English for Specific Purposes World Online Journal for Teachers ESP WRLD

ISSN 1682-3257
Indexed in
Genamics JournalSeek

AN OVERVIEW OF MODAL AUXILIARY VERBS IN E.S.T.

Jean-Claude Viel

Jean-Claude Viel currently teaches English (as a Foreign Language) for Engineering  in a  French Lower Technical College and has also taught E.F.L. at various levels, from primary school to Engineering College. He also has teacher training activities (EST section).

When teaching the metalanguage and rhetorical patterns that are usual in Englishfor Science Technology (EST)an instructor will certainly insist on passive verbslinking wordsnominal groupsetc. which among most striking syntagmatical features. He also teach how to defineor classify instance oppose contrast. not forget modal eitherbut may consider they actually belong of EST as specific some other mentioned above.

The aim of this article is to study modal auxiliary verbs in EST, by comparing their uses with those in General Purpose English (GPE), analysing their occurrences and meanings so as to reveal similarities but, more interesting, to point out differences - if any, and to establish and interpret their functions in EST.

 

Part 1 - Research method

Comparing and contrasting the uses and meanings of modal verbs in EST and in general English required collecting two corpora of texts to be studied and analysed. Since the whole research work relied on the corpora, it was essential that these texts be carefully selected so as to ensure a satisfying reliability of results. (Annex 1 details the criteria for choosing the documents included in the corpora.)

Before performing a computerised count of the occurrences of modals it was however necessary to define the limits of the study and decide whether modal verbs only or modals as well as their substitutes would be taken into account. First of all, it is clear that substitutes do not express modality and cannot be classified as modal verbs. But more important, after considering the corpora in detail, it appeared that including substitutes would make little or no difference: as shown in table 3 the occurrences of ‘can’ or ‘can’ + be able’, of ‘may’ or ‘may’ + ‘be allowed’ and of ‘must’ or ‘must’ + ‘have to’ are extremely parallel and the variations are hardly significant .

As a test of the reliability of these corpora, two others were gathered (one of EST with 107,310 words and one EGP one with 78,311 words) and the modal verbs were counted again. Unfortunately as it was expected, the results were different, but never exhibited a plus or minus 8% variation. This leads us to say that the figures, percentages and results that will be examined and discussed hereafter cannot be accepted too strictly and that it would be useless and perhaps dangerous to draw conclusions whenever differences are smaller than 12 / 15 %. However, the trends or the orders of magnitude that can be seen in larger variations in percentages can be significant and therefore should be discussed even if they are not accurately quantifiable.

A second test was performed by comparing these results with those of Paul Thompson [13] who analysed PhD theses in Agricultural Botany and Agricultural Economics. Thompson’s findings are based on a single genre and on a single content field, which may explain why there are certain variations between the research work and this paper, but on the whole, the results largely confirm the present ones and exhibit the same trends.

When I came to the study of each modal verb, a third problematic issue was to categorise the uses of the modal auxiliary verbs, so as to be both precise and at the same time general enough to produce manageable and meaningful results. A first way would have been to categorise the modal auxiliaries into epistemic, deontic and dynamic. But if such classification is relevant in terms of grammar it is also relatively inefficient in terms of practical communication for instance, the deontic ‘may’ can be used to express either a choice between two or several elements but also something optional as in the following sentences:

1/ A sensing device “measures the required parameters: these devices may be gauges, photo-electric cells, thermocouples, sensors, etc.” [a choice between several elements]
2/ “For machining wood or brass you may want to install a switch cover (P/N 3015) to keep the fine dust out of the power switch.” [something optional]

Should these two slightly different meanings be considered as one or as two categories?

In a similar way “must” can express that something is logically necessary (example 1) or it can be used to represent some kind of obligation (example 2) - not to mention the epistimic meaning of logical deduction and high degree of certainty (example 3).

1/ “Since 2x + y = 11 and 5y = 15, x must equal 4”
2 /“I must be going now. Sam’s waiting for me.”
3/ “The sun’s already high in the sky. It must be almost 12"

Would it be sensible - and perhaps feasible - to keep meanings one or two separate or to associate them?

