DEONTIC USES OF SHOULD AND OUGHT (TO)

Abstract

According to prototypicality, graduation operates as phenomena that are scaled by reference to the degree to which they match some supposed core or exemplary instance of a semantic category. According to Carter and McCarthy, when used to refer to an ideal or desired state of affairs, ought to is very similar to should, but is far less frequent (Carter & McCarty 2006:659). [...]the modal verb also involves an element of moral obligation. According to the table, it is obvious that the two languages differ significantly in their ways of imposing an obligation, offering a recommendation, making a proposal or a suggestion, giving advice or an instruction.

Headnote

Abstract: The first part of the paper outlines contemporary views on the notion of deontic modality as well as the senses of the deontically used modals should and ought to; it also discusses the difference between the two modals. The second part of the paper presents the results of a contrastive analysis of the English and the Serbian modals expressing deontic meanings.

Key words: deontic modality, English language, modal verbs, Serbian language

1. Introduction

When Dealing with deontic modality, one has to admit that it is a rather problematic domain since there is an ongoing discussion about what it should be called and how it should be defined, as well as what modal meanings and uses it actually encompasses. Nevertheless, regardless of the various terms the authors dealing with modality use when referring to it, i.e. whether deontic (Lyons 1977; Palmer 1989; Palmer 1990; Huddleston & Pullum 2002; Van der Auwera and Plungian 1998) or root (Coates 1983), intrinsic modality (Quirk et al. 1985), speaker/agent-oriented (Bybee et al. 1994), non-epistemic, modality of event (Palmer 2001) or motivational (Zvekic - Dusanovic 2011), all linguists agree that there is a type of modality enabling the speaker to influence the behaviour of his/her addressee, imposing an obligation on him/her, or giving him/her permission to undertake an action. In other words, deontic modality is related to obligations, orders, rights, duty, promise, exhortation, permission, threat, suggestions, offers, requirements, etc.

In the appraisal theory (Martin and White 2005), deontic modality is classified under the category of entertain locutions, on the basis of its basic feature of entertaining dialogic alternatives. In other words, Martin and White (2005:111) classify the deontic meanings of permission and obligation within the system of engagement, i.e. the category of entertain locutions. On the other hand, they also note that "modulations of obligation can be related to lexicalized judgements of propriety": e.g., you should go, you're supposed to go (Martin and White 2005: 55). Prototypically imposing a course of action on the addressee, deontically used modals also make dialogic space for alternative possibilities. By using a deontic modal, the speaker often allows the addressee not to take the proposed course of action, acknowledging the speaker's role as a participant in a dialogic exchange.

As the above glimpses into a vast amount of literature on modality suggest, there are various views on deontic modality - on both its range and subtypes. Due to the absence of a consensus on what deontic modality is, as well as to the quality of indeterminacy in modality markers in general (cases of ambiguity and merger may occur - Coates 1983), the paper will take a prototype approach to modality. Deontic modality should be viewed from the angle of prototypes or fuzzy sets through graduation (or gradable attitudes). It seems that such an approach offers an excellent framework for it. Graduation operates across two axes of scalability - that of grading according to intensity or amount (force), and that of grading according to prototypicality and the preciseness by which category boundaries are drawn (focus). Under focus, values are graded on a scale between 'core' and 'marginal' membership.

Having in mind all the dimensions interweaving in the case of deontic modality - the source, the aim, i.e. agent and the meaning strength, it seems that it can be determined according to the following criteria: performativity, interactive relationship between those participating in communication act, subjectivity, deontic aim - endpoint, deontic source - initiator, authority of the source of obligation, permission, advice, threat, protest, promise..., strength of the deontic meaning (on the continuum between weak and strong) and desirability (whether the proposed action is desirable from the standpoint of the speaker or the addressee).

According to prototypicality, graduation operates as phenomena that are scaled by reference to the degree to which they match some supposed core or exemplary instance of a semantic category. In other words, the greater number of the above stated criteria the expressed meaning fulfils, the closer it is to the core of the deontic modality set. Furthermore, all the criteria are in an interactive and interdependent relation. It seems that both the domain of deontic modality in general and the meanings of individual deontically used modal verbs in particular can be assessed according to the same criteria. The two modals in question will be considered according to the above outlined criteria.

