] “The process must reconcile all supply...” (ibid., p. 3.1.3)

123

In sum, MUST seems to be predominantly used for the expression of objective necessity, while (subjective) obligation sense neutralised by external necessity presents only a minor share of its total use.

Besides a relatively scarce use of modals, the analysed logistics handbook shows also a very scarce use of semi-modals. Of the latter, namely, only HAVE TO (f= 2) and ABLE TO (f= 1) occur, both of which are used exclusively dynamically, i.e. for objective relating of statements.

The evidenced use of modal verbs is summarised in Table 7, which gives the percentages of epistemic, deontic and dynamic modality, where modal meanings of epistemic/dynamic and deontic/dynamic uses are equally distributed between the two modal meanings of each of these two mergers.

Table 7. Proportion of epistemic, deontic and dynamic modality in the application handbook

Modality Modals Epistemic Deontic Dynamic

CAN 0 1 211

MAY 58 0 43

SHOULD 0 8 24

COULD 3 0 24

MIGHT 1 0 9

MUST 0 1 7

Semi-modals

HAVE TO 0 0 2

ABLE TO 0 0 1

Total (f) 62 10 321

Total (f%) 16 2 82

To conclude, the overall results of the quantitative and semantic analysis show that the use of both modals and semi-modals in the application handbook is very limited both in terms of frequency as well as in terms of modal meanings and related functions. Namely, the results show that dynamic modality is the prevailing (with CAN, SHOULD, COULD, MIGHT and MUST) or the only (with ABLE TO and

124

HAVE TO) type of modality with all modal verbs but MAY, which is predominantly used for the expression of epistemic modality.

When compared to Vihla’s results for a clinical handbook, which showed an important share of deontic modality, the present results (see Table 7) seem to imply that in the analysed logistics application handbook the authors prefer to let the facts speak for themselves by primarily using dynamically modified statements (f%= 82). Occasionally (especially with SHOULD), however, they resort to a more directive (i.e. deontic) tone, which is typically neutralised by dynamic modal meaning. Due to its low share (f%= 2), deontic modality plays a minor role in subjectifying an otherwise highly objective tone, the interpersonal positioning of the text by means of modality being primarily achieved by the subjective voicing of the author’s opinions, i.e. epistemically (f%= 16), the main exponent of this meaning being MAY.

4.1.4 Spoken discourse

A sample of twenty dialogues on logistics issues (e.g. negotiating delivery terms, negotiating strategies with suppliers, discussing the most suitable mode of transport, discussing the best train and air transport option, discussing delivery problems, etc.) were taken from textbooks on business English and English for logistics to determine how the use and function of modal verbs in spoken professional discourse compares to their use in scientific and professional written discourse. Business dialogues, which have been recognised for having an important pedagogical as well as practical value, were chosen as a prototypical example of spoken professional discourse in the field of logistics.

As already mentioned, when compared to the size of Sc1, Sc2 and Sc3, the size of spoken discourse data is very limited (5,270 words), and accordingly used to serve only as a preliminary indication of the function of modal verbs in this genre. It should, however, be noted that this line of research undoubtedly deserves further attention but does not fall in the scope of the present thesis.

The results of the quantitative and semantic analysis of logistics spoken discourse are presented in Table 8. They include absolute frequencies (f) and normalised

125 frequencies per 100,000 words for each modal verb as well as absolute (f) and relative frequencies (f%) of modal meanings expressed by these modal verbs.

Table 8. Modal verbs and their modal meanings in logistics spoken discourse

Logistics spoken discourse 5,270 words

words words 100,000 Absolute Items per Items

Modals frequency (f) Modality f f%

dynamic 54 98.2 CAN 55 1,044 deontic/dynamic 1 1.8

epistemic 2 7.4 deontic 2 7.4 dynamic 22 81.5 COULD 27 512 epistemic/dynamic 1 3.7

SHOULD 17 322 dynamic 17 100

1 epistemic 2 50 MIGHT 4 76 epistemic/dynamic 2 50

MUST 2 38 dynamic 2 100

MAY 1 19 deontic 1 100

Semi- modals

HAVE TO 14 266 dynamic 14 100

GOING TO 8 152 dynamic 8 100

ABLE TO 6 114 dynamic 6 100

Total 134 2,543

Despite the limited number of logistics dialogues, the results presented in Table 8 do give some useful insights into discipline-specific use in spoken discourse. The first finding is that the overall use of both modal and semi-modal verbs in the analysed spoken discourse (total no. of modal verbs per 100,000 words= 2,543) by far exceeds the use in the analysed written texts (Sc1total no. of modal verbs per 100,000 words =

857; Sc2 total no. of modal verbs per 100,000 words = 1,326; Sc3total no. of modal verbs per 100,000 words = 416).

Further analysis of modal functions of individual modal verbs shows that CAN as the most frequently used modal (f= 55) is predominantly used dynamically (f%=

126

98.2), with deontic/dynamic meaning presenting only a small proportion of the total use (f%= 1.8). When used dynamically, CAN proved predominantly used for the expression of neutral possibility (52 out of 54 occurrences), while with deontic/dynamic use neutral possibility overlaps with the possibility conditioned by the authority of the speaker. Examples of each use are given below:

[93] “Can I ask you to come back to our agenda, please?” (Lafond, Vine, & Welch, 2010, p. 82)

[94] “You can start having a look for suitable language schools now.” (ibid., p. 84)

Although the first impression with the modal expression from sample sentence [93] (“Can I ask you to come back” ) might be that it performs the function of asking for permission, a closer examination shows that rather than that it functions as an implied request for action: the addressee is requested to come back to the agenda. Further support to this interpretation is provided by a similar use of COULD, namely when used in interrogative context with a first person plural it “will usually be interpreted as a request for action rather than (…) a deontic request for permission” (Brewer, 1987, p. 303). The difference between the two functions can well be seen when the dynamic use of CAN in sample sentence [93] is compared with its deontic/dynamic use in sample sentence [94], where deontic reading of possibility is an implied permission sense: the company approves this bonus (i.e. “intensive language course” (Lafond, Vine, & Welch, 2010, p. 84)) and thus permits the employee to take advantage of it by taking the necessary action (i.e. start looking for suitable language schools ).

CAN is followed by COULD, which is used more than twice less frequently than CAN but shows a much more varied and complex use. It is used for the expression of all three univalent meanings, i.e. dynamic, epistemic and deontic, as well as for the epistemic/dynamic merger. As in the case with CAN, with COULD, too, dynamic modality proved most frequent (f%= 81.5) and typically used for neutral possibility. Another use shared by CAN and COULD is its dynamic use for request, which with COULD, like in the case of pure possibility meaning, is predominantly

127 used for the expression of a more tentative request. Examples of tentative neutral possibility and tentative request are:

[95] “That way, we could save money by ordering less frequently and by ordering larger quantities.” (Johnson, 2005, p. 110)

[96] “I’m calling about the train options described on your website. Could you tell me a bit more about them?” (Grussendorf, 2009, p. 84).

Dynamic use is followed by deontic (f%= 7.4) and epistemic (f%= 7.4) meaning, both of which ranked second. While the former is used for a polite and diffident asking for permission (Palmer, 1990, p. 80), the latter is used for the expression of tentative logical possibility. Examples for each are:

[97] “Could I just come in here?” (Allison & Emmerson, 2007, p. 143).

[98] “Well, we are currently working a two-shift day and could possibly extend to a third shift.” (Lafond, Vine, & Welch, 2010, p. 82)

Interestingly, the two epistemic uses of COULD observed in the analysed dialogues are used with harmonic expressions (the use with possibly in sample sentence [98] and the other epistemic use of COULD introduced by “ I think” ), as is epistemic/dynamic use:

[99] “I suppose we could do it, providing you paid a year’s fees in advance.” (Allison & Emmerson, 2007, p. 142).

In sample sentence [99] epistemic meaning seems to be reinforced by the harmonic verb suppose , while dynamic meaning is implied by constraining factors set out in the gerundial clause: “providing you paid a year’s fees in advance ”.

The next modal is SHOULD, which unlike the first two modals, proved monosemous and used exclusively for the expression of dynamic necessity, i.e. objective possibility constrained by external factors. One such example is:

[100] “That’s why we should tell them that it will be to their advantage to work with us because we are the market leader.” (Grussendorf, 2009, p. 83)

128

SHOULD is followed by MIGHT, which is used much less frequently (f= 4) and turned out to be polysemous, i.e. showing equal frequency of epistemic and epistemic/dynamic use. Since epistemic meaning is common to both uses, MIGHT primarily functions as a hedge, either in its univalent [101] or polyvalent [102] use:

[101] “Could you make sure that your logistics people know that? Otherwise the consignment might be rejected at the gate.” (Grussendorf, 2009, p. 86)

[102] “I might possibly be able to bring it down a little, but only if we had a three year contract.” (Allison & Emmerson, 2007, p. 142)

The next modal is MUST, which occurs twice and shows an exclusively dynamic use, with one of them being with the speech act verb say and thus used for rhetorical emphasis:

[103] “Well, I must say , I think accepting gifts from supplier is unwise.” (Allison & Emmerson, 2007, p. 143).

The least frequently used modal is MAY, which in its only occurrence is used deontically and performs the function of a polite request for permission:

[104] “May I interrupt ?” (Lafond, Vine, & Welch, 2010, p. 82)

Due to its low frequency of occurrence no other conclusions can be drawn for this modal.

As already mentioned above, compared to the logistics research papers (Sc1), the logistics scientific textbook (Sc2) and the logistics application handbook (Sc3), logistics spoken discourse shows not only a relatively high use of modals but also that of the semi-modals HAVE TO, GOING TO and ABLE TO, all of which are used exclusively dynamically and thus functioning as objective reports of claims.

The results of the semantic analysis of modal verb use in spoken discourse are summarized in Table 9, which gives the percentages of epistemic, deontic and dynamic modality, where modal meanings of epistemic/dynamic and deontic/dynamic uses are equally distributed between the two modal meanings of these two mergers.

129

Table 9. Proportion of epistemic, deontic and dynamic modality in logistics spoken discourse

Modality Modals Epistemic Deontic Dynamic

CAN 0 1 54

COULD 3 2 22

SHOULD 0 0 17

MIGHT 3 0 1

MUST 0 0 2

MAY 0 1 0

Semi-modals

HAVE TO 0 0 14

GOING TO 0 0 8

ABLE TO 0 0 6

Total (f) 6 4 124

Total (f%) 4 3 93

To sum up, a brief overview of the results of the quantitative and semantic analysis of modal verbs in logistics spoken discourse shows that all the modal verbs with the exception of MIGHT and MAY show a preference for dynamic use. Or, to be more precise, SHOULD, MUST, HAVE TO, GOING TO and ABLE TO are used exclusively dynamically, while only CAN and COULD are used polysemously, showing a preference for dynamic meaning. As the first exception to the observed preference for dynamic use, MIGHT showed a markedly polysemous nature, i.e. an equal share of epistemic and epistemic/dynamic use, while MAY proved to be used exclusively deontically. In addition to the observed monosemous, i.e. exclusively deontic, use of MAY, two more uses largely departing from their use in the three subcorpora of written discourse are an exclusively dynamic use of MUST and SHOULD. The observed differences in the use of MUST and SHOULD could, however, at least to some degree, be related to Biber et all’s (1999, p. 495) observation that in spoken discourse deontic modality is potentially less suitable because of its strong “directive force”, which is further substantiated by the fact that in the analysed spoken discourse univalent deontic meaning expressed by MAY and COULD is used exclusively for asking for permission. In this way deontic force is minimised and the utterance perceived as polite rather than confrontational.

130

The results of the semantic analysis of modal verb use in dialogues on logistics issues (see Table 9) could suggest that (logistics) spoken discourse shows a marked preference for objective presenting of facts (f%= 93), which is occasionally complemented by subjective insights (expressed by the modals MIGHT and COULD) and subjective directions (expressed by COULD, CAN and MAY). Compared to the analysed samples of written discourse, the analysed spoken discourse thus shows not only a markedly higher overall use of modal verbs but also a marked preference for objective dynamic use (f%= 93) over subjective epistemic (f%= 4) and deontic (f%= 3) use.