Making out the very precise meaning of some modal verbs as well as isolating their uses in formal classes would sometimes be almost impossible and besides, would also be pointless: on the one hand the difference between ‘may’ expressing a choice and ‘may’ expressing something optional is often hardly significant and would not lead to any interesting distinction. This is why I have chosen to gather both shades of meaning under the same heading.

On the other hand, ‘may’ expresses possibility (example 1) but inside this larger category, it is possible to focus on more limited ones, namely hedging (example 2) and risk (example 3)

1/ “He shouldn’t be disturbed, he may be working.”
2/”You may wonder how it will perform in this environment... ”
3/ “Never remove the top cover [...] You may suffer serious injury if you touch these parts.”

Just as noticed in the case of ‘may’ expressing choice / option, the meanings are at the same time slightly different but basically similar- as a matter of fact, 1 includes 2 and 3 - and may therefore be dealt with as either one, two or three units depending on the accuracy to be obtained.

As to ‘should’, I felt it necessary to keep two separate entries to refer to plain advice / recommendation from the writer to others to act and strong recommendation, almost synonymous of obligation / necessity / prohibition (must / must not), that is to say an obligation to some law, although , admittedly, the tone is not the same.

The difference appears in these sample sentences:

1/ “Ecological optimisation of plastics types and of the range of plastics should also be a project field.” [advice]
2/ “To guarantee reliability, operating conditions should be kept well within maximum ratings. “ [obligation / necessity]

But even then, it sometimes proved difficult to distribute some sentences between these categories especially when they tend to overlap: I tried to be as consistent as possible but, since this difficulty arose only in a few sentences of the corpora, it had no real impact on the results when contrasted with the total number of occurrences (respectively 199 and 153 regarding ‘should’).

 Obviously, there are several types of modality, there is an infinity of shades of meaning which cannot be taken into account by rigid categories. Take these examples

1/”At this stage, the identification of additional needs can be relatively simple”
2/ “The first report concluded that [...] and this would appear to be the case from the present study”.

In sentence 1, the writer does not suggest ability but he rather claims that his proposition / approach is legitimate. In sentence 2, ‘would’ in not a plain conditional but a hedged statement in which the writer mitigates his conclusions. But it was clearly impossible to pay attention to every little shade, all the more as, very often, the functions and meanings overlap and may be said to cohere rather than be distinguishable. On the contrary it was necessary to establish a framework in which the differences between EST and EGP could be analysed even if it was at the expense of very broad and sometimes somewhat fuzzy categories.

I have finally drawn this table showing the various meanings and entries that I have retained

modal	meaning	example	entry
can	ability /capability	He can’t see us	Capability
can	choice ( may)	The unit can be connected to port #1 or #2	Option
can	permission ( may)	Can I open the window?	Option
can	possibility ( may / perhaps)	This can be done with the machine upright by letting ...	Possibility
may	permission	You may come in	Option
may	choice	The mill may be mounted on a 10" x 12" or 12" x 24" pre-finished shelf board	Option
may	something optional	Cutting oils and lubricants: if desired, a mixture of oil and water may be used on steel to reduce tool chatter	Option
may	possibility (perhaps)	The spinning mass gyro, similar to a spinning top which you may have played with as a child, ...	Possibility
may	hedging	Such a theory may help to improve existing methods	Hedging
may	chance /risk	Tools and /or parts may become distorted and accuracy will be lost.	Risk
may	subjunctive	Wherever you may go, you will find ...	Subjunctive
must	necessity, obligation	He said he must catch that train	Obligation
must	high degree of certainty/ logical deduction	Look at the sky. It must be cold outside	High degree of certainty
will	volition / refusal	He’d like to go to Canada but his parents won’t let him	Volition / refusal
will	future	The product will be on the market by next July	Future
will	prediction, logical outcome	If using VB 4.0 you will need a 32 bit DLL or OCX file	Prediction
would	conditional	I was sure you’d be satisfied	Conditional
would	past time habit	She would always forget to switch off the lights	Habit
would	volition / refusal	I wanted to help him, but he would do it by himself	Volition / refusal
shall	formal future	That was a moment I shall never forget	Future
shall	asking for advice or opinion	Where shall we go for a drink?	Asking for advice
shall	high degree of obligation (> must)	The equipment shall comply with IEC 420 regulations	High degree of obligation
should	advice	More should be done to reduce pollution	Advice
should	strong recommendation (must)	Moisture-resistant coating should be applied to prevent condensation	Strong recom-mendation
should	something expected	The plastic boards should block out at least 99% of incoming light	Expectation
should	emphasised improbability	If the appliance should fail during the guarantee period ...	hypothetical clauses
should	In hypothetical clauses with an inversion and absence of ‘if’	Should an electrical failure occur in the motor, the grounded plug will protect the user...	hypothetical clauses
should	subjunctive	It is important that the truth should be known	Subjunctive
need	Absence of necessity	You needn’t spend so much money	No entry
dare	Have enough courage to do	No example found in the corpora	No entry