2. The deontically used modals should and ought to

Both investigated verbs are weak obligation markers, should being a core modal verb (Carter & McCarthy 2006:639) and ought to a semi-modal (Carter & McCarty 2006:657). It is usually suggested that the English language makes no distinction between the two verbs - they are virtually identical in meaning (Coates 1983: 81), have synonymous use (Quirk et al. 1985:227), seem to be largely interchangeable (Palmer: 1990:122;), or should is a more common alternative to ought to (Leech 1971:100). Huddleston and Pullum (2002:186) state that one difference between should and ought to is that only the former is normally used in issuing indirect directives, such as instructions (e.g. The right-hand column should be left blank). According to Carter and McCarthy, when used to refer to an ideal or desired state of affairs, ought to is very similar to should, but is far less frequent (Carter & McCarty 2006:659). However, the stated authors do not explain why they are not the same, but just very similar.

Dealing with the dilemma whether the two modals are the same of not, it is worth noting that there are authors who are inclined to make a difference between them (Sweetser 1990:53; Myhill 1997: 8-11; Papafragou 1998:26). Comparing ought to to have to and need to, Sweetser (1990: 53) points out that seems to be less strong than the others and to have moral overtones, or at least to indicate that the obligation is one socially agreed upon between the imposer and the doer. Furthermore, drawing a parallel between the two modals discussed in the present paper, the same author (Sweetser 1990:56) concludes that whatever a speaker is willing to assume responsibility for {should) is also something the speaker might conditionally agree was morally appropriate or obligatory {ought to). Arguing for a monosemantic approach to modality, Papafragou suggests that by using should, the speaker simply reports what is entailed by the norms/expectations of a social group's behaviour, but is manifestly not in agreement with those norms, so that s/he will not use his authority to enforce them (You should be back by midnight, (?) although it's fine by me if you aren't). On the other hand, using ought to (You ought to be back by midnight, although it's fine by me if you aren't), the speaker utters a mere statement concerning what ideals or duty entail, which can differ substantially from what the speaker is prepared to accept in practice. Having analysed American plays over a period of time, Myhill (1997:8-11) argues that there is a clear distinction between the two modals, with should expressing individual opinions and ought to emphasizing a common opinion regarding the obligation in question.

As for their frequency, apart from will/would and can/could, often used in formulaic expressions, the modal verb should is one of the most frequent modal verbs in the English language, expressing both subjective and objective deontic meanings of medium strength. On the other hand, the modal verb ought to is relatively rare (Quirk et al. 1985:227) and "is reaching the end of its useful life" (Leech 2003:236).

3. The poly-functional potential of should and ought to

Taking into account the graduation criteria described above, a corpus has been compiled, consisting of approximately 100 sentences in the English language and their equivalents in the Serbian language; they were excerpted from David Lodge's trilogy Changing Places, Small World and Nice Work and their translations into Serbian. There are 80 sentences that contain the modal verb should and 20 sentences with the modal verb ought to in the corpus. Depending on the criteria fulfilled by the utterances containing the two modal verbs, the deontic meanings of the verbs may range from strong, medium to weak, i.e. from low, median to high focus.

There is a whole range of meanings expressed by the modal verb should and some of them depend on the type of utterance (affirmative, negative, interrogative or negative-interrogative) in which it occurs. Other elements present in the context also contribute various shades to the meaning of the modal. An analysis of these meanings expressed by the modal verb should can be found below.

The analysed examples that contain the modal verb should displaying deontiomodalityarethefollowing: -(1)

a) You should make an effort (Lodge 1993:770)

b) Morao bisepotrudit4 Vic. (Lodge 1990:209)

(2) a) Just a note in haste to say that I should think very carefully before you take this girl of Zapp's into the house. (Lodge 1993:120)

b) Nemam mnogo vremena i hoOu samo da ti ka~em da bih ja dobro razmislio pre nego ~to primiA ovu Zapovu devojku u kuóu. (Lod~ 1996:168)

(3) a) I think you should give Brian a chance to adjust. (Lodge 1993:752)

b) Morali biste mu dad vremena da se prilagodi. (Lodge 1990:189)

Example (1) fulfils all the criteria established for deontic modality. It is in the centre of the fuzzy set, i.e. in the core of the semantic domain: it is performative, uttered in an interpersonal exchange implying an interactive relationship between those participating in the communication act, it is subjective, addressed directly to the addressee and it is desirable from the standpoint of the speaker, rather than of the addressee. It can be said that it expresses strong deontic meaning, having in mind that it is an utterance used by a wife to address her husband who has been absent, nervous and neglecting her and his family lately. Thus, the modal verb also involves an element of moral obligation. The only criterion left which is not fully met is that of authority; however, certain respect is expected between spouses.