Although the discussed results of the analysis of modal verb use in logistics spoken discourse seem to show some genre-specific uses, it should nevertheless be kept in mind that the analysis whose main goal was to provide a preliminary insight into the use in the discipline-specific spoken discourse was carried out on a small number of samples and should accordingly be extended, i.e. carried out on a substantially larger body of spoken texts, to provide more substantiated and conclusive findings. As this would exceed the scope of the present study, attention will now be given to a statistical comparison of the results for the logistics research papers (Sc1), the logistics scientific textbook (Sc2) and the logistics application handbook (Sc3).

4.1.5 Statistical analysis of modal verb use in logistics written discourse

A statistical comparison was carried out using a simple quantitative analysis (the Chi-square test), which was run for each modal verb, starting with CAN (f= 893) as the most frequently used modal in the corpus of logistics written discourse, comprising the logistics research papers (Sc1), the scientific textbook (Sc2) and the application handbook (Sc3). The results for CAN and other modals are presented and discussed in descending order of their frequency in the analysed corpus of logistics written texts, the order being: MAY (f= 473), SHOULD (f= 313), COULD (f= 155), MIGHT (f= 105) and MUST (f= 95). The modal OUGHT TO was used only once and will thus not be included in the present analysis. The semi-modals ABLE TO, HAVE TO and GOING TO, which proved used much less frequently

131 and almost exclusively dynamically in all three subcorpora, will also be excluded from this analysis.

First, the Chi-square test was run for the use of CAN in all three subcorpora (Table 10). As the results showed only a tendency towards a statistically significant difference (p= 0.065), further tests were run to check whether comparisons between the two subcorpora showed statistically significant differences. The results of these subsequent tests18 showed that the difference in the use of CAN is statistically significant for Sc1 and Sc2 (p= 0.049) and Sc2 and Sc3 (p= 0.035), while the difference between Sc1 and Sc3 showed no statistically significant difference nor a tendency towards it (p= 0.736). Based on the results of the statistical analysis (the χ2 test) and the semantic analysis of its use in each of the three subcorpora, it could be concluded that in the analysed corpus CAN is predominantly used for the expression of dynamic modality, whereby the proportion between neutral and subject-oriented possibility shows a minor departure in the scientific textbook (Sc2), where the ratio of neutral possibility to subject-oriented possibility is 90.4% to 9.6% (in Sc1 the ratio being 84.7% to 14.5% and in Sc3 84% to 15.6%).

18 Tables with the results for the subsequent tests between two subcorpora are included in Appendix 2.

132

Table 10. Comparison of the use of CAN in Sc1, Sc2 and Sc3

Subcorpus Modality Sc1 Sc2 Sc3 Total deontic count 0 0 1 1 % of total 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% dynamic – neutral count 287 309 178 774 % of total 32.1% 34.6% 19.9% 86.7% dynamic – subject oriented count 49 33 33 115 % of total 5.5% 3.7% 3.7% 12.9% deontic/dynamic count 3 0 0 3 % of total 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% Total count 339 342 212 893 % of total 38.0% 38.3% 23.7% 100% p= 0.065, χ2= 5.460 19

The next modal is MAY, which is used almost twice less frequently than CAN. Unlike with CAN, the difference in the use of MAY between the three subcorpora showed neither a statistically significant difference nor a tendency towards it (p= 0.167). Further comparisons 20 between Sc1 and Sc2 as well as Sc1 and Sc3 also showed no statistically significant difference nor a tendency towards it (p> 0.1). The comparison between Sc2 and Sc3 was the only to show a tendency towards a statistically significant difference (p= 0.057). Accordingly, the results of the statistical analysis combined with the results of the semantic analysis of its use in each of the three subcorpora show that the prevailing use of MAY in all three subcorpora is epistemic, which in the research papers (Sc1) and scientific textbook (Sc2) is followed by dynamic and epistemic/dynamic use, while in the application handbook (Sc3) the order is reversed, where only the comparison between the scientific textbook and the application handbook shows tendency towards a statistically significant difference.

19 Due to their low frequency of use (i.e. count is less than 5), deontic and deontic/dynamic modality were excluded for the calculation of the likelihood ratio and χ2 statistics values (see Appendix 2 for the modified table). 20 Tables with the results for the subsequent tests between two subcorpora are included in Appendix 2.

133

Table 11. Comparison of the use of MAY in Sc1, Sc2 and Sc3

Subcorpus Modality Sc1 Sc2 Sc3 Total epistemic count 53 120 43 216 % of total 11.2% 25.4% 9.1% 45.7% deontic count 1 0 0 1 % of total 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% dynamic count 32 92 28 125 % of total 6.8% 19.5% 5.9% 32.1% epistemic/dynamic count 26 48 30 104 % of total 5.5% 10.1% 6.3% 22.0% Total count 112 260 101 473 % of total 23.7% 55.0% 21.4% 100% p= 0.167, χ2= 6.467 21

The third most frequently used modal in the corpus of logistics written discourse was SHOULD, which showed a marked difference in the use between the three subcorpora (p= 0.000) as well as between Sc1 and Sc2 (p= 0.000) and Sc1 and Sc3 (p=0.011). With SHOULD the only comparison showing neither statistically significant difference nor a tendency towards it was thus the comparison between Sc2 and Sc3 (p=0.854). Further study of the results of the statistical analysis combined with the results of the semantic analysis in the three subcorpora shows that this modal verb’s use in the research papers (Sc1) shows a marked departure from its use in the scientific textbook (Sc2) and the application handbook (Sc3) where the most frequently used meaning was the dynamic one and the second the deontic/dynamic one, while in the research papers the order is reversed. Another marked difference in this modal verb’s use in the research papers was its frequent deontic use (f%= 22.7), which due to its scarce use in the scientific textbook and the application handbook (f< 5) had to be excluded from the statistical analysis.

21 Due to its low frequency of use (i.e. count is less than 5), deontic modality was excluded for the calculation of the likelihood ratio and χ2 statistics values (see Appendix 2 for the modified table).

134

Table 12. Comparison of the use of SHOULD in Sc1, Sc2 and Sc3

Subcorpus Modality Sc1 Sc2 Sc3 Total epistemic count 4 9 0 13 % of total 1.3% 2.9% 0.0% 4.2% deontic count 32 1 2 35 % of total 10.2% 0.3% 0.6% 11.2% dynamic count 37 84 19 140 % of total 11.8% 26.8% 6.1% 44.7% epistemic/dynamic count 5 1 0 6 % of total 1.6% 0.3% 0.0% 1.9% deontic/dynamic count 63 45 11 119 % of total 20.1% 14.4 3.5% 38.0% Total count 141 140 32 313 % of total 45.0% 44.7% 10.2% 100% p= 0.000, χ2= 19.107 22

SHOULD is followed by COULD, which occurs more than twice less frequently than SHOULD and unlike the first three modal verbs, i.e. CAN, MAY and SHOULD, shows neither a statistically significant difference nor a tendency towards it when all three subcorpora or any of the three pairs are compared (p> 0.1). Although it shows no statistically significant difference, the use of COULD in the three subcorpora shows one departure worthy of further attention. Namely, the results of the statistical analysis combined with the results of the semantic analysis show that while in all three subcorpora dynamic use ranked first, the three subcorpora differ in the second most frequently used meaning of this modal: in the research papers and the scientific textbook the second most frequently used meaning proved to be epistemic, which due to its low frequency of use in the application handbook (f= 1), where it ranked third, had to be excluded from the statistical analysis, the second most frequent use being the epistemic/dynamic merger.

22 Due to their low frequency of use (i.e. count is less than 5), epistemic, deontic and epistemic/dynamic modality were excluded for the calculation of the likelihood ratio and χ2 statistics values (see Appendix 2 for the modified table).

135

Table 13. Comparison of the use of COULD in Sc1, Sc2 and Sc3

Subcorpus Modality Sc1 Sc2 Sc3 Total epistemic count 13 13 1 27 % of total 8.4% 8.4% 0.6% 17.4% dynamic count 59 29 21 109 % of total 38.1% 18.7% 13.5% 70.3% epistemic/dynamic count 9 5 5 19 % of total 5.8% 3.2% 3.2% 12.3% Total count 81 47 27 155 % of total 52.3% 30.3% 17.4% 100% p= 0.765, χ2= 0.536 23

COULD is relatively closely followed by MIGHT (f COULD = 155; f MIGHT = 105), which is used for the expression of epistemic, dynamic and epistemic/dynamic meaning (see Table 14). However, due to their low frequency of use (i.e. fewer than 5 occurrences), epistemic and epistemic/dynamic modal meaning had to be excluded from the analysis. Dynamic meaning thus became a constant, which is why no statistics could be calculated for this modal. Although excluded from the statistical analysis, both epistemic and epistemic/dynamic use seem to deserve further attention. The results of the semantic analysis actually show a marked difference in this modal’s use in the three subcorpora, the distribution of modal meanings being specific to each subcorpus (Sc1: f%epistemic = 53.8, f%dynamic = 34.6, f% epistemic/dynamic = 11.5; Sc2: f% dynamic =44.9, f% epistemic/dynamic = 36.2, f% epistemic = 18.8;

Sc3: f% dynamic = 90, f% epistemic/dynamic = 10%), whereby the most striking difference is that only in the application handbook MIGHT is not used epistemically.

23 Due to its low frequency of use (i.e. count is less than 5), epistemic modality was excluded for the calculation of the likelihood ratio and χ2 statistics values (see Appendix 2 for the modified table).

136

Table 14. Comparison of the use of MIGHT in Sc1, Sc2 and Sc3

Subcorpus Modality Sc1 Sc2 Sc3 Total epistemic count 14 13 0 27 % of total 13.3% 12.4% 0.0% 25.7% dynamic count 9 31 9 49 % of total 8.6% 29.5% 8.6% 46.7% epistemic/dynamic count 3 25 1 29 % of total 2.9% 23.8% 1.0% 27.6% Total count 26 69 10 105 % of total 24.8% 65.7% 9.5% 100%

MUST as the least frequently used modal closely follows COULD (f COULD = 105; fMUST = 95), but unlike the latter, it is used for the expression of all three univalent modal meanings, i.e. epistemic, dynamic and deontic meaning, as well as polyvalent deontic/dynamic meaning (see Table 15). With MUST, like MIGHT, three modal meanings had to be excluded due to their low frequency of use (f< 5), i.e. epistemic, deontic and deontic/dynamic meaning. With dynamic meaning as the only meaning left it became a constant. Consequently, no statistics could be calculated also for this modal. Significant differences, however, revealed by the semantic analysis of this modal’s use in all three subcorpora show that the excluded uses deserve our further attention. Namely, the results showed marked differences in the order of distribution of modal meaning specific to each subcorpus (Sc1: f% dynamic = 39, f% deontic/dynamic= 31.7, f% deontic = 26.8, f% epistemic = 2.4; Sc2: f% deontic/dynamic = 52.2, f% dynamic = 47.8; Sc3: f% dynamic = 75, f% deontic/dynamic = 25%), the most striking difference being a markedly polysemous (epistemic, deontic, dynamic as well as deontic/dynamic) use in the research papers.

137

Table 15. Comparison of the use of MUST in Sc1, Sc2 and Sc3

Subcorpus Modality Sc1 Sc2 Sc3 Total epistemic count 1 0 0 1 % of total 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% dynamic count 16 22 6 44 % of total 16.8% 23.2% 6.3% 46.3% deontic count 11 0 0 11 % of total 11.6% 0.0% 0.0% 11.6% deontic/dynamic count 13 24 2 39 % of total 13.7% 25.3% 2.1% 41.1% Total count 41 46 8 95 % of total 43.2% 48.4% 8.4% 100%

To sum up, the presented results of the statistical comparison of modal verb use show that SHOULD is the only modal showing a marked difference in use both between the three subcorpora, i.e. the research papers (Sc1), the scientific textbook (Sc2) and the application handbook (Sc3), as well as between the research papers and the scientific textbook and also the research papers and the application handbook, the reason being the difference between the proportion of dynamic and deontic/dynamic meaning in the three subcorpora, especially the proportion between these two meanings in the research papers. However, another important difference not included in the statistical analysis, but importantly shaping the textual voice of the research papers, is in its deontic use. The next modal for which the statistical analysis yielded results showing a combination of a statistically significant difference and tendency towards it is CAN. The results for this modal show a tendency towards a statistically significant difference for the comparison between the three subcorpora as do the differences between the research papers and the scientific textbook as well as the scientific textbook and the application handbook, whereby the main difference shows to be a higher preference of neutral possibility over subject-oriented possibility in the scientific textbook than in the other two subcorpora. The last modal for which the statistical analysis yielded results showing a tendency towards a statistically significant difference is MAY. While the comparison of this modal’s use in the three scubcorpora showed neither a statistically significant difference nor a tendency towards it, further comparison between the scientific textbook and the application handbook, however, showed a

138 tendency towards a statistically significant difference, whereby the main difference turns out to be the ratio between dynamic and epistemic/dynamic use, which only in the application handbook is in favour of the latter, i.e. epistemic/dynamic use.