Table 1

I am fully aware of the shortcomings of this classification which is oversimplified, very traditional, probably obsolete and certainly inexact. Moreover it mixes several different systems of categorisation.

For instance analysing ‘would’ in terms of ‘conditional’ may be a convenient way to classify this modal verb in the paper, although there is no denying that the modal, as such, is indifferent as to condition : “if condition is expressed, this is due to the presence of ‘if’ or some other word playing the same part” or also “the various meanings of ‘would’ come from the combination of the meanings of ‘will’ with those of ‘-ED’ ( past, unreality).  ‘Will’ / ‘would’ are not endowed with semantic features such as ‘future’ or ‘condition’, which features are conveyed by the context”. (Paillard, M.  Le modal WOULD en Anglais contemporain ) quoted in Staetzel [11] (my translation)

However I felt that such an analysis of ‘would’ and of ‘will’ might not be a useful categorisation for this paper. This is why I thought it preferable to retain the traditional – though inaccurate- ‘conditional’ label and within this category to separate what really and clearly expresses prediction from hedging / tentative use.

Thus the following sentences would be classified as:

1/ “And really, if you would allow me, I would say ... [hedging and tentative use]
2/ “ All it said was that it (= the credit card) would open up a new and magical world to me.” [prediction]
3/ “If the roads to city centres were freed of private commuter traffic and parked commuter cars, we would run far more efficient conventional public transport systems.” [conditional]
4/ (In Victorian times) “children of the ‘lower order’ would also work long hours.” [habit]
5/ “ So long as he lived he would not return to the old neighbourhood .” [volition /refusal]

In a similar way, I have classified ‘will’ as:

1/ "Your mum will have her to tea all right", said Mr. Sunbury. "Won't you dear?“ [volition / refusal]
2/ “Little Hayley, now 22 months, will never know her mum.” [plain future]
3/ ”An average USA telecommuter, with young children at home, will gain from one-eighth (1/8) to one-sixth (1/6) of their pay when they change from full time commuting to full time telecommuting [prediction]

In sum, comparing the uses of modals in EST and EGP with the same criteria, however inadequate they may be, is nevertheless likely to provide an interesting insight into construction of the rhetorical entities of EST and EGP.

 

Part 2 - Results

 

 Overall number of modal verbs

 A computerised search within the two corpora enabled me to study the number of occurrences of modals. Two tables are presented here, one excluding the substitutes of modals and the other including them.

For the sake of brevity, the following abbreviations have been used:

* EST: science and technology corpus
* EGP: general English corpus
* Columns A1 and B1 : number of occurrences of each modal as well as the sum of occurrences of all the modals
* Columns A2 and B2 show the percentage of the particular modal compared with the total number of modals (3056 and 2507)
* Columns A3 and B3 show the occurrences of the particular modal verb per 1,000 words.

 

	EST				EGP
	A1	A2	A3		B1	B2	B3
can	1226	40,1	6.1		940	37.5	4.7
will	967	31,6	4.8		429	17.1	2.1
would	257	8,4	1.3		457	18.2	2.3
may	263	8.6	1.3		286	11.4	1.4
should	199	6,4	1		153	6.1	0.8
must	134	4,4	0.7		194	7.7	1
shall	2	0,1	0		20	0,8	0,1
need not	2	0,1	0		8	0,3	0
dare	0	0	0		0	0	0
TOTAL	3056	100	15.2		2507	99.9	12.5.

Table 2 – Overall results

The first thing that can be noticed is the significantly different number of occurrences of modals in both corpora ( 3056 vs. 2507 or 15.2 modals per 1,000 words in the EST corpus vs. 12.5 in EGP). Even when taking into account an unavoidable statistical uncertainty due to the composition of the corpora it seems possible to say that modals are markedly more often used in EST than in EGP, the difference being approximately 20%.

It is striking to notice that EST has two predominating modals - ‘can’ and ‘will’ – which account for 72% of all occurrences while the others score modest percentages between 4 and 8%. On the other hand, in EGP the distribution is different. ‘Can’ is clearly in the lead, followed by a group of three (‘will’, ‘would’ and ‘may’), ‘should’ and ‘must’ having low percentages. It may also be interesting to observe that ‘will’ and ‘would’ show large divergences: 967 occurrences of will in EST and 429 in EGP. For ‘would’: 257 and 457 respectively, i.e. almost double in each case.

When considering the bottom part of table 1, it may not be a surprise to discover the very low number of occurrences of ‘shall’ and ‘need (not)’ although ‘shall’ cannot be totally neglected in the analysis of EGP. As for ‘dare’, this verb appeared in nowhere in any either corpus.

If substitutes ( be able, be allowed, have to) are taken into account, the overall figures do not vary significantly as table 3 shows.

Modal	EST (occurrences)	EGP(occurrences)	Difference EST - EGP
Can (no substitutes)	1226	940	286
Can (including substitutes)	1300	1027	273
May (no substitutes)	263	286	-23
May (including substitutes)	266	296	-30
Must (no substitutes)	134	194	-60
Must (including substitutes)	306	373	-67

Table 3 - Occurrences of modals and of modals + their substitutes

 

Finally, we all know that mean values are simple aggregates, which can be misleading and do not reveal variations within a corpus. Thus table 5 is an example of dispersion. To compile this table, I have selected four sub-corpora within the EST one, namely extracts from technical journals, a user’s manual, popularisations and reports. (The figures show the number of modals per 1,000 words)

Sub- corpus	can	may	must	will	should	TOTAL
Technical journals	6.2	1.4	0.8	6.1	1.5	16
User’s manual	5.2	1	1.3	5.2	2.2	14.9
Popularisations	7.3	1.5	0.7	6.6	0.9	17
Reports	5.8	1.5	1	5.9	2.8	17
AVERAGE	6.1	1.4	1	5.9	1.9	16.2

Table 4 (1) - Dispersion

We can first notice that the average number of occurrences of modals is higher in this selection of texts (16.2 per 1,000 words) than in the whole corpus (15.2, see table 2). This may be explained by the fact that some EST genres, such as technical descriptions, medical case reports or memoranda, very rarely use any modals.

 

When considering the differences between genres we see that a user’s manual comprises comparatively few modals (14.9 instead of 16 or 17 per 1,000 words), very probably because this genre mainly relies on verbs in the imperative as in this example:

“Avoid touching the screen.Do not place your monitor near a source of water or moisture [...] Attach the adapter to the computer and plug the video cable into the adapter.”

However the relatively numerous uses of ‘must’ and ‘should’ are to be noted: this seems understandable when we remember that these verbs are used to give recommendations and instructions, which is the true purpose of a user’s manual.

On the other hand, popularisations and reports are at the other end of the scale with 17 uses per 1,000 words.

When we examine each modal auxiliary, we notice very wide variations, for most of which a tentative explanation will be given in part 3:

Modal	Minimum and max occurrences per 1,000 words	Variation min / max (%)
Can	5.2 to 7.3	+ 40
May	1 to 1.5	+ 50
Must	0.7 to 1.3	+ 85
Will	5.2 to 6.6	+ 27
Should	0.9 to 2.8	+ 210

Table 4 (2) – Variations

 

We can now turn to a more detailed study of the uses of each modal auxiliary.

CAN

EST	occurrences	%		EGP	occurrences	%
Capability	1106	90.2		Capability	848	90.2
Possibility ( may)	88	7.2		Possibility (may)	30	3.2
Option ( may)	28	2.3		Option (may)	38	4
Prohibition (cannot)	4	0.3		Prohibition	0	0
TOTAL	1226	100		TOTAL	940	100

Table 5 – occurrences of ‘can’

Note : The ‘percentage’ column in this table – as in the subsequent tables - shows the percentage of occurrences of the particular meaning being examined against the total number of occurrences of the modal.

Expression of capability, possibility and option are in relatively constant proportions in both corpora while a few EST texts also use ‘can’ to express something very close to prohibition (almost a synonym of ‘must not’) as in this example: “Maximum RPM is the highest speed recommended and cannot be exceeded without risking premature failure.”

However the main difference to be noted is the frequency of ‘can’ in EST which is greater by 30% - whether or not one includes ‘be able to’ (1226 occurrences vs. 940 as opposed to 1300 vs. 1027 when including the substitute). This is a high percentage even when admitting a possible statistical error and it will have to be discussed. (See table 3)

Finally it should also be observed that EST readily uses ‘can’ to express possibility, which is not so common in EGP (7.2% of occurrences vs. only 3.2).

 

MUST

EST	occurrences	%		EGP	occurrences	%
Necessity / obligation	133	99.3		Necessity / obligation	157	80.9
High degree of certainty	1	0.7		High degree of certainty	37	19.1
TOTAL	134	100		TOTAL	194	100

Table 6 – Occurrences of ‘must’

In EST ‘must’ with 133 occurrences out of 134 exclusively means ‘it is necessary / compulsory’- or ‘prohibited’ (‘must not’). On the contrary, in addition to this meaning (80.9% ) EGP also utilises ‘must’ to express logical deduction / high degrees of certainty with 37 occurrences, i.e. 19.1%. As table 7 below shows, including ‘have to’ does not significantly alter the results.

MUST + HAVE TO

EST	occurrences	%		EGP	occurrences	%
Necessity / obligation	278	99.6		Necessity / obligation	336	90.1
High degree of necessity	1	0.4		High degree of necessity	37	9.9
TOTAL	279	100		TOTAL	373	100

Table 7 – Occurrences of ‘must’ + ‘have to

 

MAY

EST	occurrences	%		EGP	occurrences	%
Possibility and hedging	223	84.8		Possibility and hedging	261	91.3
Option	40	15.2		Option	18	6.3
Subjunctive and others	0	0		Subjunctive and others	7	2.4
TOTAL	263	100		TOTAL	286	100

Table 8 – Occurrences of ‘may’

It is remarkable that there is no appreciable difference between the total number of occurrences of ‘may’ in both corpora (263 and 286). Differences, however, do appear when we scrutinise the various shades meaning: ‘may’ is not used as a subjunctive in EST (but it rarely so used in EGP). It is used 40 times to express permission, choice between two elements and option, more generally (deontic meaning). On the contrary this number falls to 18 in EGP.

Regarding the epistemic meaning of possibility - i.e. that you are not sure of the occurrence of a fact, though this is possible- we can notice an excess of 38 in favour of EGP ( 261 vs.223). However when examining this category, we can find a number of the sentences that clearly imply the possibility of a risk, that some unwanted event might happen: we note that 34.2% of the occurrences of ‘may’ in EST - opposed to 13.3 % in EGP- express this risk i.e. almost three times the number of occurrences in EGP (table 9). Consider this example:

“Although some photointerrupters include filters to block out visible light, certain types of light (such as sunlight and tungsten illumination, which contain wavelengths above 700nm) may (1) penetrate the filter and disrupt operation. Some models (such as GP2A20 and GP2A22) may (2) employ light modulation to counter the effects of extraneous light. Note that these models may (3) malfunction if exposed to extraneous illumination above 2000 lux.”

Whereas ‘may’ (2) clearly says that there is a chance to find some models using light modulation ( = possibility), ‘may’ (1) and (3) go further than plain chance or possibility but suggest the idea of a risk of malfunction.

Furthermore as we will see later in the paper, ‘may’ can also be used to express hedged statements so that I have tentatively tried to classify the epistemic meaning (‘possibility’) as possibility proper, hedging and risk, knowing very well that these categories tend to overlap (table 9).

 

MAY expressing possibility, hedging and risk

EST	occurrences	%		EGP	occurrences	%
Possibility (proper)	101	38.4		Possibility (proper)	207	72.4
Hedging	32	12.1		Hedging	16	5.6
Risk	90	34.2		Risk	38	13.3

Table 9 – Sub-categorisation of ‘may’ expressing possibility

 

WILL

EST	occurrences	%		EGP	occurrences	%
Prediction	759	78.5		Prediction	277	64.6
Plain future	208	21.5		Plain future	122	28.4
Volition / refusal	0	0		Volition / refusal	36	8.4
TOTAL	967	100		TOTAL	429	100

Table 10 – occurrences of ‘will’

‘Will’ is the modal verb which seems to exhibit the most heterogeneous results. As already mentioned, it is found more than twice as often in EST as in EGP (967 vs. 429) and this will certainly require discussion.

First, it can be noticed that ‘will’ is never used in EST to express volition and refusal as in this sentence :“I won’t do as you tell me”(root meaning). Then, the percentages of plain future and prediction (epistemic meaning) seem to be fairly consistent between the two corpora. However a detailed study of the ‘prediction’ entry reveals further differences.

It is necessary to introduce here the notion of timeless, habitual and specific prediction: in a prediction, the speaker starts from what he knows about the given situation, and basing his reflection upon this knowledge, he infers what the consequences are likely to be.

“Oil will float on water” or “boys will be boys” are the favourite examples of grammar books. Considering all the speaker knows about the law of gravity, the density of water and of oil, etc. he can predict that if he pours oil on water, the former will float on the latter. Similarly his experience of boys, of their psychology and their behaviour prompts him to predict that a boy, any boy, is sure to react exactly like others in a given situation.

Now predictions can be made irrespective of time as in the examples above ( they are called timeless predictions) “A few drops of light oil behind the handwheel will reduce friction between the surfaces” or “Thermal protection means there is a built-in circuit breaker that will shut down the motor if it gets too hot.”

Predictions can also be habitual ones (“He will talk for hours if you give him the chance.”) or can also be specific: in this case they are often expressed by means of ‘if’, ‘when’ or ‘as soon as’, etc. as in these examples: “Motor size for a given job will be smaller if you can use a higher RPM” or also “When this is not possible, it (= the software) will generate straight geometry and will flag this in the conversion report.”

When keeping the three classes of predictions in mind, we can sort the occurrences of the predictive ‘will’ as follows:

WILL expressing prediction

EST	occurrences	%		EGP	occurrences	%
Timeless prediction	26	3.4		Timeless prediction	2	0.8
Habitual prediction	1	0.1		Habitual prediction	19	6.9
Specific prediction	733	96.6		Specific prediction	256	92.4

Table 11 – Sub-categorisation of ‘will’ expressing prediction

It may be interesting to observe that timeless prediction are found almost exclusively in EST while, conversely, habitual predictions do not seem to belong to this field.

 

WOULD

 ‘Would’ is the modal verb I have found most difficult to categorise: it is clear that the term “plain conditional” is inadequate to describe its modal uses (prediction, usually called ‘future in the past’, polite requests / tentative uses and modal preterit). Strictly speaking, it might be named ‘conditional’ only in the case of hypothetical sentences. For the sake of clarity and simplicity, I have tentatively tried to categorise the so-called ‘conditional’ as ‘prediction’ and ‘hedging’ whenever these meaning were obvious or likely, the rest being labelled ‘conditional. (See table 13). Past time habits / repetition (although it not ‘would’ that expresses the concept but the context) and volition (root meaning) are easier to classify.

WOULD

EST	occurrences	%		EGP	occurrences	%
Conditional	247	96.1		Conditional	416	91
Volition / refusal	8	3.1		Volition / refusal	22	4.8
Habit	2	0.8		Habit	19	4.2
TOTAL	257	100		TOTAL	457	100

Table 12 – Occurrences of ‘would’

Let us now examine the results. First, the most striking figure is the number of occurrences of ‘would’ in EST and EGP with a difference of 70% in favour of EGP. Second, as expected, the notions of volition and habit are rare in EST - science and technology are certainly not used to dealing with these.

Table 13 categorises the so-called ‘conditional’ and, as in the case of ‘will’, exhibits a notably higher proportion of occurrences of predictions in EST while the percentages relating to hedging are very similar in both corpora..

‘CONDITIONAL’ WOULD

EST	occurrences	%		EGP	occurrences	%
Conditional	122	47.5		Conditional	252	55.2
Prediction	101	39.3		Prediction	116	25.4
Hedging	24	9.3		Hedging	48	10.5

Table 13 – Sub-categorisation of conditional ‘would’

 

SHALL

EST	occurrences	%		EGP	occurrences	%
Future	1	33.3		Future	14	70
High degree of obligation	2	66.7		High degree of obligation	5	25
Asking for advice	0	0		Asking for advice	1	5
TOTAL	3	100		TOTAL	20	100

Table 14 – Occurrences of ‘shall’

In addition to an occurrence of ‘shall’ that was clearly a future, there were only two other occurrences in the EST corpus, such as “ The company shall not be liable for any direct consequential or incidental loss or damage...” They express legal obligations so that they can hardly be recorded as a feature of EST.

 

SHOULD

EST	occurrences	%		EGP	occurrences	%
advice	9	4.5		advice	57	37.3
Strong recommendation	101	50.8		Strong recommendation	63	41.2
Expectation	85	42.7		Expectation	18	11.8
Hypothetical clauses	3	1.5		Hypothetical clauses	10	6.5
Subjunctive	1	0.5		Subjunctive	5	3.3
TOTAL	199	100		TOTAL	153	100.1

Table 15 – occurrences of ‘should’

It is easy to see that ‘should’ is used differently in EST and EGP.
First, the total number of occurrences varies by approximately 25%, in favour of EST, a figure which, even when bearing statistical uncertainty in mind, is remarkable.

Then, let us quickly examine the less common uses ( viz. emphasised improbability; inversion and absence of ‘if’ in hypothetical clauses; subjunctive) to notice that, as probably expected, these formal or literary  uses are exceptional - but present- in EST, while they are far from infrequent in EGP ( 9.8 % of occurrences altogether).

In reference to ‘should’ expressing advice, we can notice an important difference: it is hardly used in EST (4.5%) by contrast with EGP (37.3%). Though not so large, a similar discrepancy can be found to express strong recommendation (something akin to an obligation or necessity and which might have been expressed by means of ‘must’) 50.8% vs. 41.2%. Here is an example:

“Light-shielding boards for transmissive photointerrupters should (1) be metal or plastic. If carefully fitted, plastic boards should (2)  block out at least 99% of incoming light.”

We can notice that, as in many other cases, the same modal can be used with different meanings within the same paragraph: ‘should’ (1) is a strong recommendation as discussed here, while ‘should’ (2) suggests the expected result of employing plastic boards.

Among the 101 occurrences expressing strong recommendation, table 16 further shows that ‘should not’ expresses something very close to prohibition in 6 cases (a user’s manual, as a matter of fact), which seems never to happen in EGP. An example of such meaning can be: “ Environment humidity should never exceed 60%.”

Should not / never to express prohibition

EST