Even though it does not meet the criterion of deontic aim, since it has a first person singular subject, Example (2) undoubtedly expresses a strong deontic meaning. It is a modulation of obligation, imposing and anticipating obedience on the part of the addressee. According to Martin and White (2005:242), modulations of obligation can arguably be read in each instance as attitudinal and are classified within the judgement propriety. Furthermore, it seems that, rather than expressing tentativeness, the meanings of locutions like I think you should do (see sentence 3) or I should do (sentence 2) have a "deliberative" function, expressing authority (Martin and White 2005:108). As a consequence, they express even stronger deontic meanings than utterances addressing someone directly (you should do). The strength of the Example (2) is further reinforced by the adverbial of manner very carefully.

By using adverbs like maybe, probably, perhaps..., the speaker weakens the strength of the deontic meaning of the modal verb. In this case, the authorial voice represents the proposition as one of a range of possible positions - it thereby entertains or invokes various dialogic alternatives, allowing the addressee not to take the proposed course of action:

(4) a) Maybe you should consider it seriously, it might be useful when your job runs out. (Lodge 1993:823)

b) Razmisli o tome, moglo bi ti dobro doci kad izgubis posao na fakultetu. (Lodge 1990:266)

There are 10 similar sentences in the corpus, usually uttered in delicate situations, when the proposed action is not desirable from the standpoint of the addressee, but it is necessary because of objective circumstances and the speaker wants to point it out, inviting a reaction of the person in question. The majority of the utterances are in the middle of the fuzzy set, not implying moral or any other kind obligation, but advice (example 5) or a suggestion (example 6):

(5) a) You should sleep on it. (Lodge 1993:895)

b) Ti bi morola prespavati ovakvu odluku. (Lodge 1990:345)

(6) a) Perhaps we should get on. (Lodge 1993:660)

b) Morali bismo vec krenuti. (Lodge 1990:89)

There are also negative judgements, i.e. criticisms:

(7) a) Matthew should be ashamed of himself. (Lodge 1993 :287)

b) Metju bi trebalo da se stidi sebe. (Lod~ 1992:76)

(8) a) I don't think you should have done that. (Lodge 1993 :406)

b) Mislim da to n~e trebalo da udinite. (Lod~ 1992:207)

(9) a) You shouldn `tread other people's private prayers. (Lodge 1993:364)

b) Ne bi frebalo da dita! tude privatne molitve. (Lod~ 1992:162)

Sentence (7) is not in the core of deontic domain, since its deontic aim is not the addressee and it is not performative, but descriptive; however it seems to be a strong moral judgement due to the adjective ashamed. Examples (8) and (9) illustrate the speaker's disagreement with what his addressee has already done or is doing at the moment.

Except when asking for advice or instructions (5 sentences), rarely is the interrogative form with the modal verb should a real question; it usually has some other connotations (10 sentences):

(10) a) Why should decent people have to put up with this crap? (Lodge 1993:619)

b) Zasto pristojan svijet mora podnositi takve gadarije? (Lodge 1990:24)

(11) a) If a lady sees a man with his fly open, should she tell him? (Lodge 1993:24)

b) Ako jedna gospoda ugleda da je nekom muskarcu otkopcan slic, da li bi to trebalo da mu saopsti? (Lodz 1996:32)

Example (10) is a pseudo question expressing a protest, rather than a question requiring an answer. Such use is typical of negative-interrogative sentences where the modal verb is preceded by the question word why. In example (11), the speaker actually a way warns the addressee about a delicate matter, introducing a bit of humour when using the word lady.

Utterances expressing the weakest deontic meanings, positioned at the periphery of the deontic fuzzy set, refer to general statements, instructions (example (12)) simply state that something is a good idea.

(12) a) Flashbacks should be used sparingly, if at all. (Lodge 1993:161)

b) Retrospektivno pripovedanje treba upotrebljavati s merom, ako ga uopste i treba upotrebljavati. (Lodz 1996:207)

Unlike the modal verb should, ought (to) does not have such a variety of meanings. It should also be noted that, in my corpus, the sentences with the modal verb should significantly outnumber those containing the modal verb ought (to).