4.2 MODAL VERBS IN SLOVENE SCIENTIFIC LOGISTICS DISCOURSE

The present study has in the chapters up till now focused on the in-depth analysis of modal verb use in English scientific and professional discourse. This chapter, however, shifts attention from English modality to modal verb use in scientific discourse in Slovene.

The first step was thus to identify the system of modal verbs to be included in semantic analysis, upon which all the occurrences of the selected modal verbs were manually coded using MS Word. Next, the meanings and functions of all the occurrences were identified and classified as epistemic, deontic or dynamic, with the main goal being to draw parallels between modal verb use in English and Slovene as this could enhance informed reading and writing in English as a second language.

In line with the recognition of scientific textbooks as a central pedagogical genre introducing students to disciplinary knowledge and the epistemology of a discipline (Love, 2002, p. 76), semantic analysis was carried out on a scientific textbook on logistics titled Poslovna logistika 24 , which, as explained by the author, introduces the functions of logistics and logistical challenges in companies (Križman, 2010, p. 3). The analysis was based on Toporišič’s (1991, pp. 336-337) classification of modal expression, comprising the following categories: a) modal expressions of intention: nameravam, imam namen, namenjen sem, mislim, kanim, skušam, poskušam, obljubim …; b) modal expressions of volition: hočem, nočem, želim, ne želim, moram, ne maram, mika me, želja me je, volja me je, voljan sem…;

24 The analysed text includes the body of the textbook, but excludes introductory information about the book (table of contents, the author’s foreword) as well as appendices.

139 c) modal expressions of necessity: moram, ne smem, sila je, prisiljen sem, dolžan sem, treba je, potrebno je, imam, nimam, nujno je, imam dolžnost, čas je, dolžnost mi je…; d) modal expressions of possibility: morem, zmožen sem, ne morem, znam, sposoben sem, moč je, utegnem…; e) modal expressions for giving orders: zapovem, prepovem, ukažem, velim, zapovedano je, imam, nimam, dam, naročim, primoran sem, silim…; f) modal expressions of permission: imam pravico, upravičen sem, imam oblast, dovoljeno je, smem .

As the present chapter wishes to draw parallels between English and Slovene modal verbs, the list was narrowed to the expressions of necessity, possibility and permission which parallel the modal verbs analysed in the English written and spoken discourse and now includes 25 : a) modal expressions of necessity: moram (=MUST/HAVE TO), ne smem (=MUST NOT); b) modal expressions of possibility: morem (=CAN) , zmožen sem (=ABLE TO) , ne morem (=CAN’T), znam (=CAN), utegnem (=MAY); c) modal expressions of permission: smem 26 (=MAY/CAN).

The results of the quantitative and semantic analysis are given in Table 16 and include absolute frequencies and normalised frequencies per 100,000 words for each modal verb 27 as well as absolute (f) and relative frequencies (f%) of different modal meanings of individual verb. Modal verbs are listed and discussed in descending order of frequency.

25 For each modal only the most common English translations are given. 26 According to Toporošič (1991), modal expressions of permission form a separate group, which, however, in terms of possibility/necessity distinction (Palmer, 1999) is included in the category of possibility. Accordingly, hereafter the modal verb SMEM will be treated under the category of possibility. 27 For each modal verb all the forms were included (for all three persons and in the singular, dual and plural).

140

Table 16. Modal verbs and their modal meanings in the scientific textbook in Slovene

Poslovna logistika 27,590 words

words

Items per 100,000Items

Modal verbs Absolute (f) frequency Modality f f%

dynamic 75 79.8 MORAM 94 341 deontic/dynamic 19 20.2

NE SMEM 8 29 dynamic 8 100

NE MOREM 6 22 dynamic 6 100

ZNAM 5 18 dynamic 5 100

UTEGNEM 1 4 epistemic 1 100

ZMOŽEN SEM 1 4 dynamic 1 100

Total 115 417

A brief overview of the results of the simple quantitative analysis shows that in the analysed scientific textbook in Slovene the overall use of modal verbs (total no. of modal verbs per 100,000 words= 417) is much lower than in the analysed scientific textbook in English (total no. of modal verbs per 100,000 words= 1,326), which could suggest that, compared to English authors of scientific texts, Slovene authors either prefer categorical statements over modalised statements or that they prefer to modalise their statements through the use of modal expressions other than modal verbs, e.g. nouns, adjectives or adverbs. Further research into this matter would exceed the scope of the present study, which is why only modal verbs in Slovene will be discussed further in this chapter in the framework of semantic analysis.

Of the eight modal verbs included in the present analysis, the positive forms SMEM and MOREM proved not to be used, while MORAM was used by far most frequently (f= 94), and followed by the modal verbs NE SMEM, NE MOREM, ZNAM, UTEGNEM and ZMOŽEN SEM, all of which occurred very seldom.

The presentation of the results of the semantic analysis starts with the modal verb MORAM, which proved to be most frequently used for the expression of general or circumstantial, i.e. dynamic necessity (f%= 79.8). One example for each (i.e. general necessity and circumstantial necessity) is given below:

141

[105] “V glavnem velja, da mora imeti vodja logistike izredno sposobnost upravljanja… ” (Križman, str. 10)

[106] “Seveda imajo nekateri elementi na specifičnih tržiščih (…) večji pomen kot drugi in morajo biti za ta namen še skrbneje planirani. ” (ibid., p. 15)

In” the first example the modal phrase “ mora imeti ” relates to general necessity, which is clearly outlined in the introductory sentence ( “V glavnem velja” ), while in the second the necessity in the modal phrase “morajo biti” is constrained by external factors set out in the nominal phrase “za ta namen še skrbneje planirani”.

Another dynamic use deserving our special attention and already observed in the analysed English written and spoken discourse is the use of MORAM with speech act verbs. Two such occurrences were found in the analysed scientific textbook in Slovene:

[107] “K temu moramo dodati še probleme premagovanja prostora zunaj poslovnega sistema…” (ibid., p. 30)

[108] “Še na nekaj moramo opozoriti .” (ibid., p. 75)

Like in English, the main function of these utterances in Slovene is “to indicate rhetorical emphasis” (Vihla, 1990, p. 32).

Occasionally (f%= 20.2), the general or circumstantial necessity of MORAM seems to overlap with the necessity arising from the author’s professional authority, which, by analogy with such occurrences in English, could be classified as deontic/dynamic. An example is:

[109] “Vodstvo poslovnega sistema mora dajati vzgled z učinkovitim načrtovanjem procesov… ” (ibid., p. 23)

Ranked as the second, the modal verb NE SMEM (f= 8), lags far behind MORAM (f= 94) and, unlike the latter, seems to be used exclusively for the expression of general or circumstantial, i.e. dynamic, necessity, or, to be more precise, necessity not to act, as for example in:

142

[110] “Te omejitve v podjetju ne smejo prekoračiti, ker bi to povečalo skladiščne stroške…” (ibid., p. 34)

The next modal verb is NE MOREM (f= 6), which closely follows NE SMEM, and is unlike MORAM and NE SMEM, used for the expression of possibility, or, to be more precise, lack of possibility:

[111] “Merjenje koristi zaradi skrajševanja časa je lahko neposredno merljivo v denarju (…) ali pa jih neposredno ne moremo izmeriti .” (ibid., p. 61)

[112] “Zahteve po hitrem (...) prevozu ne more v celoti izpolniti nobena vrsta transporta. ” (ibid., p. 50)

The comparison between these two modal expressions, i.e. “ne moremo izmeriti ” and “ne more v celoti izpolniti” , clearly shows the difference between objective (“ jih neposredno ne moremo izmeriti” ) and subject-oriented (“ne more v celoti izpolniti nobena vrsta transporta”) possibility, respectively.

The modal verb NE MOREM is closely followed by another modal verb used for the expression of possibility, i.e. ZNAM (f= 5), which, like the former, is used exclusively with dynamic meaning.

[113] “Zanjo pa je potrebno zagotoviti tudi izučene delavce, ki znajo izkoristiti tehnične možnosti…” (ibid., p. 24)

Interestingly, all occurrences of ZNAM in the Slovene scientific textbook are used with animate subjects, which in sample sentence [113] are “izučeni delavci”.

The last two modal verbs are UTEGNEM and ZMOŽEN SEM, both of which occur only once in the analysed scientific text and are used for the expression of possibility. The two observed instances, however, show an important difference. Namely, the modal verb in the first instance is used for the expression of logical, i.e. epistemic possibility, while the verb in the second one is used for the expression of subject-oriented, i.e. dynamic possibility. This pair thus also reflects the subjective/objective dichotomy:

143

[114] “Ne preseneča ugotovitev, da so glavni razlog za izločanje storitev sorazmerno visoki stroški, ki bi si jih podjetja na ta način utegnila znižati. ” (ibid., p. 67)

[115] “Vse razpoložljive podatke mora biti informacijski sistem zmožen predelati v primerno obliko… ” (ibid., 54)

The use of modal verbs in the Slovene scientific textbook is summarised in Table 17, which gives the percentages of epistemic, dynamic and deontic modality, where deontic and dynamic meanings co-occurring in deontic/dynamic mergers are equally distributed between the two meanings.

Table 17. Proportion of epistemic, deontic and dynamic modality in the scientific textbook in Slovene

Modality Modal verbs Epistemic Deontic Dynamic

MORAM 0 10 84

NE SMEM 0 0 8

NE MOREM 0 0 6

ZNAM 0 0 5

UTEGNEM 1 0 0

ZMOŽEN SEM 0 0 1

Total (f) 1 10 104

Total (f%) 1 9 90

To sum up, the discussed meanings and functions of Slovene modal verbs combined with the results presented in Table 17 show that all the modal verbs but UTEGNEM are predominantly or even exclusively used for the expression of general or circumstantial necessity, which in the framework of Palmer’s (1990) analytic division of modality into epistemic, deontic and dynamic could be classified as dynamic. A more detailed view of the results reveals that MORAM as the most frequently used modal verb in the Slovene text shows a marked preference (f%= 79.8) for dynamic modality, while the modal verbs NE SMEM, NE MOREM, ZNAM and ZMOŽEN SEM show exclusively dynamic use. Alongside the already mentioned dynamic use of MORAM, the objective reporting of claims typical of dynamic modality is in MORAM occasionally combined with the necessity arising

144 from the author’s (subjective) authority (f%= 20.2) in the so called deontic/dynamic mergers. In the latter use, the subjectivity of deontic modality is neutralised by the objectivity of dynamic modality, whereas the epistemic use of UTEGNEM is used exclusively subjectively, i.e. providing an insight into the author’s personal perspective. Considering the fact that compared to the share of dynamically modalised utterances, the share of both epistemically and deontically modalised utterances is relatively low (f% epistemic= 1; f% deontic = 9; f% dynamic = 90), the identified use of modal verbs could suggest that in terms of communicative functions the analysed scientific textbook shows a marked preference for objective, author- evacuated presentation of claims, while subjective insights primarily serve to emphasise the role of the author’s professional persona when outlining the desired course of action and only occasionally to provide an insight into the author’s subjective view. Compared to modal verb use in the English scientific textbook these results show a very low use of epistemic meaning (Slovene scientific textbook: f%= 1; English scientific textbook: f%= 20) and a slightly higher use of deontic meaning (Slovene scientific textbook: f%= 9; English scientific textbook: f%= 4) as well as dynamic meaning (Slovene scientific textbook: f%= 90; English scientific textbook: f%= 76), thus showing a preference for “agent-oriented” over “speaker-oriented” modality (cf. 2.4.2). Another striking difference is the already mentioned low overall use of modal verbs in the analysed Slovene scientific text compared to their use in the analysed English scientific text. However, as both in Slovene and English the study was limited to one representative text, these results merely give a preliminary insight into possible differences in modal verb use in the two languages and call for further investigation based on more samples. Since this exceeds the scope of the present thesis, it will be left for future research.

