In the course of her much harkened address to the 74th United Nations General Assembly in New York on 24 September 2019, New Zealand prime minister Jacinda Ardern rang bells like a mad Maori warrior but as careful as a surgeon in voicing out her stance on pressing humanitarian and environmental issues that must be addressed by mankind. Her vocal cords firing, the globally cherished leader carefully, tactfully elucidated insidious threats to humans across the globe while treading down a thread of palatable conduct expected from her by keen audience worldwide. “We may produce only 0.17 per cent of global emissions . . . ,” “Experiences in recent years should lead us to question whether any of us ever truly operate in isolation anymore,” and “Those changes will help make us safer” are but some of the incisive yet inculpable words Ardern roared. The successful, historic speech was executed partly through the judicious use of grammatical units of the English language that abet cautious, immediate delivery of ideas short of certainty of the speaker. These grammatical units are commitment modals.
Commitment modals are auxiliary verbs that represent verbally the psyche of the speaker on the factuality of his statement. They represent how strong the grip of the source is on the meaning he conveys. They also help the speaker to situate his statement in a scale of truth. And thus in positioning himself. These things work for the listener, too but he being a recipient and decoder of the message. Said modals, in addition, are handy whenever we give an inference. The commitment modals are “can,” “could,” “may,” “might,” “shall,” “should,” “will,” “would,” and “must.” They are quite common in daily human interaction as we are inclined to share our thoughts, judgment, opinion, assessment, and knowledge of anything under the sun.
The utility of commitment modals lies on two facts. First, speakers, in most cases, don’t possess the entire knowledge to aver their ideas on a certain topic. This drives them to enlist commitment markers in their sentences. That circumstances are there where direct statements are not welcome to be conveyed is the other fact. Ergo, going full throttle with our ideas from our brains all the way to our mouths may be a great deal risky. And sometimes stupid. A statement sans commitment modals or other attenuating verbal devices could raise eyebrows, create sudden silence, and even sound offensive. How will you perceive a person who just said, “Possession of a pistol nowadays is necessary”? That speaker, notwithstanding his sincerity and knowledge, might be met with stares. A casual, lovely colloquy may end up in the mud right after an unattenuated thought delivery.
Before we dive into the properties of commitment modals, let me note that there are other words in the English language that function as commitment markers. In this write-up, we shall delve only into the nine modals enumerated above. I also point out that said nine modals are attributed with other interactive and communicative uses, but here, we shall just explore their commitment-delivery characteristics.
The grammar of commitment modals consists of a few simple rules. First, commitment modals precede any other verbs in verb phrases (e.g. must plan, shall be watering, may have relieved, must have been returned). Second, whenever the main verb follows a modal, the main verb stands in its infinitive form. “May go,” “would assist,” “could throw” are examples. Third, the modals “could,” “might,” “should,” and “would,” though historically were the past forms of “can,” “may,” “shall,” and “will,” respectively, refer to present condition whenever they are used as commitment signals. In “She might come to the meeting,” “might” refers not to a possibility in the past, but to the present. Should we intend to convey a commitment to something belonging in the past, “have” must be used (“She may/might have come to the meeting”). These rules constitute the grammar of commitment modals and how they are realized in sentences.
To start off with the commitment modals, “can” signals a possible conclusion or a possible consequence of something. By using “can,” the speaker highlights the possibility of something and simultaneously downgrades the other side of the possibility. Examples are “The road to triumph can be tough,” “Kursten can be at the party right now,” and “The director can be disappointed following the considerable time spent to shoot just that scene.”
Next, “could” modal represents a midway possibility: the idea being conveyed is half factual and half not. It goes like “If this is the case, the contrary is equally possible.” In effect, the idea treads down right between the two opposing circumstances. Unlike “can,” “could” denotes the two possibilities being stated. Some illustrations are “The film could be hilarious,” “We could find that species in the woods,” “Aubrey could be satisfied with your input.”
Now comes “may.” It embodies a tendency on the factuality of the statement. It is used the same way as “can”—it signals that something is apt to be true, and it tamps down the other face of the possibility. “May” differs from “can” in terms of the force of the assertion: “may” is a bit less decisive compared to “can.” “Maddie may be joining the debate team,” “The person we need may have been with us all along,” and “Though that may be plausible, the panel members can consider it too general”—these are some examples. “May,” further, is employed more commonly in telling an independent, separate idea. “A stray dog may bite us,” “Sauntering in the garden may clear up your mind of cobwebs,” and “Direct sunlight may deteriorate food”—these exemplify this property of “may.”
For its part, “might” signifies reduced likelihood compared to “may.” In effect, it is less imposing than “may.” It tells that “there is a little chance that something is the case.” Examples are “The conference might conclude in a few moments,” “The risk might have been there after all,” and “Privatization might be the only solution.”