The modal verb ought (to) usually refers to what is right, morally acceptable in the given circumstances and in accordance with the norms of behaviour (example (13)) or what would be ideal, or socially just (example (14)):

(13) a) You really ought to write home, you know, (Lodge 1993:152)

b) Znas, stvamo treba da napises to pismo. (Lodz 1996:196)

(14) a) We ought to get rid of the security men and the barriers at the gates and let the people in! (Lodge 1993:777)

b) Morali bismo otpustiti cuvare, srusiti ograde i pustiti ljude da se slobodno krecu ovim prostorima. (Lodge 1990:216)

4. Comments on the translations into Serbian

As already mentioned, my aim is to carry out a contrastive analysis of a small-scale corpus, consisting of approximately 100 sentences in the English language and their translations into the Serbian language. Even though the sentences making up the corpus have been taken from from written texts (novels), they are actually part of a direct dialogical exchange of the main protagonists. The analysis is carried out according to the tertium comparationis - deontic meanings expressed by the English modal verbs should and ought (to). A variety of means are used in Serbian as equivalents of the modal verb should, ranging from those typically having a strong deontic meaning to those that do not belong to the deontic domain at all. They are as follows:

According to the table, it is obvious that the two languages differ significantly in their ways of imposing an obligation, offering a recommendation, making a proposal or a suggestion, giving advice or an instruction. Apart from the expected modal verb trebati, the Serbian modal verb morati is frequently used to express the deontic meanings typical of the English modal verb should; it is used mainly for those utterances in the core of the fuzzy set. In almost all the cases, morati is used in its potential form, playing the role of a distal form and decreasing the illocutionary force of the modal.

The conditional form of the lexical verb may also appear as an equivalent of the modal verb should, when used with the first person singular as subject of the sentence, while the equivalent modal verb smeti is limited to the negative forms of the modal verb should.

As for the modal verb ought (to), it is translated either by the modal verb morati (14 times - 70%) or by the modal verb trebati (6 sentences - 30%).

5. Conclusion

English and Serbian differ significantly in their ways of expressing deontic modality. Strong obligation markers are frequently used in Serbian to convey the meanings of the two English modals examined. The modal verb morati appears increasingly as an equivalent of the English modals in the core fuzzy set. In almost all the cases, however, it occurs with its potential meaning, playing the role of a distal form and decreasing the illocutionary force of the English modal. Furthermore, one can also notice that the use of the English modal ought (to) has declined sharply and has become rather marginal, having reached the end of its useful life (Leech 2003:236). Such changes have important implications for English language learning and teaching to learners whose mother tongue is Serbian.

References

References

Bybee, J, R Perkins, and W. Pagluica 1994. The Evolution of Grammar. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Coates, J. 1983. The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London and Canberra: Croom Helm.

Carter, R. and M. McCarthy 2006. Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Huddleston, R. and G. K Pullum 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Leech, G. 2003. 'Modality on the Move: The English Modal Auxiliaries 1961-1992' in R. M. Krug Facchinetti and F. Palmer (eds.). Modality in Contemporary English. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter: pp. 223-240.

Leech, G.N. 1971. Meaning and the English Verb. London: Longman.

Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Martin, J.R. and White P.R. 2005. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Myhill, J. 1997. 'Should and Ought: The Rise of Individually Oriented Modality in American English' in English Language Linguistics, no. 1(1), pp. 3-23.

Palmer, F .R. 2001. Mood and Modality (2® edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Palmer, F.R. 1989. The English Verb (2nd edition). London: Longman.

Palmer, F.R. 1990. Modality and the English Modals. London/New York: Longman.

Papafragou, A. 1998. 'Inference and Word Meaning: The Case of Modal Auxiliaries' in Lingua, no. 105, pp. 1-47.

Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvik 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.

Sweetser, E. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Van der Auwera, J. and V. Plungian 1998. 'Modality's Semantic Map' in Linguistic Typology, no. 2, pp. 79-124.

Zvekic - Dusanovic, D. 2011. Modalnost: Motivaciona modalnost u srpskom i madarskom jeziku [Modality: Motivational modality in Serbian and Hungarian language]. Novi Sad: Filozofski fakultet, Odsek za srpski jezik i lingvistiku.

Sources for my corpus:

Lodge, D. 1993. Trilogy: Changing Places, Small World, Nice Work. London: Penguin Books.

Lodz, D. 1996. Zamena mesta (prevod: Dejan Ilic). Beograd: Filip Visnjic.

Lodz, D. 1992. Mali je svet (prevod: Vasilija Bukanovic). Beograd: Srpska knjizevna zadruga.

Lodge, D. 1990. Krasan posao (prevod: Mia Pervan - Plavec). Zagreb: Mladost.