5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Building on the results and findings of previous contextual studies on modality, the present thesis set out to investigate modal verb use in different text types typically used in the academic and/or business world in the field of logistics. Previous studies of modal verb use in disciplinary genres have been limited to traditional disciplines, including, for example, medicine, economics and literary criticism. The present

145 study, however, has focused on logistics, which as a relatively young science marked by its interdisciplinary nature stands out as an area that still needs to be studied from this perspective. Accordingly, to shed light on whether, and, if so, how a genre- and discipline-specific setting determines modal verb use in logistics scientific and professional discourse, the present thesis has employed a combination of basic quantitative (i.e. frequency counts and the χ2 test) and qualitative (semantic) analysis, the results of which are discussed in detail throughout the thesis and will now be summed up.

The first and main part of empirical analysis – analysis of modal verb use in the research papers, the scientific textbook and the professional application handbook in English – yielded results showing some similarities and differences that could be related to genre- and/or discipline-specific discourse conventions, as will be outlined below.

Table 18. Proportion of epistemic, deontic and dynamic modality in the corpus of logistics text

Modality Modal verbs Epistemic Deontic Dynamic

Research papers Total (f) 107 84 611

(Sc1) Total (f%) 13 11 76

Scientific Total (f) 196 36 723

textbook (Sc2) Total (f%) 20 4 76

Application Total (f) 62 10 321

handbook (Sc3) Total (f%) 16 2 82

The results for the logistics research papers show that the majority of the analysed modal verbs (CAN, COULD, MUST, OUGHT TO, ABLE TO, HAVE TO and GOING TO) are predominantly used for the expression of dynamic meaning, while MAY and MIGHT are the only modals showing a preference for epistemic meaning and related functions. SHOULD is the only modal showing a preference for polyvalent deontic/dynamic meaning and thus also the only modal verb in subcorpus 1 negating hypothesis 1 that modal verbs will show a preference for one

146 modal meaning. In terms of communicative functions, the prevalence of dynamic modality suggests that in research papers modal verbs are predominantly used when the authors want to downplay their subjective role by reporting claims objectively, i.e. as constrained by external factors. In the analysed research papers, however, objectivity of dynamic modality is importantly complemented by subjective insights expressed through (epistemic) qualifications or judgments and (deontic) directives, epistemic and deontic modality thus performing an important function of emphasising the writer’s persona as well as engaging with the readers.

A brief overview of the results of the semantic analysis of modal verb use in the scientific textbook shows that with most modal verbs dynamic modality is either the dominant (with SHOULD, MIGHT and COULD) or even the only (with CAN, ABLE TO and HAVE TO) modal meaning, the only exceptions being MAY, MUST and GOING TO: MAY for showing a preference for epistemic meaning, MUST for being predominantly used for polyvalent, i.e. deontic/dynamic meaning, and GOING TO for showing no preference for any of the two modal meanings used with it, i.e. epistemic and dynamic. Accordingly, only the last two verbs, i.e. MUST and GOING TO negate the hypothesis on the dominance of one modal meaning. The observed prevalence of dynamic modality is reflected also in the prevalence of an objectified, author-evacuated presentation of claims, while the relatively high occurrence of the epistemic use of MAY seems to play an important role in interpersonal positioning of the text. As discussed in 2.4.3 the epistemic use of MAY (as well as the observed epistemic use of SHOULD, MIGHT and COULD) typically functions as a marker of hedging, which has been recognised as an important argumentative strategy in academic discourse, allowing the authors to both confirm their professional persona and negotiate meaning with the intended audience (Hyland, 1996). Contrary to epistemic modality, deontic modality is used only seldom, thus playing a limited role in shaping the textual voice of the analysed textbook.

The analysis of the application handbook yielded results showing that dynamic modality is the prevailing (with CAN, SHOULD, COULD, MIGHT and MUST) or the only modal meaning (with ABLE TO and HAVE TO) with all modal verbs but

147

MAY, which is predominantly used in epistemic sense. The results thus fully confirm the hypothesis that polysemous modal verbs will show a preference for one modal meaning and its related functions. From the perspective of communicative function, modality is thus primarily used objectively, i.e. to detach the authors from their claims and let the facts speak for themselves. Occasionally, however, epistemic modality is employed to give the subjective perspective of the author, while obligation (i.e. deontic meaning) sense occurs very infrequently.

The validity of hypothesis 2.1 that due to differences in their communicative functions, research papers, a scientific textbook and an application handbook will demonstrate different percentages of dynamic, epistemic and deontic use of individual modal verbs was tested with the χ2 test, which showed a statistically significant difference between the three subcorpora only for SHOULD, while the difference between the three subcorpora for CAN showed only a tendency towards a statistically significant difference. Another modal for which comparison gave results showing a tendency towards a statistically significant difference is MAY. It should, however, be noted that for this modal only the comparison between the scientific textbook and the application handbook showed this tendency, while the comparison between the three subcorpora showed neither a statistically significant difference nor a tendency towards it. Besides the mentioned statically relevant differences, the analysis showed also some other marked differences in the use of individual modal verbs. Although they had to be excluded from the statistical analysis due to their low occurrence (typically in one or two of the researched text types), these differences seem to have important implications for potential genre- specific modal verb use. Three such uses worthy of special attention are the relatively frequent deontic use of SHOULD in the research papers, the absence of the epistemic use of MIGHT in the application handbook and the markedly polysemous use of MUST in the research papers.

Hypothesis 2.2 set out to test whether the different percentages of dynamic, epistemic and deontic use with individual modal verbs will be reflected also in differences in the overall percentages of the three modal meanings in the three text types included in the study. The results of the χ2 test and the results presented in

148

Table 18, seem to imply some genre-specific differences, e.g. a relatively high use of deontic modality in the research papers compared to the other two text types, a relatively high use of epistemic modality in the scientific textbook and a relatively higher use of dynamic modality in the application handbook, all of which could be linked to the genre-specific style of each text type. However, as semantic and quantitative analysis was carried out on a limited corpus of logistics texts (the only exception being the subcorpus of the logistics research papers, which includes 14 research papers), further analysis should be undertaken to see whether the observed differences between the three text types in logistics are entirely genre-specific.

Hypothesis 3 postulates that in terms of modal verb use, the interdisciplinary nature of logistics will be reflected in the dichotomy between objective and subjective presentation of claims. The observed prevalence of dynamic modality, on the one hand, and the relatively infrequent use of epistemic and deontic modality, on the other, in all three text types dealt with in this study, i.e. the research papers, the scientific textbook and the application handbook, seem to confirm the validity of this hypothesis. However, since the objective/subjective dichotomy has also been recognised as an inherent characteristic of scientific and professional genres, and based on Bhatia’s view (2002) on the interdependence of genre and disciplinary variations, it could further be assumed that the observed objective/subjective dichotomy emerges due to both genre- and discipline-specific conventions. Accordingly, to establish the extent to which the observed dichotomy is conditioned by genre- and discipline-specific conventions, future research should compare modal verb use in one or two genres in logistics and related disciplines (e.g. mathematics, engineering and economics), respectively.

In addition to the discussed analysis of meanings and functions of modal verbs in English, the comparison of modal verb use in the English and the Slovene scientific textbook provided some interesting insights into language-specific use, which confirmed the related hypotheses. First, the results obtained by the quantitative analysis of modal verb use in the Slovene scientific textbook showed a markedly lower use of modal verbs than in the analysed English textbook, with which the hypothesis that Slovene scientific discourse will show a markedly lower use of

149 modal verbs than the English one is proved valid. Furthermore, as the overall distribution of modal meanings in Slovene showed a marked preference for the objective, i.e. author evacuated presentation of claims, and a markedly low use of the subjective qualification of claims (f%= 1), the results also confirm the hypothesis that compared to English, modal verb use in Slovene will show a markedly lower use of epistemic meaning. Last but not least, the results of the semantic analysis of modal verb use in Slovene also confirm that Palmer’s three- fold division of modality could be applied to the Slovene system of modal verbs and contribute to a better understanding of their meanings and functions.

To conclude, based on the observed complexity of modal verb use in English scientific and professional discourse and variations which could be attributed to genre- and/or discipline-specific norms, it could be inferred that informed understanding as well as use of modal verbs in English as a second language will largely depend on knowing genre- and discipline-specific norms. In anticipation of the latter, the present thesis set out to explore and provide a structured account of modal verb use in logistics, which will hopefully prove useful to researchers and practitioners in the field of logistics.

In line with the main goal of the present thesis, i.e. to explore and provide a structured account of modal verb use in logistics, the quantitative and semantic analysis of modal verb use was limited to the corpus of logistics texts, comprising the research papers, the scientific textbook and the application handbook, all of which have been chosen as representative samples frequently used and referenced by Slovene students, researchers as well as practitioners in the field of logistics. However, to provide a more comprehensive insight into modal verb use in logistics, the corpus of logistics texts could be expanded both in terms of a larger number of samples for each genre as well as in terms of the number of genres, e.g. abstracts and popular papers could be added. To provide further evidence of the discipline- specific use of modal verbs, future research could also investigate modal verb use in genre(s) in logistics and some other disciplines, such as economics, engineering and social sciences.

150

6 POVZETEK V SLOVENŠČINI

Modalnost je ena izmed osrednjih jezikovnih prvin tako pisnega kakor tudi ustnega sporočanja, ki jo avtorji pogosto uporabljajo za izražanje svojega stališča do predstavljene vsebine oziroma možnosti ali nujnosti aktualizacije dejanja izraženega z glavnim glagolom. Nedvomno so prav modalni glagoli, predvsem v angleščini, eno izmed najpogosteje uporabljenih jezikovnih sredstev za izražanje modalnosti oziroma modalnih odnosov ali pomenov, zaradi česar se pričujoča raziskava osredotoča na raziskavo prav teh. Skladno s spoznanji sodobnejših, na tekst naravnanih pristopov, da je za rabo modalnih glagolov značilna tako za žanr kot tudi za disciplino specifična raba, se raziskava osredinja na analizo modalnih glagolov v izbranih besedilnih vrstah, in sicer raziskovalnih člankih (Sc1), znanstveni monografiji (Sc2) ter strokovnem priročniku (Sc3) na področju logistike. Osrednji cilj pri tem je ugotoviti, če in v kolikšni meri za žanr in disciplino specifičen kontekst vpliva na rabo modalnih glagolov.

Pričujoča študija modalne glagole preuči iz vidika treh modalnih pomenov, in sicer epistemičnega, deontičnega in dinamičnega pomena (Palmer, 1990). Medtem ko je prva (epistemična) modalnost namenjena izražanju avtorjeve subjektivne sodbe o verjetnosti propozicije (Lyons, 1977), sta deontična in dinamična modalnost namenjeni izražanju verjetnosti ali nujnosti aktualizacije dejanja, izraženega z glavnim glagolom (Depraetere & Reed, 2006). Deontična in dinamična modalnost se nadalje razlikujeta glede na vir verjetnosti oziroma nujnosti: pri deontični modalnosti dovoljenje oziroma obveza praviloma temelji na okoliščinah, ki so zunaj domene osebka v povedi (Palmer, 2003), medtem ko pri dinamični modalnosti verjetnost oziroma nujnost dejanja praviloma izhaja iz osebka v stavku (dinamična modalnost, orientirana na osebek) ali zunanjih okoliščin (nevtralna dinamična modalnost) (Palmer, 1990). Skladno z omenjenim deontična modalnost praviloma izraža subjektivni, dinamična pa objektivni odnos do izražene vsebine. Polege omenjenega je za deontično modalnost značilno tudi, da izhaja iz avtoritete, pogosto govorčeve ali piščeve (ibid.).

151

Zaradi izrazito polisemične narave (ali tudi tako imenovane večpomenskosti (Ilc, 2008)) ter kontekstualne pogojenosti pomenov modalni glagoli v angleščini poleg »univalentnih« pomenov pogosto izražajo tudi »polivalentne« pomene oziroma kombinacije dveh pomenov, na primer epistemično/deontičen pomen pri glagolu OUGHT TO (Coates, 1983), deontično/dinamičen pomen pri glagolu MUST (Giltrow, 2005) ter epistemično/dinamičen pomen pri glagolu MAY (Vold, 2006).