With regard to “shall,” it is a marker of inference highly based on logic. The modal, whose archaic form is “shalt,” can be paraphrased approximately this way: “Logically, something goes this way.” The English translation of the Christian Bible must be a home of actual use of “shall” as a commitment modal because the book employs traditional English and even archaic English. For example, Verse 15, Chapter 16, Deuteronomy says, “Seven days shalt thou keep a solemn feast unto the LORD thy God in the place which the LORD shall choose: because the LORD thy God shall bless thee in all thine increase, and in all the works of thine hands, therefore thou shalt surely rejoice.” Of all the “shalls” and “shalts” in the verse, can you pinpoint the epistemic “shall”/”shalt”? It’s the last “shalt” that carries a meaning of commitment ( . . . therefore thou shalt surely rejoice). Here, Moses delivered his commitment to the fact that the addressee will rejoice upon receipt of God’s favor. Another one is the Lord’s word found in Verse 35, Chapter 6, John which says: “And Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst’.” The two “shalls” in the last sentence express Lord Jesus’s inference (and promise) that any person who comes to Him—the bread of life—does not experience any need for food. That person likewise needs not to endure any need for water upon coming to the Lord. “Shall,” however, is not attributed with any commitment meaning that concerns commitment nowadays. To date, it is used in most cases to signify an obligation. In addition, its present use is frequently limited to first-person subjects.
“Should,” as a commitment modal, is a marker of hypothesis. It says that something is presumably true. We can paraphrase it as “Let’s take that as the case” and “It is safe to say that that is the case.” Some examples include “That should be good music,” “The car has been in the hands of a professional mechanic. It should be in kilter,” “The relatives of the victims should be aghast after hearing the surprising verdict.”
“Will” signals logical conclusion similar to “shall.” The tricks here are that “will” is quite common nowadays compared to “shall” and it can be used for first, second, and third-person subjects. Here are examples: “Courtney will be at Hailey’s right now to finish their school project,” “The hen will be attacking anyone who attempts to collect its eggs,” and “The state will borrow a huge sum from the World Bank to finance local infrastructure projects.”
“Would” is an offshoot of “will”—it likewise connotes a conclusion. “Would,” however, is wishy-washy in delivering truth compared to “will.” It also signifies a weak inference. Some examples include “Cops would see that action a shenanigan,” “The chief executive officer would grace the inauguration of the new plant in Auckland after his meeting in Queenstown,” and “Mind games would be given bigger allocation by the new principal.” Another feature of “would” is that it can signify the assessment of the speaker with regard to truth based on his ego. It can be roughly paraphrased as “As far as my personality is concerned, this is the case.” Examples for this are “That would be rude,” “A sincere conversation would settle every dispute under the sun,” and “Sarah would deserve the punishment.” The last characteristic of “would” is that it can help you out to deliver verity politely. The statement sounds as though you’re offering your tactful assessment to settle conflicts up. “That would be an abuse of authority, Officer,” “That would not be within our jurisdiction, Sir,” “It would be prudent to specify his functions here to avoid overlapping tasks”—these exemplify this property of “would.”
The last commitment modal is “must,” the strongest of all in indicating commitment and just a step backwards certainty. “Must” is a vehicle in communicating the single best inference about the situation. A paraphrase for “must” is “As far as I’m concerned, this is the lone possible conclusion applicable to the scenario.” For example, imagine that Lauren just knew that Dawson has numerous followers on Facebook. She then says to Dawson, “You must be famous!” Another is when Sandy found that Preston is a very good singer onstage. She then says, “Preston must be passionate to music.”
To put commitment modals in a scale from the weakest to the strongest, we can have the formation below.
Commitment modals help us to boost the impact of our claims or attenuate our statements all towards polite, precise information delivery and accurate reception of ideas. There are moments that we are agog, even audacious to utter the most palpable conclusion we conceived. There are also times that we intend to advance an argument called for in a situation we’re currently in. Because we don’t have the entire knowledge of the surrounding details as we make our statement, in nearly all applicable cases, it’s better to be wishy-washy in our words than to yank what we said. In both scenarios, commitment modals are handy language tools as we strive to stay on board the conversation while not to step against others’ expectations, beliefs, and feelings. A good command of these short-hand, face-saving words can make us good communicators. Besides, commitment modals can boost the persuading power of a statement because of their briefness: as an elementary principle in the science of communication, the more concise a statement is, the weightier it becomes. Utilizing commitment modals is an art of engaging in a colorful yet cautious conversation. This way, we “must” be completely blameless, yet completely partaking in the conversational ballgame.
