Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Grammar --- English language

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

The thesis proposes a detailed analysis of root necessity meanings expressed by should, ought to and be supposed to in late 20th-century British English and puts forward a theoretical apparatus for the analysis of the meanings of these verbs that is applied in a corpus-based study. Root necessity is the expression of the need for some situation to actualise, because of someone’s desire for it to happen or because particular circumstances or some rule force you to make it happen. For instance, in We were supposed to go out with Eric and John the necessity to go out exists because of an arrangement. The theoretical part concerns a study of 4 notions that play an important role in the study of root necessity meanings: temporal information, the source of the necessity, subjectivity and strength. I offer a framework that allows us to determine which factors play a role in the communication of temporal information in root necessity examples. In sentences with a modal auxiliary we can distinguish between the modal meaning (M) and the situation expressed by the infinitival clause (R). In addition, there is a temporal relation of anteriority, simultaneity or posteriority between M and R, as in examples (1), (2) and (3), respectively.(1) Does anyone know what this update is supposed to have done? (‘What is it that is necessary for this update to have done?’)(2) She was crying about her first born, who ought to be here, at the party. (‘It is necessary for my first born to be here now (but he’s not)’)(3) I think I should read this letter to the meeting. (‘It is necessary for me to read this letter at some future moment’)The corpus data reveal that a distinction has to be made between sentences expressing general necessity (e.g. (4)), and those expressing specific necessity (e.g. (1-3)). While in the examples in (1-3) the necessity is restricted to a particular moment in time, in (4) the necessity has a broader timeframe as it is valid in the present, past and future.(4) The police are supposed to uphold justice. (‘It is necessary for the police to uphold justice at all times’)I make a further distinction between counterfactual (CF) and non-CF sentences. A CF sentence expresses that R did not actualise in reality, as in (2). The discussion of the temporal structures of CF and non-CF sentences with a present or perfect infinitive can be summed up in three main observations. First, with should and ought to M is always situated in the present, while with be supposed to M may be past. For instance, (5) can be paraphrased as ‘it was necessary for you to do your homework’.(5) [mother to child] You were supposed to do your homework.Second, the perfect infinitive has a temporal function in non-CF sentences, as in (1), while it functions to express speaker distance (from reality) in CF sentences. For instance, (6) can be paraphrased as ‘It is necessary for me to be sleeping now (but I’m not)’.(6) I should have been sleeping now but I keep thinking about that e-mail.Third, in examples with a present infinitive there is often simultaneity in CF sentences, as in (2), while in non-CF sentences there is usually posteriority, as in (3). Strength, source and subjectivity are crucial concepts in the field of root necessity but the literature contains contradictory claims about the subjective nature and strength of should, ought to and be supposed to, which is due to the fact that definitions of these concepts are often rather vague. The dissertation offers a framework that can be used to analyse the nature of ‘strong’ or ‘subjective’ necessity. Three degrees of subjectivity can be associated with the source that lies at the origin of the necessity. First, in subjective necessity the source is discourse-internal (i.e. it is part of the discourse and may be the speaker, addressee or another discourse-participant). Subjective necessity can be further categorised into three types, the defining criterion being the party that is meant to benefit from fulfilment of the necessity. This may be the discourse-internal source (type A), someone else than the discourse-internal source (type B) or no one in particular (type C). Second, with objective necessity the source is discourse-external (circumstances, a rule or a condition). Finally, with intersubjective necessity the source is mixed (a combination of a discourse-internal and discourse-external source). Further, I have defined strength as the likelihood of actualisation of the situation that is said to be necessary. I distinguish between three degrees of strength, the main criteria being (a) the impossibility of not complying with the necessity and (b) the impact of potential consequences of non-fulfilment. For instance, if not complying with the necessity affects one’s health, safety or finances the necessity will be considered strong. If there are no such consequences, the necessity is considered weak, except if the source has authority over the addressee (as in (5)) or if R expresses an essential characteristic of the subject (as in (4)). In that case, the strength of the necessity is said to be intermediate. Finally, the thesis offers a description of the contemporary uses of should, ought to and be supposed to on the basis of a corpus of 1200 examples extracted from the British National Corpus. The three main criteria that determine the use of the 3 modal verbs are source, discourse context and strength. With be supposed to the source is mostly discourse-external, while with should and ought to the source is mostly discourse-internal. The difference between subjective uses of should and ought to is that with should there is an even division between subjectivity Types A, B and C, whereas with ought to subjective examples typically belong to Type B. A second difference between should and ought to concerns their use in (non-) argumentativecontexts. While should will be preferred if there is disagreement between people, ought to is used in a harmonious context in which there is agreement between the discourse-participants. Finally, strength is less important as a distinctive criterion, since the vast majority of all examples are weak. With should the strength can be reinforced in contexts of authority, while with be supposed to examples with intermediate strength often express a characteristic that is inherent to the subject.