Omenjeni pomeni pomembno sooblikujejo ton v znanstvenih in strokovnih besedilih, v okviru katerih jih lahko nadalje opredelimo z vidika njihovih komunikacijskih funkcij. Pri teh kot prva izstopa modifikacija argumentov (ang. »hedging«) ali omejevanje trditev (Hyland, 1998; Vold, 2006), ki v veliki meri sovpada z epistemično modalnostjo. Hyland (1996) jezikovna sredstva, uporabljena za modifikacijo argumentov, opredeli kot sredstva, s katerimi avtorji propozicijo izpostavijo kot mnenje in ne kot dejstvo, kar lahko pomembno pripomore k sprejetju predstavljenih propozicij ter hkrati prispeva tudi k vzpostavitvi dialoškega odnosa med avtorjem in bralcem. Poleg glagola MAY, ki se najpogosteje pojavlja v tej vlogi, se za omejevanje trditev lahko uporabljajo tudi glagoli COULD, MIGHT in SHOULD (prav tam). Prav tako imata iz vidika komunikacijskih funkcij pomembno vlogo tudi deontična in dinamična modalnost: medtem ko prva pogosto izraža avtorjevo strokovno avtoriteto ali družbeno-strokovno zavezo k ustreznem ravnanju, se z dinamično modalnostjo avtor praviloma distancira od predstavljene vsebine tako, da verjetnost ali nujnost dejanja pogojuje z zunanjimi okoliščinami ali lastnostmi osebka v stavku. Zaradi omenjenega doentična modalnost praviloma izraža subjektivni pomen, dinamična pa objektivni.

Izhajajoč iz omenjene dihotomije med objektivno (dinamičnim) ter subjektivno (epistemičnim in deontičnim) naravnanim pomenom ter na osnovi spoznanj na kontekst naravnanih študij, se, kot že omenjeno, pričujoča raziskava osredinja na raziskavo modalnih glagolov v besedilnih vrstah v logistiki. Slednja kot relativno mlada disciplina, ki jo zaznamuje izrazita interdisciplinarnost, namreč izstopa kot eno izmed še neraziskanih področij iz vidika modalnosti. Analiza modalnih glagolov temelji na kvantitativni (osnovni frekvenčni analizi in χ2 testom) ter semantični analizi, njeni rezultati so na kratko povzeti v nadaljevanju.

152

Rezultati prvega in osrednjega dela empirične analize – kvantitativne in semantične analize pomenov in funkcij modalnih glagolov v raziskovalnih člankih, znanstveni monografiji in strokovnem priročniku v angleščini – so pokazali, da med raziskanimi besedilnimi vrstami obstajajo nekatere podobnosti in razlike, ki bi lahko odražale za žanr in/ali disciplino specifično rabo.

Analiza raziskovalnih člankov pokaže, da pri večin modalnih glagolov prevladuje en pomen, in sicer dinamičen. Natančnejši pregled nadalje pokaže, da glagoli ABLE TO, HAVE TO, GOING TO in OUGHT TO izražajo izključno dinamičen pomen, medtem ko glagoli CAN, COULD in MUST izražajo več pomenov, a najpogosteje dinamičen. Omenjeni glagoli tako potrjujejo hipotezo o enem prevladujočem modalnem pomenu. Tudi pri glagolih MAY in MIGHT prevladuje en pomen, in sicer epistemičen. Glagol SHOULD tako izstopa kot edini glagol, pri katerem prevladuje polivalenten, in sicer deontično/dinamičen pomen, s čimer le- ta negira hipotezo o prevladujočem univalentnem pomenu. Z vidika komunikativnih funkcij se zaznana porazdelitev modalnih pomenov odraža v izrazito objektivnem tonu poročanja (f%= 76), ki ga pomembno dopolnjuje tako subjektivno izražanje stališč do predstavljenih vsebin (f%= 13) kakor tudi izražanje zaveze k pridobivanju znanja ter k ukrepanju v skladu z zahtevami članka (f%= 11). Čeprav sta omenjena subjektivno naravnana modalna odnosa (epistemičen in deontičen) relativno nizko zastopana, pa zaradi vloge, ki jo imata pri poudarjanju piščeve persone ter usmerjanju bralcev, pomembno sooblikujeta ton raziskovalnih člankov.

Kratek pregled rezultatov analize modalnih glagolov v znanstveni monografiji pokaže, da pri večini modalnih glagolov dinamični pomen izstopa kot prevladujoč (pri glagolih SHOULD, MIGHT in COULD) oziroma edini (pri glagolih CAN, ABLE TO in HAVE TO) modalni pomen. Kot edine izjeme tako izstopajo glagoli MAY, MUST in GOING TO, in sicer MAY zaradi prevladujoče epistemične naravnanosti, MUST zaradi prevladujoče polivalentne deontično/dinamične rabe ter GOING TO zaradi enakomerne porazdelitve med epistemično in dinamično rabo. Skladno s predstavljenimi rezultati tako le slednja dva glagola – MUST in GOING TO – negirata hipotezo o enem prevladujočem pomenu pri polivalentnih

153 glagolih. Prevladujočo dinamično modalnost tudi v tem besedilu avtorji uporabljajo predvsem za to, da se s tem, ko dejanjem prepustijo, da govorijo sama zase, distancirajo od poročanih vsebin (f%= 76). Iz tega izhajajoč pretežno objektivni ton besedila pomembno dopolnjuje predvsem relativno visok delež subjektivnega vrednotenja propozicij (f%= 20), v manjši meri pa tudi precej nizek delež obveze k ustreznemu ravnanju, ki izhaja bodisi iz avtorjeve ali iz širše družbeno-strokovne avtoritete (f%= 4). Izmed slednjih dveh tipično subjektivno naravnanih modalnih pomenov, kot že omenjeno, izstopa predvsem epistemični pomen oziroma raba le- tega za tako imenovano modifikacijo argumentov, ki je v izbranem besedilu najpogosteje izražena z glagolom MAY, ki velja za tipični primer omejevalca (ang. hedge), v manjši meri pa tudi z ostalim modalnimi glagoli, povezanimi s to komunikacijsko funkcijo (SHOULD, MIGHT in COULD).

Medtem ko rezultati analize raziskovalnih člankov in znanstvene monografije kažejo kar nekaj podobnosti, in sicer relativno visoko rabo (Sc1: število glagolov normalizirano na 100,000= 857; Sc2: število glagolov normalizirano na 100,000= 1,326) ter isti delež dinamične modalnosti (f%= 76), pa rezultati analize strokovnega priročnika v večji meri odstopajo od rezultatov analize prvih dveh besedilnih vrst tako z vidika pogostnosti rabe (Sc3: število glagolov normalizirano na 100,000= 416) kakor tudi porazdelitve modalnih pomenov in z njimi povezanih komunikacijskih funkcij. Kljub omenjenemu tudi v strokovnem priročniku dinamična modalnost izstopa kot najpogosteje uporabljen modalni pomen, pri čemer pa je delež le-tega še nekoliko višji kot v prvih dveh primerih (f%= 82). Kot izrazito dinamična modalna glagola v strokovnem priročniku izstopata glagola HAVE TO in ABLE TO, ki sta uporabljena izključno dinamično, medtem ko so glagoli CAN, SHOULD, COULD, MIGHT ter MUST uporabljeni tudi za izražanje drugih modalnih pomenov, a najpogosteje za dinamičen pomen. Glagol MAY tako izstopa kot edini glagol, pri katerem prevladujoči pomen ni dinamičen temveč epistemičen. Ker pa se tudi pri slednjem glagolu epistemičen pomen izkaže za najpogosteje uporabljeni pomen, rezultati analize modalnih glagolov v strokovnem priročniku v celoti potrjujejo hipotezo o prevladujočem univalentnem pomenu. Gledano iz vidika komunikacijskih funkcij, strokovni priročnik zaznamuje izrazito objektivni ton, ki je odraz tako še nekoliko višjega deleža dinamične rabe kot v

154 prvih dveh besedilnih vrstah kakor tudi izrazito nizke splošne zastopanosti modalnih glagolov, medtem ko je subjektivno naravnana raba modalnih glagolov relativno nizka, še posebej deontična raba (f%= 2), ki se prav v tem besedilu izkaže kot posebej redko zastopana.

Relevantnost hipoteze 2.1, ki predpostavlja, da se bodo razlike v komunikacijskih namenih analiziranih besedilnih vrst – raziskovalnih člankov, znanstvene monografije in strokovnega priročnika – odražale tudi v različnih razmerjih med dinamično, epistemično ter deontično rabo posameznih modalnih glagolov, smo preverjali z χ2 testom. Rezultati le-tega so pokazali statistično pomembno razliko v rabi v vseh treh besedilnih vrstah le za glagol SHOULD (p= 0.000), medtem ko so pri glagolu CAN pokazali le tendenco k statistično pomembni razliki (p= 0.065). Prav tako so rezultati statistične analize pokazali tendenco k statistično pomembni razliki pri glagolu MAY, vendar le pri primerjavi rezultatov za znanstveno monografijo in strokovnim priročnikom (p= 0.057), medtem ko primerjava rezultatov za vse tri besedilne vrste ne pokaže statistično pomembne razlike kakor tudi ne tendence k le-tej (p> 0.1). Poleg omenjenih statistično pomembnih razlik so se pri analizi pokazale tudi nekatere druge pomembne razlike v rabi posameznih modalnih glagolov, ki pa smo jih zaradi nizke rabe (najpogosteje v enem ali dveh analiziranih besedilnih vrstah) morali izključiti iz statistične analize. Tri takšne rabe, ki še posebej izstopajo, so relativno visoka zastopanost deontične rabe glagola SHOULD v raziskovalnih člankih, odsotnost epistemične rabe glagola MIGHT v strokovnem priročniku ter izrazito polisemična raba glagola MUST v raziskovalnih člankih (uporabljen je namreč za izražanje epistemičnega, deontičnega, dinamičnega kakor tudi deontično/dinamičnega pomena).

Navezujoč se na hipotezo 2.1, hipoteza 2.2 nadalje predpostavlja, da se bodo razlike v razmerjih med dinamično, epistemično ter deontično rabo posameznih modalnih glagolov odražale tudi v različni zastopanosti dinamične, epistemične in deontične rabe vseh modalnih glagolov. Rezultati χ2 testa in semantične analize (glej tabelo 18) tako nakazujejo nekatere razlike, ki bi lahko odražale žanrsko pogojeno rabo modalnih glagolov. Slednje razlike vključujejo relativno pogosto deontično rabo v raziskovalnih člankih, relativno pogosto epistemično rabo v znanstveni monografiji

155 ter nekoliko višjo dinamično rabo v strokovnem priročniku. Ker je pričujoča študija rabo modalnih glagolov raziskala na korpusu logističnih besedil, praviloma omejenem le na en reprezentativni primer (le v primeru raziskovalnih člankov vzorec zajema 14 člankov), so za nadaljnjo potrditev reprezentativnosti izkazanih razlik potrebne nadaljnje študije, ki bodo vključevale večje število primerov izbranih besedilnih vrst.

V luči hipoteze 3, da bo raba modalnih glagolov vsaj delno odražala tudi interdisciplinarno naravo logistike, pri čemer bo dihotomija med metodami tako imenovanih trdih (npr. matematika, strojništvo, medicina, ipd.) ter mehkih znanosti (npr. ekonomija, trženje, sociologija, ipd.) (Hyland, 2005) v večji ali manjši meri sovpadala z dihotomijo med objektivno in subjektivno predstavitvijo trditev, lahko sklepamo, da prevladujoča dinamična raba v vseh treh besedilnih vrstah vsaj deloma odraža za disciplino značilno rabo. Ker pa je omenjena dihotomija med objektivnim in subjektivnim poročanjem pogosto prepoznana kot ena izmed glavnih značilnosti večine znanstvenih in strokovnih besedilnih vrst in ker sta, kot izpostavi tudi Bhatia (2002), za žanr in disciplino specifični rabi pogosto soodvisni, lahko nadalje sklepamo, da zaznana dihotomija ne odraža samo za disciplino, ampak tudi za žanr specifične norme. Da bi lahko ugotovili, v kolikšni meri dihotomija dejansko odraža le za disciplino specifične norme, so potrebne nadaljnje študije, ki bodo primerjalno analizirale rabo modalnih glagolov v besedilnih vrstah na področju logistike in z njo povezanih disciplin (npr. matematike, strojništva in ekonomije).

