0 Introduction
2. The modal must
HUSSE 10 Proceedings Ágota Ősz
126
127
verb (wanting in Scandinavian), OE mōt corresponding to Old Frisian, OHG, MHG muoz (may, must). It expressed permission or possibility, in the past indicative had the sense of might, was able to or permitted to, could. It was used chiefly with the negative expressed or implied. The primary sense of mote seems to be that preserved in Gothic, from which the sense is permitted, may can easily have been developed. The transition from this to the sense is obliged, must is more difficult to explain. It may have arisen from the use in negative contexts, where the two senses (may not (9), must not (10)) are nearly coincident:
(9) Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage I. i.
Nor mote my shell awake the weary Nine To grace so plain a tale.
(10) C 1290 S. Eng. Leg. I. 352/243
Þo þis body ne moste beo ifunde in Engelonde.
Beside this must was used as a past subjunctive in petitions, final clauses, wishes and the like with the sense might, should, might be permitted to forming a periphrastic subjunctive.
(11) 1362 Langley P. Pl. A.
So God hem moste helpe!
Another now extinct use of must was in the sense of mote expressing necessity or obligation.
Used in the past indicative it had the meaning of had to, was obliged to, it was necessary that I should…
(12) 1390 Gower Conf. I. 119
The day was wonder hot withalle, / And such a thirst was on him falle, / That he moste owt her deie or drinke.
Mote was also used as past tense (indicative or subjunctive) with the sense of might, could.
(13) 1590 Spencer, Faerie Queen, IV. Ii. 8
Therefore he her did court, did serve, did wooe, With humblest suit that he imagine mot.
Both deontic and epistemic meanings of mote are present in OED, but we can see that the epistemic meaning is far more recent than the deontic one. Deontic meaning:
(14) c1450 Chaucer, Man of Law’s Tale 11587
(Laud MS) ye mote nedis (MS Cotton For yow behouses) alle thre Into Egipt lond fle.
Epistemic meaning:
(15) 1579 Spencer Shepherd’s Calendar VII. 154
But shepheard mought be meeke and mylde, well-eyed, as Argus was
Beside this must was used as a past subjunctive in petitions, final clauses, wishes and the like with the sense might, should, might be permitted to forming a periphrastic subjunctive.
(16) 1362 Langley P. Pl. A.
So God hem moste helpen! (OED, vol. VI., p. 790-792)
HUSSE 10 Proceedings Ágota Ősz
128
The use of must in a subjunctive sense paves the way to the epistemic meaning, thus we can see a gradual transition towards the epistemic meaning (cf. Traugott 1989). In this study I want to deal with this gradual transition eith the help of cognitive semantics.
2.1. ‘Narrow’ scope deontic must (must used in the sense of ‘obligation’)
The OED notes that the use of must in the sense of ‘obligation’ is equivalent to the use of the older mote expressing necessity. In the third person it tends to be restricted to the expression of a necessity which is either imposed by the will of the speaker, relative to some specified end or enunciated as a general proposition.
(17) 1891 Law Times XC. 441/2
The judges criticize Parliament, and they in their turn must accept criticism upon their order. (OED vol. VI, p. 790-792)
Figure 3. ‘Narrow’ scope deontic must
In the image-schema of must used in the sense of ‘obligation’ (Figure 3), S/G represents the speaker/ground and the dotted ellipse the area of conceptualization (the immediate scope of the predication or the onstage region OS), while the double arrow represents the arrow of conceptualization. Since the construal is objective, no reference is made to the conceptualizer, the ground (G) – the speech-act participant being outside of the scope of the predication. The construal is objective. This is the construal specific to the deontic modals.
This meaning can already be identified with the root-auxiliary meaning of the verb, the immediate scope or objective scene (OS) includes a relationship between the imposer as well as some purposeful action that the doer potentially takes part in. The dotted line between the speaker/conceptualizer and the imposer is meant to show correspondence. We can see thus that the obligation is internal to the speaker. The inverted commas are used in order to make visible the cognitive interpretation of scope (vs. the logical one used in traditional grammars), where we have an inverted result (in cognitive terms ‘narrow scope’ corresponds to the widening of the immediate scope OS, while the denomination ‘wide scope’ subsumes the
129
restriction of OS. Beside the immediate scope of the predication Langacker (1987) also distinguishes an overall scope noted simply ‘scope’ in my figures.
We can observe that in this case must evokes the concept of an associated activity, making schematic reference to another process which is the landmark and the elaboration site for a relational complement.
2.2. Must with the sense of insistence
The OED writes that in the second person must chiefly expresses a command or an insistent request or counsel. This sense can be perceived in the first person as well, in which case must is often used indicating an insistent demand or a firm resolve on the part of the speaker.
Hence in the second and third persons, rendering sentiments imputed to others.
(17) 1673 Dryden Marr. -à la- Mode IV. Iii. 60, I must, and will go.
(18) Wordsworth Literary Criticism (1905) 258,
He is not content with a ring and a bracelet, but he must have rings in the ears, rings on the nose – rings everywhere. (OED vol. VI., p.790-792)
Figure 4. Must used in the sense of insistence
As regards must in the meaning of insistence, in the image-schema of this use of must (Figure 4) the immediate scope or OS also includes the imposer and a process, the iterative aspect of which is emphasized (it is in a bold frame). The arrow indicates the axis of time. The dotted line between the imposer and the doer indicates correspondence in this case too. The construal is objective in this case too, the speaker/conceptualizer is not included in OS, but has an objective view on the situation.
HUSSE 10 Proceedings Ágota Ősz
130
2.3. Must used in the sense of ‘order’
Figure 5. Must used in the sense of ‘order’
In the image-schema of must used in the sense of ‘order’ the immediate scope of the predication (or the objective scene OS) includes the imposer, the doer and a purposeful action which is only potential. This meaning shows clear resemblances with the obligation meaning of must with the difference that the obligation meaning is stronger. The construal is objective like at the senses of obligation and insistence, the modal is deontic.
2.4. Must used for advice
Even weaker than must used in the sense of order is must used in the sense of advice. We encounter in the image schema of this use of must the adviser and the doer (both included in the immediate scope of the predication – OS). The speaker/conceptualizer is out of the immediate scope of the predication, the construal is thus objective. We can observe the absence of the second force opposite to the adviser’s force, force present to the senses of obligation, insistence and order, the doer’s counterforce with a definite role in the interplay of forces which make up the deontic sense of the modal must.
131
Figure 6. Must used for advice
2.5. Alethic must
The OED notes that the modal must is also used to express a fixed, certain futurity, I must = I am fated or certain to…, I will certainly or inevitably…:
(19) 1592 Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliette. IV. i. 48
I hear thou must, and nothing may prorogue it, on Thursday next be married to this Countie
We encounter this use of the modal in sentences declaring universal and generally accepted truths, in cases where physical laws are in action:
(20) The Earth must move around the Sun. (OED vol. VI, p. 790-792).
We can notice that in the conceptual structure of alethic must (Figure 5) the immediate scope of the predication is restricted in the cognitive sense, including only the process, thus scope in logical terms is ‘widened’. We can observe that the agentive force is also included in the overall scope, but it is no longer a human agent. The agentive force here is represented by physical laws our generally accepted truths are based on.
HUSSE 10 Proceedings Ágota Ősz
132 Figure 7. Alethic must
2.6. The epistemic meaning
Grammar books (Thomson and Martinet 1997, Quirk et al. 1972, Imre 2008) refer to this sense of the modal must as the use of the modal for logical deduction like in the following example:
(21) This must be the house because I can see no other red houses.
We use epistemic must for expressing certainty when drawing logical conclusions, or we formulate the probability of present or past events:
(22) You have not eaten anything for lunch. You must be very hungry.
Otherwise, it can refer to our conclusion based on our experiences / observations:
(23) She must be a funny person. I have read so much from her. (Imre 2008: 209, 110-112, Thomson & Martinet 1997: 147) We can find examples for the use of the modal must in the epistemic sense even dating from the 17th century and expressing the inferred or presumed certainty of a fact:
(24) 1673 Dryden Marr. -à la- Mode I. i. 8
Your friend? Then he must needs be of much merit. (OED vol. VI, p. 790-792)
In the image-schema which I propose for epistemic must (Figure 6), since subjectification has already occurred, the speaker/conceptualizer is included in the overall scope, but it remains unprofiled, being included only as a reference point. In this construction the speaker is constructed more objectively and the process itself more subjectively. This is the process
133
which Langacker (1991) calls subjectification (‘a semantic shift or extension in which an entity originally construed objectively comes to receive a more subjective construal’
(Langacker 1991: 215)).
Figure 8. Epistemic must