Introduction types of modality 9

2.3 The Usage of Modal Verbs in Business English

Modal verbs clarify a statement in the interpersonal dimension. In other words, they express the viewpoint of the writer about the event he or she is explaining. In the content (factual) dimension, let us assume a simple statement:

The operator pushes the green button to start the motor.
In the interpersonal dimension, author, the writer, may not be certain whether this is true. Author will want to distinguish whether there is a small possibility, a strong probability, or an absolute necessity for this action to occur. To be safe, Author add clarifying information:
The operator "may/might/" push the green button to start the motor.
The "content" is the same in all the sentences, but changing the helping verb shows how "certain" Author is about the possibility of this action actually occurring.
Suppose, however, author doesn't care about the probability of the action. Suppose author want to give the opinion on how much "obligation" the operator has to push the button. For example Author might want to suggest/request/order the operator to push the button. Once again author will add clarifying information:
The operator "can/may/should/" push the green button to start the motor.
In both of the above two cases, author, as the writer, have to be careful to choose the right helping verb to indicate the exact nuance of meaning. But a problem exists: a given form of the same sentence can have two possible interpretations, the interpretation of certitude and the interpretation of obligation. If you look at the two examples above, you will find that the words "may" can be used for both probability and obligation. That is, "may" means both "small possibility" and "is allowed to".
For example, "the operator MAY push the green button to start the motor" can be interpreted as:
Example 1: The operator is allowed to push the green button to start the motor
Translation 1: Оператору разрешают нажать на зеленую кнопку, чтобы начать движение.
Example 2: It is possible that the operator will push the green button to start the motor.
Translation 2: Возможно, что оператор нажмет на зеленую кнопку, чтобы начать движение.
Without additional information, it is impossible for the reader to be certain which meaning is the correct interpretation of this sentence. [13]
As good technical and scientific writers we are obliged to avoid ambiguity and yet the words we would normally use to express the important ideas of the various degrees of certitude and obligation are inherently ambiguous. Specifically, here are the possible meanings for each of the modal verbs:
May: ability, possibility, permission, wish
Can: ability, possibility, permission
Could: ability, possibility, permission
Might: ability, possibility, permission
Should: obligation, propriety, prediction
Would: customary activity, prediction, wish
Shall: future, necessity, obligation
A good writer is expected to avoid such ambiguity, but not everyone who writes is a good writer. To improve the clarity of your own writing, we will provide subsequent articles on the wording you can use to avoid this problem. To help you interpret someone else's writing, use the above list of potential meanings, but be warned: sometimes even native speakers cannot correctly interpret the meaning of careless writing.
On the other hand, what can we do as writers? Are we obligated to avoid using those ambiguous modal verbs? No, not always. If the context is clear, they are the best choice because they are the most concise way to express our ideas. But we must be certain that the context is clear. For example, the following sentences are not ambiguous:
-- The hurricane may come ashore near Miami tomorrow.
-- The machine may break if not properly maintained.
Why are these sentences not ambiguous? Because the sense of "obligation" is not possible in their context. So the only possible meaning is that of possibility. No human can obligate a hurricane to land at a certain place and time. Nor can a human obligate a machine to break. Thus, there is no ambiguity.
So when it is clear from the context that it is impossible for humans to have control over the event, then the modal verbs for possibility can be used. And when it is clear from context that the event describes an action that involves some level of obligation for human action, then the modal verbs for obligation can be used.
The problem occurs, however, when there is not enough contextual information available for the reader to reject one of the ambiguous meanings. The writer, of course, has all the information in his or her head. But that context may not have been expressed clearly in the text, or the reader may lack the expert level of context that the writer expects the reader to have. In that case, we cannot use modal verbs.
When author came to the study of each modal verb, a third problematic issue was to categorize 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 categorize 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:
Example 3: A sensing device measures the required parameters: these devices may be gauges, photo-electric cells, thermocouples, sensors, etc. [a choice between several elements]
Translation 3: Данное устройство измеряет необходимые параметры: этими параметрами могут быть, фотоэлементами, термопарами, датчиками, и т.д. [выбор между несколькими элементами]
Example 4: 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]
Translation 4: Для механической обработки леса или латуни возможно вы захотите установить покрытие на выключатель, чтобы мелкая пыль не попадала на выключатель. [кое-что произвольное]
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 the both shades of meaning under the same heading have been chosen.
On the other hand, may expresses possibility (example 5) but inside this larger category, it is possible to focus on more limited ones, namely hedging (example 6) and risk (example 7)
Example 5: He should not be disturbed, he may be working.
Translation 5: Его не следует тревожить, он может быть работает.
Example 6: You may wonder how it will perform in this environment...
Translation 6: Вы можете задаться вопросом, как выступит в этой окружающей среде...
Example 7: Never remove the top cover [...] You may suffer serious injury if you touch these parts.
Translation 7: Никогда не удаляйте главное покрытие [...], Вы можете перенести серьезную травму, если Вы касаетесь этих частей.
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, 5 includes 6 and 7 - and may therefore be dealt with as either one, two or three units depending on the accuracy to be obtained.
The difference appears in these sample sentences:
Example 8: Ecological optimisation of plastics types and of the range of plastics should also be a project field. [advice]
Translation 8: Экологическая оптимизация типов пластмасс и амплитуды пластмасс должны быть также областью исследований. [совет]
Example 9: To guarantee reliability, operating conditions should be kept well within maximum ratings. [obligation / necessity]
Translation 9: Чтобы гарантировать надежность, условия эксплуатации должны соблюдаться в пределах максимальных возможностей. [обязательство / потребность]
But even then, it sometimes proved difficult to distribute some sentences between these categories especially when they tend to overlap: Author 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
Example 10: At this stage, the identification of additional needs can be relatively simple
Translation 10: На данном этапе, идентификация дополнительных потребностей может быть относительно простой
Example 11: The first report concluded that [...] and this would appear to be the case from the present study.
Translation 11: В первом сообщении пришли к выводу что,[...] и данный вывод возможно будет поводом для дальнейшего исследования.
In sentence 10, the writer does not suggest ability but he rather claims that his proposition / approach is legitimate. In sentence 11, 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. [9]