Izhajajoč iz dejstva, da angleščino zaznamujeta kompleksen sistem in raba modalnih glagolov, medtem ko je sistem le-teh v slovenščini precej omejen, tako z vidika zastopanosti kakor tudi pomenske raznolikosti, pričujoča študija nadalje išče vzporednice med rabo modalnih glagolov v obeh jezikih, saj poznavanje le-teh lahko pomembno pripomore k boljšemu razumevanju in rabi modalnih glagolov v angleščini kot tujem jeziku. Primerjalna analiza rabe modalnih glagolov v slovenščini in angleščini se omeji na analizo rabe v znanstveni monografiji kot primeru osrednjega žanra za predstavitev tako znanja kakor tudi epistemologije izbrane discipline (Love, 2002). Rezultati analize so pokazali nekaj zanimivih

156 jezikovno specifičnih rab ter hkrati potrdili vse zastavljene hipoteze. Kot prvo so rezultati kvantitativne analize znanstvene monografije v slovenščini pokazali, da je raba modalnih glagolov v slovenski monografiji izrazito manj pogosta (število glagolov normalizirano na 100,000= 417) kot v angleški monografiji (število glagolov normalizirano na 100,000= 1,326), kar potrjuje hipotezo, da bo raba modalnih glagolov znanstvenem besedilu v slovenščini izrazito manj pogosta kot v angleščini. Nadalje tudi razmerje med modalnimi pomeni vseh preučenih modalnih glagolov (MORAM, NE SMEM, NE MOREM, ZNAM, UTEGNEM in ZMOŽEN SEM) pokaže izrazito objektivno naravnanost, pri čemer verjetnost ali nujnost, izražena z modalnimi glagoli, izhaja iz okoliščin izven avtorjeve osebnosti, medtem ko je delež subjektivne sodbe o verjetnosti propozicije zelo nizek (f%= 1). S tem je potrjena tudi hipoteza, da bo v primerjavi z angleščino rabo modalnih glagolov v slovenščini zaznamovala nizka zastopanost epistemične rabe. Ne nazadnje rezultati semantične analize modalnih glagolov v slovenščini potrjujejo tudi hipotezo, da Palmerjev (1990) analitično delitev modalnih pomenov v epistemičen, deontičen ter dinamičen pomen lahko uporabimo tudi v slovenščini, pri čemer le-ta lahko pomembno pripomore k boljšemu razumevanju tako pomenov kakor komunikacijskih funkcij tako v maternem jeziku kakor tudi angleščini kot tujem jeziku.

Na osnovi opažene kompleksnosti rabe modalnih glagolov v znanstvenih in strokovnih besedilih v angleščini ter razlik, ki bi jih lahko pripisali bodisi za žanr ali disciplino značilnim normam ali celo kombinaciji enih in drugih, lahko zaključimo, da je resnično dobro in strokovno utemeljeno razumevanje in raba modalnih glagolov v angleščini kot tujem jeziku v veliki meri odvisno od poznavanja za žanr in disciplino specifičnih jezikovnih norm. Skladno s predvideno pomembnostjo le-teh za razumevanje in rabo modalnih glagolov v besedilnih vrstah v logistiki je pričujoča disertacija nastala iz želje, da bi raziskala ter nudila strukturiran pregled rabe modalnih glagolov, za katerega upamo, da se bo izkazal koristen tako za raziskovalce kakor tudi praktike na področju logistike.

Skladno z zgoraj omenjenim osrednjim ciljem disertacije, da razišče in nudi strukturiran pregled rabe modalnih glagolov v logistiki, se je pričujoča študija

157 omejila na analizo glagolov v korpusu logističnih besedil, ki zajema raziskovalne članke, znanstveno monografijo ter strokovni priročnik. Slednje besedilne vrste so bile izbrane kot reprezentativni primeri besedil, s katerimi se pri svojem delu pogosto srečujejo in jih navajajo tako študentje kakor tudi raziskovalci in praktiki na področju logistike. Da bi lahko ponudili še bolj kompleksen vpogled v rabo modalnih glagolov na področju logistike, bi bilo korpus logističnih besedil potrebno razširiti tako iz vidika števila primerov posamezne besedilne vrste kakor tudi z vidika samih besedilnih vrst, vključenih v korpus. Prav tako bi analizo lahko razširili s študijo logistiki sorodih disciplin, na primer matematike, inženirstva in ekonomije, saj bi le-ta lahko ponudila dodatne dokaze o za disciplino-specifični rabi modalnih glagolov. Nedvomno bi vse omenjene nadaljnje analize lahko dodatno osvetlile problematiko rabe modalnih glagolov v besedilnih vrstah v logistiki, žal pa presegajo okvirje pričujoče disertacije, zato jih puščamo kot izziv za prihodnje študije.

158

References

Ballarin, R. (2014). Modern origins of modal logic. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2014 ed.). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/logic-modal-origins/

Bhatia, V. K. (2002). A generic view of academic discourse. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 21-39). London: Longman.

Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English . London: Longman.

Bloor, T., & Bloor, M. (1995). The functional analysis of English: A Hallidayan approach . London: Arnold.

Boyd, J., & Thorne, J. P. (1969). The semantics of modal verbs. Journal of Linguistics, 5, 57-74.

Brewer, N. M. (1987). Modality and factivity: One perspective on the meaning of the English modal auxiliaries (Doctoral dissertation, University of Leeds). Retrieved from http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/472/1/uk_bl_ethos_381046.pdf

Bybee, J. L., & Fleishman, S. (1995). Modality in grammar and discourse: An introductory essay. In J. L. Bybee & S. Fleischman (Eds.), Modality in grammar and discourse (pp. 1-14). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Bybee, J. L., Perkins, R. D., & Pagliuca, W. (1994). The Evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Carroll, R., Hiltunen, R., Peikola, M., Skaffari, J., Tanskanen, S.-K., Valle, E., & Wårwik, B. (2003). Introduction. In R. Hiltunen & J. Skaffari (Eds.), Discourse perspective on English (pp. 1-12). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Choi, S. (2006). Acquisition of modality. In W. Frawley (Ed.), The expression of modality (pp. 141-171). Mouton de Gruyter: Germany.

159

Chung, S., & Timberlake, A. H. (1985). Tense, aspect and mood. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description , vol. III: Grammatical categories and the lexicon (pp. 202-258). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Coates, J. (1983). The semantics of the modal auxiliaries . London in Canberra: Croom Helm.

Collins, P. (2009). Modals and quasi-modals in English . Amsterdam: Rodopi. de Haan, F. (2006). Typological approaches to modality. In W. Frawley (Ed.), The expression of modality (pp. 27-64). Mouton de Gruyter: Germany.

Delfmann, W., Dangelmaier, W., Günthner, W., Klaus, P., Overmeyer, L., Rothengatter, W.,…Zentes, J. (2010). Position paper on a basic understanding of logistics as a scientific discipline. In T. Delfmann & T. Wimmer (Eds.), Strukturwandel in der Logistik – Wissenschaft und Praxis im Dialog (pp. 3-10). Hamburg: Deutscher Verkehrs-Verlag.

Depraetere, I. (2014). Modals and lexically-regulated saturation. Journal of Pragmatics , 71, 160-177.

Depraetere, I., & Langford, C. (2012). Advanced English grammar: a linguistic approach . London: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Depraetere, I., & Reed, S. (2006). Mood and modality in English. In B. Aarts & A. McMahon (Eds.), The handbook of English linguistics (pp. 269-290). Singapore: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Facchinetti, R. (2003). Pragmatic and sociological constraints on the functions of may in contemporary British English. In R. Facchinetti, M. Krug, & F. Palmer (Eds.), Modality in contemporary English (pp. 301-327). Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.

Facchinetti, R., Krug, M., & Palmer, F. (2003). Preface. In R. Facchinetti, M. Krug, & F. Palmer (Eds.), Modality in contemporary English (pp. v-xiii). Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.

Faquire, R. K. (2012). Modality and its learner variety in Japanese. New York: Peter Lang.

Flowerdew, J. (2002). Introduction. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 1- 15). London: Longman.

160

Flowerdew, L. (2002). Corpus-based analyses in EAP. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 95-114). London: Longman.

Flowerdew, L. (2004). The argument for using English specialised corpora to understand academic and professional language. In U. Connor & T. A. Upton (Eds.), Discourse in the professions: Perspectives from corpus linguistics (pp. 11-33). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Giltrow, J. (2005). Modern conscience: Modalities of obligation in research genres. Text - Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse , 25 (2), 171-199. doi: 10.1515/text.2005.25.2.171

Givon, T. (1984). Syntax: A functional-typological introduction, Vol. 1 . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Gotti, M., & Dossena, M. (2001). Introduction. In M. Gotti & M. Dossena (Eds.). Modality in specialized texts (pp. 9-18). Bern: Peter Lang.

Gresset, S. (2003). Towards a contextual micro-analysis of the non-equivalence of might and could. In R. Facchinetti, M. Krug, & F. Palmer (Eds.), Modality in contemporary English (pp. 81-99). Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1970). Functional diversity in language as seen from a consideration of modality and mood in English. Foundations of Language , 4, 322-361.

Heskett, J. L., Glaskowsky, N. A. Jr., & Ivie, R. M. (1973). Business logistics (2nd ed.). New York: The Ronald Press Company.

Hewings, M. (2006). Introduction. In M. Hewings (Ed.), Academic writing in context: Implications and applications (pp. 9-16). London: Continuum.

Heylighen, F., & Dewaele, J. (2002). Variation in the contextuality of language: An empirical measure. Foundations of Science, 7 (3), 293-340.

Huddlestone, R. D. (1976). Some theoretical issues in the description of the English verb. Lingua, 40 , 331-83.

Hyland, K. (1996). Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguistics , 17 (4), 433-454. doi: 10.1093/applin/17.4.433

Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

161

Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interaction in academic writing . London: Pearson Education Ltd.

Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics , 34 (2002), 1091-1111.

Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies , 7(2), 173-192. doi: 10.1177/1461445605050365

Hyland, K. (2007). English for professional academic purposes: writing for scholarly publication. In D. Belcher (Ed.), Teaching language purposefully: English for specific purposes in theory and practice (pp. 1-27). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hyland, K. (2008). Genre and academic writing in the disciplines. Language Teaching , 41 (4), 543-562.

Ilc, G. (2008). No can do modal verbs. ELOPE , 5 (1/2), 9-21.

Jespersen, O. (1924). The philosophy of grammar . London: Allen and Unwin.

Johannesson, N. L. (1976). The English modal auxiliaries: A stratificational account . Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksell International.

Joos, M. (1964). The English verb: Form and meanings . Madison and Milawaukee: The University of Wisconsin Press.

Kaufmann, S., Condovardi, C., & Harizanov, V. (2006). Formal approaches to modality. In W. Frawley (Ed.), The expression of modality (pp. 71-106). Mouton de Gruyter: Germany.

Kennedy, G. (1998). An introduction to corpus linguistics . London: Longman.

Klaus, P., & Müller, S. (2012). Towards a science of logistics: Milestones along converging paths. In P. Klaus & S. Müller (Eds.), The Roots of logistics . A reader of classical contributions to the history and conceptual foundations of the science of logistics (pp. 3-26). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

Kratzer, A. (2013). Modals and conditionals . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kripke, S. (1980). Naming and necessity . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

162

Larreya, P. (2003). Modality in English: Theoretical, descriptive and typological issues. In R. Facchinetti, M. Krug, & F. Palmer (Eds.), Modality in contemporary English (pp. 21-45). Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.

Leech, G. N. (1971). Meaning and the English verb . London: Longman.

Leech, G. (1987). Meaning and the English verb (2 nd ed.). New York: Longman.

Leech, G. (1991). The state of the art corpus linguistics. In K. Aijmer & B. Altenberg (Eds.), English corpus linguistics: In honour of Jan Svartvik (pp. 8-29). London & New York: Longman.

Leech, G. (2003). Modality on the move: The English modal auxiliaries. In R. Facchinetti, M. Krug, & F. Palmer (Eds.), Modality in contemporary English (pp. 223-240). Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.

Leticia, S. (2009). Use of epistemic modality by non-native speakers of English. In R. Lugossy, J. Horváth, & M. Nikolov (Eds.), UPRT 2008: Empirical studies in English applied linguistics (pp. 119-134). Pécs: Lingua Franca Csoport.

Lewin, B. A. (2005). Hedging: an exploratory study of authors’ and readers’ identification of ‘toning down’ in scientific texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes , 4 (2005), 163-178.

Lewis, M. (1986). The English verb . Hove, UK: Language Teaching Publications.

Love, A. (2002). Introductory concepts and ‘cutting edge’ theories: Can the genre of the textbook accommodate both. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 76- 91). London: Longman.

Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mangan, J., Lalwani, C., & Butcher, T. (2008). Global logistics and supply chain management . Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.

McEnery, T., & Kifle, N. A. (2002). Epistemic modality in argumentative essays of second-language writers. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 182-195). London: Longman.

Mondorf, B. (2010). Genre effects in the replacement of reflexives by particles. In H. Dorgeloh & A. Wanner (Eds.), Syntactic variation and genre (pp. 219-245). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

163

Moore, J. D., & Pollack, M. E. (1992). A problem for RST: The need for multi-level discourse analysis. Computational Linguistics , 18 (4), 537-544.

Mutanen, A. (2014). Possible-worlds semantics, fiction, and creativity . Metodički ogledi , 21 (2014), 53-69.

Naim, M., Lalwani, C., Fortuin, L., Schmidt, T., Taylor, J., & Aronsson, H. (2000). A model for logistics systems engineering management education in Europe. European Journal of Engineering Education , 25 (1), 65-82.

Nuyts, J. (2001). Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization: A cognitive- pragmatic perspective . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Nuyts, J. (2006). Modality: Overview and linguistics issues. In W. Frawley (Ed.), The Expression of modality (pp. 1-26). Mouton de Gruyter: Germany.

Oxford learner's dictionary of academic English (2014). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Palmer, F. R. (1979). Modality and the English modals . London: Longman.

Palmer, F. R. (1986). Mood and modality . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Palmer, F. R. (1990). Modality and the English modals (2nd ed.). London: Longman.

Palmer, F. R. (2001). Mood and modality (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Palmer, F. R. (2003). Modality in English: Theoretical, descriptive and typological issues. In R. Facchinetti, M. Krug, & F. Palmer (Eds.), Modality in contemporary English (pp. 1-17). Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.

Papafragou, A. (1997). Modality in language development: A reconsideration of the evidence. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 9, 77-105.

Piqué-Angordans, J., Posteguillo, S., & Andreu-Besó, J.-V. (2002). Epistemic and deontic modality: A linguistic indicator in academic English. LSP & Professional Communication , 2(2), 49-65.

Pisanski Peterlin, A. (2008). The thesis statement in translations of academic discourse: an exploratory study. The Journal of Specialised Translation , 10, 9-22.

164

Pisanski Peterlin, A. (2010). Hedging devices in Slovene-English Translation: A Corpus-Based Study. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 171-192.

Portner, P. (2009). Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rushton, A., Oxley, J., & Croucher, P. (2000). The handbook of logistics and distribution management (2 nd ed.) . Glasgow: Bell & Bain Ltd.

Scollon, R. (1994). As a matter of fact: the changing ideology of authorship and responsibility in discourse. World Englishes, 13, 34-46.

Sweetser, E. E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Symánska, J. (2013). Gendered use of the hedge in academic discourse. In E. Piechurska-Kuciel & E. Szymańska-Czaplak (Eds.), Language in cognition and affect (pp. 3-16). Berlin, Germany: Springer.

Tahko, T. E. (2008). The necessity of metaphisics (Doctoral dissertation, Durham University). Retrieved from http://etheses.dur.ac.uk./2256/

Toporišič, J. (1991). Slovenska slovnica . Ljubljana: Založba Obzorja Maribor.

Tran, H. P. (2014). Modality markers and politeness strategies in British and American ambassadorial speeches. A corpus-based approach (Doctoral dissertation, University of the West of England). Retrieved from http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/23195/

The Roots of Logistics [Springer] , (n.d). Retrieved on 15 August 2015 from http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783642279218

Van der Auwera, J., & Plungian, V. (1998). Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology , 2.1, 79-124.

Varttala, T. (2001). Hedging in scientifically oriented discourse: Exploring variation according to discipline and intended audience (Doctoral dissertation, University of Tampere). Retrieved from https://tampub.uta.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/67148/951-44-5195- 3.pdf?sequence=1

Vassileva, I. (2001). Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes , 20, 83-102.

165

Vázquez I., & Giner, D. (2008). Beyond mood and modality: Epistemic modality markers as hedges in research articles. A cross-disciplinary study. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses , 21, 171-190.

Vičič, P., & Jurančič Petek, K. (2015). Modalni glagoli in njihovi modalni pomeni v znanstvenih in strokovnih logističnih besedilih. In V. Jurkovič & S. Čepon, Raziskovanje tujega jezika stroke v Sloveniji (pp. 161-192). Ljubljana: Slovensko društvo učiteljev tujega jezika.

Vičič, P., & Jurančič Petek, K. (2016). The role of modal verbs in research papers in the field of logistics. Scripta Manent , 11 (1), 21-41.

Vihla, M. (1999). Medical writing: Modality in focus . Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Vold, E. T. (2006). Epistemic modality markers in research articles: A cross-linguistic and cross-disciplinary study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics , 16 (1), 61-87. doi: 10.1111/j.1473-4192.2006.00106.x von Wright, G. (1951). An essay in modal logic. Amsterdam: North Holland.

Westney, P. (1995). Modals and periphrastics in English . Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.

White, P. R. R. (2003). Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text - Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse , 23 (2), 259–284. doi: 10.1515/text.2003.011

166

Appendices

Appendix 1: Corpus of logistics texts

Subcorpus 1 (Sc1 = research papers (RPs))

International Journal of Logistics Management (35,928; range: 5,670-10,587)

Azzi, A., Battini, D., Faccio, M., Persona, A., & Sgarbossa, F. (2014). Inventory holding costs measurement: a multi-case study. International Journal of Logistics Management , (25) 1, 109–132. doi: 10.1108/IJLM-01-2012-0004

Cantor, D. E., Blackhurst, J., Pan, M., & Crum, M. (2014). Examining the role of stakeholder pressure and knowledge management on supply chain risk and demand responsiveness. International Journal of Logistics Management , 25 (1), 202–223. doi: 10.1108/IJLM-10-2012-0111

Gligor, D. M., & Holcomb, M. (2014). The road to supply chain agility: An RBV perspective on the role of logistics capabilities. International Journal of Logistics Management , 25 (1), 160 – 179. doi: 10.1108/IJLM-07-2012-0062

Lu, Q., Goh, M., Garg, M., & De Souza, R. (2014). Remanufacturing in Asia: Location choice and outsourcing. International Journal of Logistics Management, 25 (1), 20– 34. doi: 10.1108/IJLM-10-2012-0125

Tacken, J., Sanchez Rodrigues, V., & Mason, R. (2014). Examining CO2 reduction within the German logistics sector. International Journal of Logistics Management , 25 (1), 54 – 84. doi: 10.1108/IJLM-09-2011-0073

International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management (22,600 words; range: 4,814-6,820)

Clottey, T. A., &. Grawe, S. J. (2014). Non-response bias assessment in logistics survey research: Use fewer tests? International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management , 44 (5), 412 – 426. doi: 10.1108/IJPDLM-10-2012-0314

Förster, B., Keller, J., von der Gracht, H. A., & Darkow, I.-L. (2014). Delphi-based strategic issue management: Crafting consumer goods supply chain strategy. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management , 44 (5), 373–391. doi: 10.1108/IJPDLM-09-2012-0289

Liu, X. (2014). China-based logistics research: A review of the literature and implications. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management , 44 (5), 392–411. doi: 10.1108/IJPDLM-08-2012-0225

Tate, W. L., Ellram, L. M., & Dooley, K. J. (2014). The impact of transaction costs and institutional pressure on supplier environmental practices. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management , 44 (5), 353–372. doi: 10.1108/IJPDLM-12-2012-0356

Journal of Enterprise Information Management (35,120 words; range: 5,370-9,843)

Shareef, M. A., Kumar, V., Kumar, U., & Dwivedi, Y. (2014). Factors affecting citizen adoption of transactional electronic government. Journal of Enterprise Information Management , 27 (4), 385–401. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-12-2012-0084

Garg, P., & Garg, A. (2014). Factors influencing ERP implementation in retail sector: An empirical study from India. Journal of Enterprise Information Management , 27 (4), 424 – 448. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-06-2012-0028

Garg, P., & Agarwal, D. (2014). Critical success factors for ERP implementation in a Fortis hospital: An empirical investigation. Journal of Enterprise Information Management , 27 (4), 402 – 423. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-06-2012-0027

Tripathi, R., & Gupta, M.P. (2014). Evolution of government portals in India: mapping over stage models. Journal of Enterprise Information Management , 27 (4), 449 – 474. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-09-2012-0068

Xie, Y., Allen, C. J., & Ali, M. (2014). An integrated decision support system for ERP implementation in small and medium sized enterprises. Journal of Enterprise Information Management , 27 (4), 358–384. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JEIM- 10-2012-0077

Subcorpus 2 (Sc2 = scientific textbook (ScT))

Rushton, A., Croucher P., & Baker P. (Eds.) (2010). The Handbook of logistics & distribution management (4 th ed.). India: Replika Press Pvt Ltd.

Subcorpus 3 (Sc3= application handbook (AH))

The Supply Chain Council, Inc. (2010). SCOR. Supply chain operations reference model. Version 10.0 . The United States of America: Author.

Logistics spoken discourse in English

Allison, J., & Emmerson, P. (2007). The business: Intermediate student’s book . Spain: Macmillan Education.

Grussendorf, M. (2009). English for logistics . China: Oxford University Press.

Johnson, C. (2005). Intelligent business: Skills book . China: Pearson Education Limited.

Lafond, C., Vine, S., & Welch, B. (2010). English for negotiating . China: Oxford University Press.

Logistics scientific discourse in Slovene

Križman, A. (2010). Poslovna logistika . Ljubljana: Zavod IRC.

Appendix 2: Statistical comparisons of differences between subcorpora Sc1, Sc2 and Sc3 Table 1. Comparison of the use of CAN in Sc1, Sc2 and Sc3

Subcorpus Modality Sc1 Sc2 Sc3 Total dynamic – neutral count 287 309 178 774 % of total 32.3% 34.8% 20.0% 87.1% dynamic – subject oriented count 49 33 33 115 % of total 5.5% 3.7% 3.7% 12.9% Total count 336 342 211 889 % of total 37.8% 38.5% 23.7% 100% p= 0.065, χ2= 5.460 28

Table 2. Comparison of the use of CAN in Sc1 and Sc2

Subcorpus Modality Sc1 Sc2 Total dynamic – neutral count 287 309 596 % of total 42.3% 45.6% 87.9% dynamic – subject oriented count 49 33 82 % of total 7.2% 4.9% 12.1% Total count 336 342 678 % of total 49.6% 50.4% 100% p= 0.049, χ2= 3.881 29

Table 3. Comparison of the use of CAN in Sc1 and Sc3

Subcorpus Modality Sc1 Sc3 Total dynamic – neutral count 287 178 465 % of total 52.5% 32.5% 85.0% dynamic – subject oriented count 49 33 82 % of total 9.0% 6.0% 15.0% Total count 336 211 547 % of total 61.4% 38.6% 100% p= 0.736, χ2= 0.114 30

28 Due to their low frequency of use (i.e. count is less than 5), deontic and deontic/dynamic modality were excluded for the calculation of the likelihood ratio and χ2 statistics values. 29 Due to its low frequency of use (i.e. count is less than 5), deontic/dynamic modality was excluded for the calculation of the likelihood ratio and χ2 statistics values. 30 Due to their low frequency of use (i.e. count is less than 5), deontic and deontic/dynamic modality were excluded for the calculation of the likelihood ratio and χ2 statistics values.

Table 4. Comparison of the use of CAN in Sc2 and Sc3

Subcorpus Modality Sc2 Sc3 Total dynamic – neutral count 309 178 487 % of total 55.9% 32.2% 88.1% dynamic – subject oriented count 33 33 66 % of total 6.0% 6.0% 11.9% Total count 342 211 553 % of total 61.8% 38.2% 100% p= 0.035, χ2= 4.456 31

Table 5. Comparison of the use of MAY in Sc1, Sc2 and Sc3

Subcorpus Modality Sc1 Sc2 Sc3 Total epistemic count 53 120 43 216 % of total 11.2% 25.4% 9.1% 45.8% dynamic count 32 92 28 125 % of total 6.8% 19.5% 5.9% 32.2% epistemic/dynamic count 26 48 30 104 % of total 5.5% 10.2% 6.4% 22.0% Total count 111 260 101 472 % of total 23.5% 55.1% 21.4% 100% p= 0.167, χ2= 6.467 32

Table 6. Comparison of the use of MAY in Sc1 and Sc2

Subcorpus Modality Sc1 Sc2 Total epistemic count 53 120 173 % of total 14.3% 32.3% 46.6% dynamic count 32 92 124 % of total 8.6% 24.8% 33.4% epistemic/dynamic count 26 48 74 % of total 7.0% 12.9% 19.9% Total count 111 260 371 % of total 29.9% 70.1% 100% p= 0.367, χ2= 2.003 33

31 Due to its low frequency of use (i.e. count is less than 5), deontic modality was excluded for the calculation of the likelihood ratio and χ2 statistics values. 32 Due to its low frequency of use (i.e. count is less than 5), deontic modality was excluded for the calculation of the likelihood ratio and χ2 statistics values 33 Due to its low frequency of use (i.e. count is less than 5), deontic modality was excluded for the calculation of the likelihood ratio and χ2 statistics values.

Table 7. Comparison of the use of MAY in Sc1 and Sc3

Subcorpus Modality Sc1 Sc3 Total epistemic count 53 43 96 % of total 25.0% 20.3% 45.3% dynamic count 32 28 60 % of total 15.1% 13.2% 28.3% epistemic/dynamic count 26 30 56 % of total 12.3% 14.2% 26.4% Total count 111 101 212 % of total 52.4% 47.6% 100% p= 0.570, χ2= 1.125 34

Table 8. Comparison of the use of MAY in Sc2 and Sc3

Subcorpus Modality Sc2 Sc3 Total epistemic count 120 43 163 % of total 33.2% 11.9% 45.2% dynamic count 92 28 120 % of total 25.5% 7.8% 33.2% epistemic/dynamic count 48 30 78 % of total 13.3% 8.3% 21.6% Total count 260 101 361 % of total 72.0% 28.0% 100% p= 0.057, χ2= 5.746

Table 9. Comparison of the use of SHOULD in Sc1, Sc2 and Sc3

Subcorpus Modality Sc1 Sc2 Sc3 Total dynamic count 37 84 19 140 % of total 14.3% 32.4% 7.3% 54.1% deontic/dynamic count 63 45 11 119 % of total 24.3% 17.4% 4.2% 45.9% Total count 100 129 30 259 % of total 38.6% 49.8% 11.6% 100% p= 0.000, χ2= 19.107 35

34 Due to its low frequency of use (i.e. count is less than 5), deontic modality was excluded for the calculation of the likelihood ratio and χ2 statistics values. 35 Due to their low frequency of use (i.e. count is less than 5), epistemic, deontic and epistemic/dynamic modality were excluded for the calculation of the likelihood ratio and χ2 statistics values.

Table 10. Comparison of the use of SHOULD in Sc1 and Sc2

Subcorpus Modality Sc1 Sc2 Total dynamic count 37 84 121 % of total 16.2% 36.7% 52.8% deontic/dynamic count 63 45 108 % of total 27.5% 19.7% 47.2% Total count 100 129 229 % of total 43.7% 56.3% 100% p= 0.000, χ2= 17.870 36

Table 11. Comparison of the use of SHOULD in Sc1 and Sc3

Subcorpus Modality Sc1 Sc3 Total dynamic count 37 19 56 % of total 28.5% 14.6% 43.1% deontic/dynamic count 63 11 74 % of total 48.5% 8.5% 56.9% Total count 100 30 130 % of total 76.9% 23.1% 100% p= 0.011, χ2= 6.526 37

Table 12. Comparison of the use of SHOULD in Sc2 and Sc3

Subcorpus Modality Sc2 Sc3 Total dynamic count 84 19 103 % of total 52.8% 11.9% 64.8% deontic/dynamic count 45 11 56 % of total 28.3% 6.9% 35.2% Total count 129 30 159 % of total 81.1% 18.9% 100% p= 0.854, χ2= 0.034 38

36 Due to their low frequency of use (i.e. count is less than 5), epistemic, deontic and epistemic/dynamic modality were excluded for the calculation of the likelihood ratio and χ2 statistics values. 37 Due to their low frequency of use (i.e. count is less than 5), epistemic, deontic and epistemic/dynamic modality were excluded for the calculation of the likelihood ratio and χ2 statistics values. 38 Due to their low frequency of use (i.e. count is less than 5), epistemic, deontic and epistemic/dynamic modality were excluded for the calculation of the likelihood ratio and χ2 statistics values.

Table 13. Comparison of the use of COULD in Sc1, Sc2 and Sc3

Subcorpus Modality Sc1 Sc2 Sc3 Total dynamic count 59 29 21 109 % of total 46.1% 22.7% 16.4% 85.2% epistemic/dynamic count 9 5 5 19 % of total 7.0% 3.9% 3.9% 14.8% Total count 68 34 26 128 % of total 53.1% 26.6% 20.3% 100% p= 0.765, χ2= 0.536 39

Table 14. Comparison of the use of COULD in Sc1 and Sc2

Subcorpus Modality Sc1 Sc2 Total epistemic count 13 13 26 % of total 10.2% 10.2% 20.3% dynamic count 59 29 88 % of total 46.1% 22.7% 68.8% epistemic/dynamic count 9 5 14 % of total 7.0% 3.9% 10.9% Total count 81 47 128 % of total 63.3% 36.7% 100% p= 0.284, χ2= 2.516

Table 15. Comparison of the use of COULD in Sc1 and Sc3

Subcorpus Modality Sc1 Sc3 Total dynamic count 59 21 80 % of total 62.8% 22.3% 85.1% epistemic/dynamic count 9 5 14 % of total 9.6% 5.3% 14.9% Total count 68 26 94 % of total 72.3% 27.7% 100% p= 0.465, χ2= 0.533 40

39 Due to its low frequency of use (i.e. count is less than 5), epistemic modality was excluded for the calculation of the likelihood ratio and χ2 statistics values. 40 Due to its low frequency of use (i.e. count is less than 5), epistemic modality was excluded for the calculation of the likelihood ratio and χ2 statistics values.

Table 16. Comparison of the use of COULD in Sc2 and Sc3

Subcorpus Modality Sc2 Sc3 Total dynamic count 29 21 50 % of total 48.3% 35.0% 83.3% epistemic/dynamic count 5 5 10 % of total 8.3% 8.3% 16.7% Total count 34 26 60 % of total 56.7% 43.3% 100% p= 0.641, χ2= 0.217 41

41 Due to its low frequency of use (i.e. count is less than 5), epistemic modality was excluded for the calculation of the likelihood ratio and χ2 statistics values.

ŽIVLJENJEPIS

Izobraževanje

Obdobje Oktober 2002 - oktober 2004 Naziv izobrazbe Magistrica ameriških študij Naziv in status ustanove, ki je Filozofska fakulteta UL, Aškerčeva 2, 1000 podelila diplomo LJUBLJANA Obdobje September 1993 – maj 1999 Naziv izobrazbe Profesorica angleščine in biologije Naziv in status ustanove, ki je Pedagoška fakulteta UM, Koroška cesta 160, podelila diplomo 2000 MARIBOR

Zaposlitev / poklicno Lektorica angleškega jezika področje

Delovne izkušnje

Obdobje Od oktobra 2006 Zaposlitev ali delovno mesto Učiteljica angleščine kot strokovnega jezika Glavne naloge in pristojnosti Poučevanje, priprava gradiv in učnih načrtov za angleščino, vodenje organizacijskega odbora mednarodne jezikovne konference » Pomen usvajanja tujih strokovnih jezikov za komunikacijo med kulturami« (2008-2013) Naziv in naslov delodajalca Fakulteta za logistiko UM, Mariborska cesta 7, 3000 CELJE Vrsta dejavnosti ali sektor Izobraževalna dejavnost Obdobje September 1998 – 2006 september Zaposlitev ali delovno mesto Učiteljica angleščine obje Glavne naloge in pristojnosti Poučevanje angleščine, sodelovanje v projektu Angleška bralna značka, v mednarodnem projektu Dobre vesti ter v projektu uvajanja jezikovnega listovnika, priprava učencev na jezikovno tekmovanje Naziv in naslov delodajalca Osnovna šola Frana Kranjca, Hrašovčeva ulica 1, 3000 CELJE Vrsta dejavnosti ali sektor Izobraževalna dejavnost

IZBRANA OSEBNA BIBLIOGRAFIJA COBISS 42

2014

1.12 Objavljeni povzetek znanstvenega prispevka na konferenci

32. VIČIČ, Polona. Modal verbs in scientific logistics discourse. V: English studies as archive and as prospecting: 80 years of English studies in Zagreb: book of abstracts with plenary lectures, presentations and list of participants, September 18-21, 2014, Zagreb. Zagreb: Faculty of Humanities and Social Science, Department of English, 2014, str. 108-109. [COBISS.SI-ID 512587581]

33. VIČIČ, Polona, JURANČIČ, Klementina. Modalni glagoli in modalnosti v strokovnih logističnih besedilih. V: JURKOVIČ, Violeta (ur.). Izzivi poučevanja in raziskovanja tujih jezikov stroke: knjiga povzetkov. Ljubljana: Slovensko društvo učiteljev tujega strokovnega jezika, 2014, str. 17. [COBISS.SI-ID 512563517]

2015

1.12 Objavljeni povzetek znanstvenega prispevka na konferenci

36. VIČIČ, Polona. Functions of modal verbs in research articles. V: KUŽIĆ, Tina (ur.), PLEŠE, Dubravka (ur.), PLIĆANIĆ MESIĆ, Azra (ur.). Book of abstracts. Zagreb: Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2015, str. 45-46. [COBISS.SI-ID 512712765]

38. VIČIČ, Polona. Modal verbs in academic discourse. V: LangUE 2015: the tenth Language at the University of Essex International Postgraduate Conference,18 June 2015. Essex: University of Essex, 2015, str. 8-9. [COBISS.SI-ID 512694845]

1.16 Samostojni znanstveni sestavek ali poglavje v monografski publikaciji

39. VIČIČ, Polona, JURANČIČ PETEK, Klementina. Modalni glagoli in njihovi modalni pomeni v znanstvenih in strokovnih logističnih besedilih. V: JURKOVIČ, Violeta (ur.), ČEPON, Slavica (ur.). Raziskovanje tujega jezika stroke v Sloveniji. Ljubljana: Slovensko društvo učiteljev tujega strokovnega jezika, 2015, str. 161-191. http://www.sdutsj.edus.si/RaziskovanjeTJSvSloveniji. [COBISS.SI-ID 512695101]

42 Izbor objavljenih del, v katerih so objavljena spoznanja vsebovana v doktorski disertaciji. Cobiss izpis: http://izumbib.izum.si/bibliografije/Y20161003222312-29264.html

2016

1.01 Izvirni znanstveni članek

43. VIČIČ, Polona, JURANČIČ, Klementina. The role of modal verbs in research papers in the field of logistics. Scripta manent, ISSN 1854-2042, 2016, vol. 11, no. 1, str. 21-41. http://scriptamanent.sdutsj.edus.si/ScriptaManent/article/view/154/139. [COBISS.SI-ID 512790589]

UNIVERZA V MARIBORU

FILOZOFSKA FAKULTETA

IZJAVA DOKTORSKEGA KANDIDATA

Podpisana Polona VIČIČ , vpisna številka F0029003

izjavljam, da je doktorska disertacija z naslovom Modalni odnosi v besedilnih vrstah na področju logistike (Modal meanings in different text types in the field of logistics)

• rezultat lastnega raziskovalnega dela, • da predložena disertacija v celoti ali v delih ni bila predložena za pridobitev kakršnekoli izobrazbe po študijskem programu druge fakultete ali univerze, • da so rezultati korektno navedeni in • da nisem kršila avtorskih pravic in intelektualne lastnine drugih.

Podpis doktorske kandidatke: