3 3 Modality_and_modal_verbs_in_contrast_Map - Pombero 00

Vista previa del material en texto

Languages in Contrast 6:2 (2006), 26–306.
issn 1387–6759 / e-issn 1569–9897 © John Benjamins Publishing Company
Modality and modal verbs in contrast
Mapping out a translation(ally) relevant approach 
English-Spanish*
Rosa Rabadán
University of León, Spain
This paper addresses the question of how English and Spanish encode the 
modal meanings of possibility and necessity. English modals and Span-
ish modal periphrases emerge as ‘cross-linguistic equivalents’ in this area. 
Data from two monolingual ‘comparable’ corpora — the Bank of English 
and CREA — reveal (i) differences in grammatical conceptualization in the 
English and the Spanish traditions and (ii) the relative inadequacy of clas-
sifications of modality for a translation-oriented contrast in this area. An 
English-Spanish contrastive map of the semantics (and expressive means) of 
modality will be an effective way to make relevant and accurate cross-linguis-
tic information available. It is also the first step towards identifying potential 
translation pitfalls.
Keywords: modality, corpus-based contrast, translation English-Spanish
. Introduction: Modality and cross-linguistic similarity
It is a widely held tenet that languages can have a modal system or a mood sys-
tem, but not both, which is not to say that a given language lacks the means to 
express modal and/or mood meanings. According to Palmer (2001:104), “the 
Romance languages have a system of mood, marked by indicative and subjunc-
tive, but also have a set of modal verbs…however, the modal verbs have not 
been fully grammaticalized”. The first problem with this claim is that English 
modals neatly map onto their Spanish lexical equivalents, but whether Span-
ish has a set of modal verbs is merely an issue of rather peripheral concern 
in the grammar of Spanish. The second lies in the word ‘system’ as it relates 
to a formally defined set which embodies a discrete category. Corpus-based 
262 Rosa Rabadán
research has shown that modal meanings, far from being a discrete, quantifi-
able category, definable in binary terms, are, rather, a conglomerate of loosely 
organized meanings along a cline that goes from core to periphery (see Coates 
1983: 12ff.). It has also shown that the scope of modality goes well beyond a 
grammatical class of items (Facchinetti et al. 2003), and includes different types 
of modal expressions, such as modal verb-adverb collocations (Hoye 1997), 
modal lexical verbs (Matthews 1991), semi-modals and emerging modals 
(Krug 2000, Mitchell 2003, Hoye 2005b:1485–1490) and other combinations 
that create ‘modal texture’ (see discussion in Hoye 2005b:1497–1502). And yet, 
in English most studies tend to focus on the most easily identifiable carriers of 
modal meanings: the modal auxiliaries. Spanish simply does not offer a readily 
recognizable set of items to communicate such meanings, which means that 
there is not a straightforward cross-linguistic equivalent resource. 
What is, then, central to our discussion is how users of two or more lan-
guages first establish potential correspondences and similarity relations across 
language boundaries. According to Lewis (1973:91–94, see also Kratzer 1991), 
our perception of similarity is rather restricted, and we make little use of the 
possibilities we are offered. We tend to “remain within a relatively limited range 
of inter-world similarity, and it is natural to have vocabulary conventional-
ly reserved for use within this range” (Papafragou 2000:349). These authors 
consider this ‘similarity restriction’ in relation to the importance of context in 
relevance-based accounts of the communication process (Sperber and Wilson 
1995). When this limitation is shifted to our special niche, it means that the 
first step to be taken is to look for translational possibilities within the inven-
tory of forms which are perceived as being similarly formulated and tend to be 
regarded as correspondents.
What is (are) then the Spanish response(s) to the English modals? An-
other set of verbs comparable to can, might, must, etc.? There is no trace in 
the literature on Spanish grammar of the existence of such a modally defined 
set, arguably because it does not exist. There is, however, evidence that, when 
translating, a frequent practice is to use the lexical “dictionary” equivalents of 
these verbs and to vest them with the semantic functions of their “English orig-
inals”, independently of whether these functions are realized by these forms 
in Spanish. In terms of their perceived similarity, poder and deber would 
thus be the obvious correspondents of the ‘possibility’ and ‘obligation/neces-
sity’ English modals.
The concept of degree is of paramount importance in cross-linguistic con-
trast, just as it is in translation, for it allows a more realistic view of the encoding 
of semantic functions. In the case of modal meanings, and for our purposes, 
 Modality and modal verbs in contrast 263
the view of different meaning types being conveyed by formal resources which 
are not necessarily defined as a ‘modal system’ is far more convenient: mood 
inflections are not exclusive carriers of these meanings, but share their physical 
vehicle with tense, aspect and person meanings as well; the formal categories 
associated primarily or peripherally with modal meanings may constitute a 
modal system, as is the case in English, or may share their vehicularity with 
other non-modal meanings which are perceived as the primary functions for 
those particular forms, as is the case in Spanish. 
A translationally relevant approach raises the central problem of which 
data to use for this inquiry: the research tools and the nature of the data — em-
pirical or otherwise — must be defined, and a decision concerning the actual 
forms to be used as an input both in English and Spanish needs to be made. To 
address the choice of input, two questions have been posed: 
a. Do the forms taken to be cross-linguistic equivalents constitute a gram-
matical category specialising in the expression of modal meanings in each 
of the respective languages, that is, are the means of expression central or 
peripheral in the economy of English and/or Spanish?
b. Are English modals cross-linguistically associated with Spanish categories 
whose perceived primary semantic function is different from that accord-
ed to their English counterparts? In other words, are modals represented 
by tenses, verbal mood, etc.? If so, what are the reasons for the ‘similarity 
perception’, what are the shared meanings and what are the differences?
When mapping out the possibilities from an English-Spanish translation-ori-
ented perspective, the cross-linguistic association between modal meanings 
and assumed modal forms for the ‘possibility and necessity clusters’ results in 
a two-tier situation:
1. Some English modals translate into the Spanish ‘formal equivalents’ poder 
and deber modal periphrases, a solution often associated with the ‘pos-
sibility’ and ‘obligation/necessity’ clusters, which raises the question of the 
centrality and/or peripherality of these modal expressions in their respec-
tive language, and 
2. Some English modals translate into Spanish future and/or conditional 
tenses, as a solution to the ‘volition/prediction’ cluster and to the ‘hypoth-
esis’ area respectively, which brings to the fore the degree of commonality 
and/or difference between forms of expression otherwise unrelated.
Whereas the periphery and its inventory of potential expressive means is 
shared in a one-to many relationship by both languages, the centrality of modal 
264 Rosa Rabadán
auxiliaries as the ‘obvious’ way to express possibility, necessity, obligation, etc., 
remains a continuous source of problems in translation, as disparity of for-
mal resources and/or usage distribution tends to breed messy interlanguage 
solutions, which in the long run affect language economy and the functional 
distribution of semantic values in the target language (Spanish).This phenom-
enon is well recorded in the literature of language-oriented Translation Studies, 
including classic proposals such as Vinay and Darbelnet’s (1958) translation 
procedures, Chuquet and Paillard’s (1989) more updated classification or the 
more translationally minded section on translation strategies in Chesterman 
(1997:87–116). However, to actually supply translation practitioners with strat-
egies that help them avoid building formally redundant sequences, an inven-
tory of possible, non-redundant options to choose from into the target lan-
guage must be made available. This is what we intend to do here by empirically 
verifying/falsifying cross-linguistic ‘equivalence’ assumptions along the lines 
stated above. 
2. Modal verbs and modal meaning(s) of the ‘possibility’ and 
‘necessity’ clusters in English and in Spanish 
The English modal verbs are a central formal resource to encode modal mean-
ings, although there are other ways of signalling a speaker’s attitude (Hoye 
2005a, b). This very centrality in the grammar of the language has meant that 
linguistic research into modal notions has focused primarily on the semantics 
of the modals.1 The findings of these studies and their implications and rel-
evance for our purposes can be organized in terms of meaning dichotomies. A 
review of these is outlined below.
A neat and frequently favoured way of classifying the approaches to the 
English modals is to use the monosemous vs. polysemous criterion. Advocates 
of the monosemous approach defend the existence of one core basic mean-
ing for each modal with different ‘dimensions’ (Perkins 1983), which makes 
it difficult to handle for translation purposes, whereas those committed to the 
polysemous approach, (Leech 1987, Palmer 1990) are happy to deal with dif-
ferent meanings. The latter approach allows the unwanted notion of discrete 
categories (on the question of indeterminacy in natural language, see Palmer 
1990:197–200) as borrowed from logical semantics (Lyons 1977:787). 
The epistemic/non-epistemic distinction has yet to prove its relevance for 
our endeavours, as this type of modal interpretation favoured by generative 
linguistics cannot “be uniquely read off from syntactic structure” (Papafragou 
 Modality and modal verbs in contrast 265
2000:92). If that were the case, the analysis would yield two separately encod-
ed clusters of modal meaning, which have different grammatical properties. 
While the syntactic criterion may occasionally be helpful to sort out meanings, 
these combinatorial features cannot be relied upon as definite markers of either 
epistemic or non-epistemic modality.2 To add to these intralingual interpreta-
tion difficulties (Coates 1995), when looked at cross-linguistically, the labels 
epistemic/non-epistemic modality do not yield relevant differences either, and 
remain mostly irrelevant for the purposes of English-Spanish transfer. 
Another attempt at drawing an efficient distinction of modal meanings 
is provided by the dichotomy subjectivity vs. objectivity (Verstraete 2001). 
Coates (1983) and Palmer (1986:54–5) see epistemic modality as speaker-ori-
ented, indicating the speaker’s commitment to the content of the proposition. 
Bybee and Fleischman (1995) also adopt this stance, making epistemic modals 
indicators of evidentiality (Anderson 1986) and markers of the speaker’s com-
mitment to the truth of the proposition (Lyons 1977). Again, this distinction is 
far from being decisively discriminating as it tends to be combined with other 
sets of modal meaning differentiation, which clutters the classificatory attempt 
and makes it a poor performer for translation-applied purposes. 
Formalizations such as the one presented by Papafragou (2000:40–84) de-
liver a finely attuned interpretation of contextualized modal verbs in relevance-
theoretic terms, but it is very unlikely that her tripartite quantificational struc-
ture of modal restrictors, operators and matrix derivations make their way into 
the translator’s analytical tools. This is so because, in terms of practical ap-
plications, you end up again with a set of different meanings, not unlike those 
unveiled by other less elaborate approaches. 
Another cherished practice in a number of approaches, of whichever de-
nomination, is presenting the so-called ‘past tense forms’ could, might, etc. 
as conveying the same meanings as their present counterparts in a past time 
orientation, adding extra functions whenever necessary (Coates 1983:107–117 
and 146–157). Such a distinction does not yield significant results for English-
Spanish translation as shown in Sections 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 below and will not be 
contemplated here; only meaning variation, independent of their status as past 
forms or as modals in their own right, is taken to be relevant for translation-
oriented purposes. 
It is obvious that none of the ready-made semantic classifications of the 
English modals can be used without further acclimatization in our contras-
tive analysis of the ‘possibility’ and ‘obligation/necessity’ meanings. To further 
complicate the situation, the fact that Spanish has no clear formal resource 
to encode these functions, together with the radically different treatment 
266 Rosa Rabadán
accorded to modality in the Spanish language grammatical tradition, calls for 
the establishment of some parameters which are both semantically discrimi-
nating and translationally relevant. In order to be in an optimal position to 
establish the ‘semantic common ground’ of the ‘possibility’ and ‘obligation/ne-
cessity’ clusters for English and Spanish, a review the Spanish approaches is 
called for and a decision about the formal inputs for the corpus-based contrast 
has to be made.
In Spanish modality does not enjoy a central position in the grammati-
cal descriptions of the language. Because there is no specific linguistic form, 
or class of forms associated in the system with modal meanings, modality is 
interpreted in a number of different ways. It is generally taken to mean either 
verbal mood, as encoded in the verb flexion (Mariner Bigorra 1971), or clausal 
modality, as the encoding of the speaker’s attitude concerning the content of 
his/her utterance (García Calvo 1960). Modality is then taken to be part of the 
abstract notion of modus, which covers both the grammatical category mani-
fested through flexions also used to convey other grammatical contents such as 
tense and person (Alarcos Llorach 1978, Pena 1985), and the notional category 
which accounts for the expression of the speaker’s attitude or speaker’s intention 
(Bally 1965). The Real Academia, in the Esbozo (1973: Section 3.2.1) makes it 
very clear that verbal mood is one of the explicit ways of encoding the speaker’s 
attitude towards what he/she is saying, but it is by no means the only one, nor 
is it specifically used for encoding this type of meaning. That is, the core mean-
ing of verb mood flexions is not the representation of modal values. Instead, in 
Spanish, the opposite is true. Here, the speaker’s attitude is an abstract notion 
that is likely to be conveyed by multiple expressive resources, as there is no such 
thing as a specialized means of expression which can be readily and exclusively 
associated with it (Jiménez Juliá 1989:179, Otaola Olano 1988). The inventory 
of resources tends to consist of forms which are polyfunctional, rather than of 
expressive means that are assigned modality as their unique or primary seman-
tic value (Veiga 1991), as seems to be the case in English. Spanish makes use of 
a number of alternatives: 1. verbal mood combined with an appropriate lexical 
verb and reinforcing elements (adverbials, etc.), 2. modal periphrases, and 3. 
locutions or fossilized expressions (e. g. cabe + inf; igual + conjugated verbal 
form, etc), which are obviously affected by mood choice as well.3
This ubiquitous presence of verbal mood as a choice partly explains the 
tendency to equate modal values withthis category, although the reason why 
this is so is quite straightforward — as a morphological category, mood is an 
obligatory closed class choice for all personal forms of the verb in Spanish 
(Ridruejo 1999). 
 Modality and modal verbs in contrast 267
One frequent reason why descriptive studies have failed to reflect the ac-
tual usage of these linguistic resources is that the data tend to be twisted so 
that they can fit in the neat framework that is generally accepted for English 
modals.4 Part of the literature on the so-called Spanish modals (Marcos Marín 
1975:211, Narbona Jiménez 1989) has relied on the concept of auxiliary verb 
as used in verbal periphrases to claim that they are a parallel class to that of 
English modals.5 Some authors, however, deny this categorization on syntac-
tic grounds (Rivero 1975 and Ruiz Morales 1986 among others) and consider 
them full verbs. A mid-way approach to the topic is taken by Silva-Corvalán 
(1995:67–70) who claims that poder or deber are modal auxiliaries on both 
syntactic and semantic grounds, as opposed to other potentially modal-mean-
ing verbs such as querer, saber, osar or soler. According to this author, the 
fact that these verbs are not as clearly marked as auxiliaries, as can, could or 
must are in English, is not a reason to exclude them from the class labelled 
‘modal auxiliaries’. She sets up her argument in favour of considering these two 
particular verbs as modal auxiliaries positing sound theoretical reasons (Silva 
Corvalán 1995:69–70) while failing to provide empirical proof to support her 
claims.6 However, as most examples are clearly made up translations into Span-
ish from English originals, (ex. 11, p. 75) Ahi pueden no fumar/‘They may not 
smoke there’ or (ex. 22, p. 80) Juan puede nadar mariposa por horas/‘John can 
swim the butterfly (stroke) for hours’, as these sequences are clearly meaning-
less and unacceptable in Spanish, there is a strong element of distortion in the 
enquiry. 
In spite of claiming their modal nature, the discussion incorporates the 
“contextual contribution” (Silva-Corvalán 1995:91) of verbal markers for 
mood, tense and aspect, which inevitably takes the argument back to the fact 
that these verbs, on their own, cannot cover the same range of functions as 
their English counterparts, nor do they constitute a separate verbal class. Span-
ish relies heavily on a combination of expressive resources, mainly lexical and 
flexional, to encode modal values. But this does not imply that the language 
has no criteria to favour one means of expression over the others. It has, and it 
relies on types of modal meaning for the choice of carrier. 
The concept underlying this paper is Bondarko’s (1991) idea of a polysys-
temic interface between syntax and semantics, in which one semantic func-
tion is primarily represented by one central form, while there are other more 
peripheral formal resources available to convey the same meaning. Now the 
question is in which way does modality, as conveyed in Spanish, fit into this 
one-to-many core cum periphery approach. It may be argued that the inter-
action between modal meanings and expressive resources in Spanish is in 
268 Rosa Rabadán
itself peripheral, as there is no clear structural resource specifically allocated 
to encoding modal meanings. Or, we could postulate a merger of lexical and 
grammatical means as the most readily available expressive resource to express 
modal values. If the first view is taken, we would end up with an endless frag-
mentary study of at least the following: lexical units (adverbs, verbs with modal 
meanings, locutions, etc.), verbal mood, tense and aspect. If the second view 
is taken, the object of our analysis would be what is called ‘modal periphra-
ses’, constructions comprising a lexical verb and/or expression followed by an 
infinitive.7 The action expressed by the latter is seen by the speaker as being 
possible, necessary, likely, etc. However, not every single periphrastic construc-
tion will have modal meaning, nor is every other modal expression necessarily 
a periphrasis, it only means that in terms of typicality (Rabadán 2003) modal 
periphrases summarize all lexical and flexional resources under one single out-
put, which make them acceptable candidates for a corpus-based inquiry. As 
we are only concerned here with those modal expressions that are likely to 
become translational problems, we are going to concentrate on the two basic 
modal meaning areas: ‘possibility’ and ‘obligation/necessity’, and on those for-
mal resources that tend to cover in native Spanish usage those areas identified 
as problem triggers in English. 
A widely accepted inventory of modal periphrases in Spanish is the fol-
lowing:
 deber + infinitive
 deber de + infinitive
 tener que + infinitive
 haber de + infinitive
 haber que + infinitive
 poder + infinitive
The six sequences cover the core ground of the meanings of ‘possibility’ and 
‘obligation/necessity’, often reinforced by the addition of adverbials conveying 
the same type of modality (hedges).
At this point, it seems as though the choice of formal inputs has been ascer-
tained: the English modals listed in the clusters of ‘possibility’ and ‘obligation/
necessity’, and our inventory of Spanish modal periphrases. There is, however, 
one further consideration to be taken into account, applicable only to the SL 
(English) — Is there any evidence for assuming that each and every modal verb 
included in those clusters is a potential translation problem into the TL (Span-
ish)? According to the perceptions of our bilingual informants, who also hap-
pen to be trained linguists and/or translators and native speakers of Spanish, 
 Modality and modal verbs in contrast 269
the answer is no. (Semi-)Modal expressions such as need and have (got) to, 
which belong to the ‘obligation/necessity’ field, and be able to, which is nor-
mally included in the ‘possibility’ cluster, have to be left out of the analysis as 
they do not comply with the primary selection principle: Is this modal verb 
likely to become a translation problem? In all three cases, there exist perfectly 
parallel resources in Spanish, and there is no evidence of them being quoted as 
problem triggers when translating from English into Spanish.8
Now that the onomasiological part, concerning which meanings to study 
and the forms associated with them in each language, has been settled, a 
characterization of the different functions covered by the ‘semantic common 
ground’ of the ‘possibility’ and ‘obligation/necessity’ modality is needed. This 
second perspective is obviously the semasiological approach to the establish-
ment of the values or functions in our ‘field clusters’ as tools for the descrip-
tive analysis. The broad perspective offered by Bondarko’s (1991:22ff) func-
tional-semantic fields has to be specified in usable discriminating functions. 
Wierzbicka’s (1996) semantic primitives would be a good starting point for 
setting up a workable classification. However, while they could be made theo-
retically and methodologically compatible with Bondarko’s polyformal model, 
their extreme restrictiveness makes them inappropriate for our translational 
aim. Instead of either using any of the already existing classifications or build-
ing a new one based on a recognized and sanctioned model of semantic and/or 
pragmatic analysis, the proposal here is to proceed in a strictly empirical fash-
ion, singling out the uses present in our corpus, and to capitalize on previous 
work for labels to name the emerging values, independently of their status in 
descriptive linguistics. In other words, uses will emerge from the analysis of 
the empirical data in our ‘comparable’ corpora, some of which will conform to 
classes already singled out in other analyses, with others likely to be the result 
of our translation-oriented purpose. 
3. The tools
3. The comparable monolingual corpora: the Bank of English and CREAOur descriptive data have been obtained from two monolingual corpora, which 
comply with the basic condition of availability in both languages and equiva-
lent internal architecture (Rabadán et al. 2004). For Spanish, the choice is the 
CREA (Corpus de Referencia del Español Actual http://www.rae.es), sponsored 
by the Real Academia de la Lengua Española; a decision that was related to the 
270 Rosa Rabadán
selection of the English corpus, which, for reasons of equivalence is Cobuild’s 
Bank of English (http://titania.cobuild.collins.co.uk). 
Their comparability is both quantitative and qualitative. The online ver-
sion of the Bank of English consists of 56 million words. The corpus selection 
used for this research comprises over 30 million words. CREA consisted of 
approximately 148 million words at the time of inquiry (July 2004).9 The selec-
tion used in our sampling consists of approximately 37 million words and has 
been arrived at using the chronological locator feature offered by the CREA 
interface. Both ‘source corpora’ are full-text corpora available online. In both 
cases texts are selected in terms of geographical provenance; textual mode; and 
physical format. Materials in the Bank of English cover the last 20 years, CREA 
contains only texts published for the first time in the last 25 years. Both the 
English and the Spanish subcorpora selections comprise written texts: newspa-
pers, magazines, books and ephemera. The Bank of English selection features 
subcorpora Today, UK Times and UK Sun for the category ‘newspapers’, UK 
magazines for ‘magazines’, UK books for ‘books’ and UK ephemera for ‘ephem-
era/miscellaneous’. For CREA the choices are Periódicos for ‘newspapers’, Re-
vistas for ‘magazines’, Libros for ‘books’ and Miscelánea for ‘ephemera/miscel-
laneous’. For both the Bank of English and CREA the language variety chosen 
is the European one. The criterion ‘field area’ has not been used as a filter, as it 
is only applicable in CREA. 
3.2 The informants 
A team of 10 informants was used in the course of this inquiry whenever native 
speaker information was considered necessary. All of them have received uni-
versity education, are aged 28–45, and have had some training in Linguistics. 
English (European varieties) is the first language for five of the informants, 
while Castilian Spanish is the mother tongue of the other five. Eight of these 
informants can communicate in both English and Spanish, two can do so only 
in their mother tongue.
4. Contrastive Analysis English-Spanish
4. Selection: English and Spanish
The input for searches in our chosen ‘comparable’ corpora has been selected 
according to the basic question asked in this paper: How much of the semantic 
 Modality and modal verbs in contrast 27
terrain covered in English by the modal verbs is expressed in Spanish by means 
of modal periphrases? As discussed above, there is no consensus about whether 
Spanish verbs poder and deber are modal verbs in the same way as may or 
must in English or können or söllen in German.10 It is a feature of Spanish 
to lack one central formal resource specializing in the expression of modality. 
Thus modal meanings tend to be de-centralized as users do not readily identify 
one grammatical set of items with modal notions (Hoye 1997:76). Rather these 
meanings are conveyed by a wide variety of expressive means, from choice in 
verbal mood, tense or aspect flexions to lexical solutions (Jiménez Julià 1989). 
However, there exists a closed set of verbal constructions normally referred to 
as modal periphrases (Gómez Torrego 1999:3347–3364) and generally consid-
ered as the closest and most obvious equivalents of English modals. 
In order to provide an answer to our question, an inventory of items to be 
used as search input was isolated both for English and for Spanish. In the case 
of English, those modal verbs belonging to the semantic clusters of possibil-
ity and necessity (Palmer 1990:5–9 and 30–33, Coates 1983:27–30) — can, 
could, may, might, must, should and ought to — have been conveniently 
singled out on the grounds of assumed (partial) correspondence with Spanish 
modal periphrases. Other modals such as will, would and shall will require 
separate treatment, as the transfer problems they pose are basically related to 
the strong dissimilarity of expressive means in the target language — the mean-
ings conveyed by these modals in English being encoded mainly by means of 
verb mood/tense/aspect variation. A third group of verbs (marginal auxiliaries 
and semi-modals in Biber et al. 1999:483–486) has been identified (used to, 
have to, be able to and be going to), but these verbs are not relevant for 
the purpose of this enquiry, as there is no evidence or awareness of their role as 
generators of translation problems into Spanish.11
Input selection for Spanish concentrates on those modal periphrases that 
in native Spanish usage are assumed to cover the areas identified as problem 
triggers in English: DEBER + INFINITIVE, DEBER DE + INFINITIVE, TENER QUE 
+ INFINITIVE, HABER DE + INFINITIVE, HABER QUE + INFINITIVE and PODER 
+ INFINITIVE.12 Because of the intimate and inseparable relationship between 
modality and verbal mood and aspect in Spanish, searches have been carried 
out in three stages: one where the lexical input to the corpus is the correspond-
ing ‘neutral’ verbal form in the present indicative, a second where the condi-
tional is chosen as the tense of the ‘hypothetical’ often associated with modal-
ity; and a third where the ‘non-assertive’ subjunctive forms in the present tense 
and in the imperfect past, the latter for the sake of aspect representation, are 
used as entries.
272 Rosa Rabadán
The distribution parameters of occurrences for both English and Span-
ish are perfectly mirrored in the statistics for the samples to be analyzed. The 
size of the sampling was arrived at by applying the following formula: n = N/
(N − 1)E2 + 1 where n is the sample to be analyzed and N the population, i.e. 
the total number of occurrences yielded by our searches. E stands for the value 
accorded to the estimative error (5%).
For both English (Table 1) and Spanish (Table 2), selection parameters ap-
pear in the far left column; the middle column shows the total number of cases 
yielded by our Bank of English or CREA subcorpora selection, and the final 
column shows the sample obtained from applying our statistical formula, that 
is the number of cases to be analyzed for each input form.
4.2 Description
Starting from the certainty that no description undertaken with a final aim in 
mind is neutral, when setting out to streamline the different semantic values of 
English modals and of Spanish modal periphrases in the possibility and neces-
sity clusters, we had to make a number of key decisions concerning what was 
Table 1. Selection statistics for English modals
FORM CASES SAMPLE
CAN 58,237 397
COULD 39,811 396
MAY 37,289 396
SHOULD 25,816 394
MUST 16,134 390
MIGHT 12,309 387
OUGHT 719 257
TOTAL 190,315 2,617
Table 2. Selection statistics for Spanish modal periphrases
FORM CASES SAMPLE
PODER + INF 105,823 398
DEBER + INF 33,164 395
HABER QUE + INF 19,185 392
HABER DE + INF 12,007 387
TENER QUE + INF 10,547 385
DEBER DE + INF 875 275
TOTAL 181,601 2,232
 Modality and modal verbs in contrast 273
relevant and what was to be discarded in our translation-oriented approach. 
As previously stated, the possibility/necessity English modals have been con-
veniently singled out on the grounds of assumed (partial) correspondence of 
expressive means in Spanish.
A major decision has been to drop the epistemic/non-epistemic distinc-
tion (Lyons 1977:823). Despite its paramount role in linguistic analysis (Coates 
1983, Palmer 1990, Hermerén 1978, Papafragou 2000 among others), succes-
sive tests carried out using the materials from both corpora as well as native 
speakers of English and Spanish as informantsrevealed that this dichotomy 
does not seem to function as a consistently organizing device when it comes 
to translation choices.13 Instead, major meaning categories as established by 
major grammars such as Quirk et al. (1985) or Biber et al. (1999) for English 
were found to be more serviceable when used in combination with pragmatic 
functions. They offer a number of advantages, in that they acknowledge the 
existence of indeterminacy and overlapping of senses and they are user-friend-
ly in that they offer flexible ways of discriminating translationally significant 
values.
Although the description does capitalize on previous work done by various 
linguists and uses a general categorization, it does not follow any particular tax-
onomy and/or semantic/pragmatic classification. Finding a common English/
Spanish ‘inventory of meanings’ has proven a complex and difficult task for two 
reasons: first, the disparity of the cross-linguistic distribution meaning-form, 
and second, the irreconcilable stand on the treatment of ‘necessity’ and ‘pos-
sibility’ in the English and Spanish grammatical traditions respectively. When-
ever possible and convenient, labels have been borrowed, particularly those 
that seem to be widely agreed upon by linguists (Fernández de Castro 1990, 
Gómez Torrego 1999), or else established for the classes that have been identi-
fied as potential translation problems. A clear case is the function dubbed as 
‘aspectual’, for lack of a better tag. While it receives some peripheral attention 
in Coates (1983:90–91) as a minor subgroup of ‘can-ability’, ‘can-aspectual’ 
is a major class in our description as it commonly generates overtranslation 
phenomena into Spanish giving rise to a redundant surplus function in Span-
ish usage here identified as ‘transfer’ (see Section 4.3). 
4.3 Description: English
4.3.1 ‘Can’. Selection data show that the modal verb can is the most frequent 
(58,237 cases) of all modal forms in the English corpus. This crude figure does 
not mean anything in principle, but it makes sense to assume that a higher 
274 Rosa Rabadán
number of occurrences must be related to a greater diversity of semantic func-
tions. As shown in Table 3, ‘can-possibility’ accounts for more than half the 
occurrences (51.38%), instances of ‘can-ability’ represent less than a third 
(32.24%) and ‘can-permission’ amounts to 8.81%. All other uses range well 
below 10%.14
 (1) Although cuts and grazes are not usually very serious, they can be quite 
painful and should be treated carefully to prevent infection later on. 
[can-possibility]
 (2) Every time I get close to having sex, I start shaking uncontrollably and 
can’t perform. [can-ability]15
 (3) If your case comes to trial, newspapers cannot give your name. [can-
permission]
The semantic function ‘aspectual’ covers those cases in which can appears 
with perception verbs. As such, it is part of the more inclusive ‘ability’, as it 
signals inherent human properties and capacities (Coates 1983:91). However, 
when looked at from an English-Spanish translational point of view it makes 
sense to consider it as a distinct group, as the general translational options are 
radically different. Though not particularly felicitous, the label ‘aspectual’ has 
been taken from Coates (1983:90) in the sense that what the modal verb signals 
is the immanence, the continuous nature of the capacity being referred to. ‘As-
pectual’ can makes for 4.03% of the concordances analyzed, as in (4). ‘Predic-
tion’ (2.77%) is meant to indicate those cases in which the speaker is so certain 
of the certainty or success of the possibility being put forward that it is turned 
into a confident prediction, as in (5). The infrequent ‘can-obligation/advisabil-
ity’ (0.75%) accounts for uses in environments such as in (6) where the modal 
signals rather strongly the speaker’s viewpoint concerning a course of action.
Table 3. Semantic values of CAN
MEANINGS CASES %
POSSIBILITY 204 51.38%
ABILITY 128 32.24%
PERMISSION 35 8.81%
ASPECTUAL 16 4.03%
PREDICTION 11 2.77%
OBLIGATION/ADVISABILITY 3 0.75%
TOTAL 397 99.98%
 Modality and modal verbs in contrast 275
 (4) A few survived, and their voices can be heard recounting the swirling 
smoke behind the eclectic fences. [can-aspectual]
 (5) Confusions in your emotional affairs are dispelled, and you can be sure of 
a warm response when you express your true feelings. [can-prediction]
 (6) …transplant them 6in (15cm) apart in rows. In the autumn they can 
be shifted to their permanent positions for flowering next year. [can-
obligation/advisability] 
4.3.2 ‘Could’. could boasts 39,811 concordances in the English language cor-
pus and occupies the second typicality slot in the group. Like can, could can 
express ‘possibility’ (74.24%), ‘ability’ (18.43%), and ‘permission’ (3.53%). It 
also has an ‘aspectual’ function (3.28%), and a very infrequent use we have 
dubbed ‘request’ (0.5%) (see Table 4). The difference lies in the fact that could 
expresses all these meanings either in the past or in unreal conditions, as a hy-
pothetical form. Does this difference in perspective affect the basic meanings 
conveyed by the modal? As it seems to affect choice in English, but not selec-
tion into Spanish, it has been considered in the interpretation stage. However, 
separate meaning classes have not been contemplated, as the past/hypothetical 
encoding does not seem to affect the basic choice of expressive means we are 
dealing with here when translating, and the hypothetical perspective seems to 
be marked by bounded tense, mood and aspect in Spanish, which has to be in-
vestigated by means of a parallel corpus and exceeds the limits of this paper.16 
 (7) More than that, it could bring back the kind of trade union practices 
which had been absent for much of the last 12 years. [could-possibility]
 (8) Prison officers managed to keep the rioters within the communal area 
but could not stop the violence. [could-ability]
Table 4. Semantic values of COULD
MEANINGS CASES %
POSSIBILITY 294 74.24%
ABILITY 73 18.43%
PERMISSION 14 3.53%
ASPECTUAL 13 3.28%
REQUEST 2 0.5%
TOTAL 396 99.98%
276 Rosa Rabadán
 (9) It was decided the couple could go their own ways in private but public 
disclosures of their differences should end. [could-permission]
 (10) Autumn could feel the heat of embarrassment against her cheeks. 
[could-aspectual]
 (11) Could anyone tell me the reason for this change. [could-request]
4.3.3 ‘May’. Our English language subcorpora have yielded 37,289 cases fea-
turing may. According to both Palmer (1979:50–51) and Coates (1983:131ff), 
this verb is the conveyor of epistemic possibility par excellence, which accounts 
for 84.09% of all occurrences. As compared with could, important properties 
of may are its flexibility concerning time reference and its subjectivity (Larreya 
and Rivière 1999, Larreya 2003). As shown in Table 5, a translationally relevant 
and rather frequent usage is ‘concessive’ (9.09%), and there are also examples 
of the function ‘permission’ (4.54%) and of ‘quasi-subjunctive’ uses (2.27%). 
Although the former and the latter do not qualify as modal meanings accord-
ing to semantic criteria, in terms of our English-Spanish translation-oriented 
rationale they are relevant as discriminating agents, and they are reflected in 
the description accordingly. Whereas the distinction epistemic/non-epistemic 
does not seem to indicate a consistent choice in translation options, as yet non-
conclusive empirical evidence suggests that the degree of subjectivity or com-
mitment to the truth of the proposition on the part of the speaker might play 
some role in translational decisions, thus affecting the meaning classes set up 
for modal verb may. 
 (12) In bad cases, muscular seizures may ultimately result, and lead to death 
from heart failure. 
 (13) Nick Skelton, who is desperately short of international horses, has said 
that he may only ride in Sunday’s King GeorgeV Gold Cup.
(12) and (13), which are clear cases of may-(epistemic) possibility, call for dif-
ferent translation choices into Spanish, depending on the degree of commit-
ment to the factuality of the utterance.17
 (14) Mr Finnerty said that they were studying videos which may show the 
terror team planting the bombs. [may-possibility]
 (15) Pfeiffer in the flesh may be more glamorous than your average Tesco’s 
checkout girl — but she might not be quite the fantasy woman you see at 
the cinema on a Saturday night, either. [may-concessive]
 Modality and modal verbs in contrast 277
 (16) Teenagers, may I remind you that your parents hate you having sex in 
their double bed — especially if they’re trying to get some kip at the time. 
[may-permission]
 (17) Charles said he saw himself outside of party politics. “I don’t think 
people can tell necessarily what my politics may be”, he said. [may-quasi-
subjunctive]
4.3.4 ‘Should’. In absolute terms, should is the most widely used modal of the 
semantic cluster of obligation/necessity, with 25,816 cases.18 Two semantic val-
ues can be put forward which are likely to call for different translational choic-
es into Spanish, i.e. ‘obligation/advisability’ (76.5%) and ‘tentative inference’ 
(12.69%). As with the modals above, the epistemic/non-epistemic dichotomy 
does not seem to have any relevance for our purposes. should also features a 
hypothetical use (6.09%) and a quasi-subjunctive one (4.56%), which again do 
not qualify as modal meanings in our English-Spanish rationale, but which are 
considered because of their discriminating power (Table 6).19 These values of 
should are not perceived as a modal problem in our framework, but seem to 
be generally associated with the very closely knit constellation of tense-mood-
aspect favoured by Spanish and other Romance languages as well (Van der 
Auwera and Dendale 2000).
 (18) We should eat more wholemeal bread cereals, pasta, rice, vegetables and 
fruit. [should-obligation/advisability]
 (19) Making someone of Chris Patten’s stature the governor of Hong Kong 
should ease the transition of the colony to Chinese rule. [should-
tentative inference]
 (20) And when she is challenged with the accusation that she is seeking to 
destroy the royal family, she responds: “Why should I wish to destroy my 
children’s future?” [should-hypothetical] 
Table 5. Semantic values of MAY
MEANINGS CASES %
POSSIBILITY 333 84.09%
CONCESSIVE 36 9.09%
PERMISSION 18 4.54%
QUASI-SUBJUNCTIVE 9 2.27%
TOTAL 396 99.99%
278 Rosa Rabadán
 (21) But he denied that they had disclosed the child’s name. Then Labour 
demanded that Waldegrave should resign. [should-quasi-subjunctive]
4.3.5 ‘Must’. must covers a really broad cline which goes from subjective, 
active obligation to objective, passive obligation (Lyons 1977:797ff).20 Our 
sub-corpora yielded 16,134 occurrences, distributed in three modal meaning 
classes, as shown in Table 7. Subjective, active ‘obligation’ represents 44.61% 
of the cases, and passive, more objective uses amount to 30.51%, while ‘con-
fident inference’ (epistemic must in both Coates’ 1983:41–46) and Palmer’s 
1990 accounts of modality) adds up to nearly 25% of all cases.21 The gradient 
of must-obligation is extremely fuzzy, and seemingly identical uses call for dif-
ferent types of paraphrases to bring out their meaning. What is labelled here 
as ‘passive obligation’ includes those occurrences where the obligation is to be 
expected in view of some logical necessity that precedes the obligation (Hoye 
1997:101–2, 2005a:1309–13, Lyons 1977: vol II).22 This distinction seems to be 
at the heart of systematically differentiated translation choices, which is why 
two different meanings are considered here. Questions such as the speaker’s in-
volvement, strong-weak, subjectivity — non-subjectivity — objectivity will call 
for rewordings of the type ‘it is necessary…’/‘it is important…’/‘it is essential…’. 
In the case of subjectivity there is also the reinforcement provided by so-called 
harmonic combinations, i.e. combinations with adverbials such as surely/sure, 
certain/certainly, etc., that express the same degree of modality, or by hedges, 
which emphasize the speaker’s attitude towards the content of the proposition. 
Frequent hedge phrases are ‘I think’, ‘I suppose’, etc.
Table 6. Semantic values of SHOULD
MEANINGS CASES %
OBLIGATION/ADVISABILITY 302 76.5%
TENTATIVE INFERENCE 50 12.69%
HYPOTHETICAL 24 6.09%
QUASI-SUBJUNCTIVE 18 4.56%
TOTAL 394 99.98%
Table 7. Semantic values of MUST
MEANINGS CASES %
OBLIGATION 174 44.61%
PASSIVE OBLIGATION 119 30.51%
CONFIDENT INFERENCE 97 24.87%
TOTAL 390 99.99%
 Modality and modal verbs in contrast 279
 (22) Discipline must be maintained, and rioters if they cannot be arrested 
must be shot. [must-obligation]
 (23) Britain must change course to get the jobless back to work, Labour leader 
John Smith said yesterday. [must-passive obligation]
 (24) It must have cost a good deal to make and would be a welcome change 
from all the sex and violence which currently makes up our daily viewing 
fare. [must-confident inference]
4.3.6 ‘Might’. Like may, might has a primary semantic function — ‘possibility’ 
— which accounts for an overwhelming 99.48% of the concordances analyzed. 
A token 0.51% bears witness to this modal’s second and extremely infrequent 
meaning: ‘permission’. As is the case with hypothetical could, most main-
stream studies of the English modals also contemplate a conditional use of 
might (Coates 1983:148 and 157; Perkins 1983:50–6) while at the same time 
pointing to its complexity and the difficulties of characterizing it.
The fact that it is used in the past or as a hypothetical form does not seem 
to affect the basic meanings conveyed by the modal (nor the translational op-
tions), a situation reinforced by the evidence that might is usually interchange-
able with may when it means ‘possibility’, and is even superseding the latter. 
Separate meaning classes for past and hypothetical have not been considered, 
as the superposed translational choice lies again within the domain of tense 
and/or mood and/or aspect.
 (25) She added: “We try to keep these things quiet. People might think that 
sounds easy”, and try it themselves. [might-possibility]
 (26) It was only on the Sunday three days before her release that she began 
to have a glimmer of hope that she might come out of it alive. [might-
possibility past]
 (27) Men constantly miss out on marriages that might work well because they 
haven’t yet reached the age they timetable themselves to get “tied down”, 
as they romantically put it. [might-possibility hypothetical]
 (28) As for young Steve, might I suggest he keeps his left up a little higher and 
waits for…[might-permission]
Coates (1995) reports on the weakness of the distinction between epistemic 
and non-epistemic possibility, and on the frequent existence of mergers in this 
area. It is not surprising then that the dichotomy does not seem to contribute 
any relevant data for potential translation options, and therefore represents 
280 Rosa Rabadán
a poor basis for being considered as separate functions.23 Other, more finely 
tuned meanings, such as ‘remote/hypothetical’ (Coates 1983:147–64), which 
represented nearly 5% of the sample, have also been included under the single 
function of ‘possibility’. Our decision is based on the fact that many times, the 
hypothesis is embodied in the proposition as a whole and not necessarily in the 
modal verb (Palmer 1990: 186), as in
 (29) It is possible that Haig, already sensitive to criticism of his command in 
the war, might have wanted to present himself as Britain’s wisest military 
leader in 1914.
 (30) He considered how he might escape, playing the scenes over as the horse 
plodded into darkness.
The mergers ‘ability-possibility’ and ‘ability-inference’ have also been reported 
(Mindt 1995:111) to be among the possible meanings of might. Our data how-ever, have not yielded any occurrence of ‘ability’, and just one case of the merger 
‘possibility/inference’ has been recorded (31) (grouped with ‘possibility’ in our 
description).
 (31) In view of the risks, no matter how slight, it might be wise to give up the 
VDU for some time before starting a family. [might-merger possibility/
inference]
4.3.6 ‘Ought to’. ought to is the least frequent of all necessity modals, as 
shown by the number of cases yielded by our subcorpus. Of these, 76.26% 
display different nuances of the ‘obligation/advisability’ semantic functions, 
whereas 22.56% of all occurrences analyzed indicate ‘tentative inference’. Three 
cases of merger (1.16%) have also been found. 
The ‘obligation/advisability’ semantic gradient is far from being homoge-
neous, and it includes the basic ‘advice’ as in (32) and a type of ‘moral obliga-
tion’ meaning, as in (33).24 Also part of this basic meaning are what Coates 
(1983:71) labels ‘self-exhortation’, with which speakers urge themselves to fol-
low the piece of advice being put forward, as in (34) and those cases in which 
the speaker is giving his/her opinion and which can be paraphrased as ‘it would 
Table 8. Semantic values of MIGHT
MEANINGS CASES %
POSSIBILITY 385 99.48%
PERMISSION 2 0.51%
TOTAL 387 99.99%
 Modality and modal verbs in contrast 28
be a good idea to …’, as in (35). As the semantic nuances here are manifold but 
do not really imply a different meaning nor have discriminating power for our 
translation-oriented aims, they are considered as one semantic function in our 
description. An underlying common feature to all these sub-functions is the 
fact that in all cases ought to signals a somewhat objectionable circumstance 
or condition at the moment of text production.
 (32) People ought to work harder instead of trying to ban everything that 
doesn’t suit them. [ought to-obligation/advisability]
 (33) Justice like health ought not to be rationed. [ought to-obligation/
advisability]
 (34) Although I can’t pretend I’m not excited when they say it, I realize that 
I ought to take it with a really big pinch of salt. [ought to-obligation/
advisability] 
 (35) I had all these TV screens in the background showing scenes from 
Yugoslavia, because I thought I ought to point up the message about 
conflict there reflecting conflict in the film. [ought to-obligation/
advisability] 
The second semantic value in the typicality hierarchy of ought to is ‘tentative 
inference’, meaning ‘from what can be logically inferred, it is reasonable to as-
sume that…’, as in (36).25
 (36) The ground was like porridge and far too soft for him. If the rain holds 
off, he ought to run a lot better, though not good enough to win or be 
placed. [ought to-tentative inference] 
The merger class corresponds to those cases where either interpretation is 
possible, as in (37), where both ‘it is reasonable to assume that…’ and ‘it is 
advisable/recommended that…’ are perfectly possible and do not exclude 
each other.
Table 9. Semantic values of OUGHT TO
MEANINGS CASES %
OBLIGATION/ADVISABILITY 196 76.26%
TENTATIVE INFERENCE 58 22.56%
MERGER 3 1.16%
TOTAL 257 99.98%
282 Rosa Rabadán
 (37) In this exuberant late-Victorian setting the menu ought to be something 
pretty chic and sophisticated.
4.4 Description: Spanish
A manual analysis of the number of concordances selected from CREA gives 
us a realistic map of the actual use of so-called modal periphrases in Span-
ish. Since verbal mood choice can and does affect the semantics of the periph-
rases, data for the indicative and the subjunctive are presented separately, as 
reflected in the figures offered in the tables below. Meaning changes caused 
and/or induced by negative contexts and interrogative choices are reflected in 
the final count under the corresponding heading. Native informants with slight 
regional differences in usage have been consulted so as to rule out non-gener-
alized geographically-based peculiarities.26 Frequency rates for the indicative 
and subjunctive moods are offered separately, as in a number of cases the dis-
tribution seems to bear consistent relevance to the establishment of potential 
translational options (see Table 11 deber + infinitive-wish). The periphrases 
and their meanings have been organized according to their typicality, that is, 
their frequency of occurrence in the corpus, which is taken to represent the 
real usage in Spanish. 
4.4. Poder + infinitive. The most frequent of all periphrases in our Spanish 
subcorpus yields 105,823 cases, which deploy a fairly high number of uses, 
distributed as follows: the main function is ‘possibility’ (83.66%), followed at a 
more than considerable distance by ‘ability’ (7.8%), which is also represented 
in the corpus in a merger with the basic meaning of possibility (0.75%).27 A 
third meaning found is ‘advisability’ (2.26%), and further down in the typical-
ity scale ‘transfer’ (2.01%), i.e. transferred uses from English, which appear in 
contexts where Spanish does not need any modal carrier. Permission is rep-
resented in the corpus as a merger with possibility (1.76%). Low percentages 
of occurrence for poder + infinitive- obligation/quantification (0.25%) and 
poder + infinitive-request (0.25%) complete the range of meanings which 
can be conveyed by this periphrasis.
 (38) Esto prueba que la contigüidad no es condición necesaria de causalidad. 
Uno puede reorganizar la contigüidad, sin alterar las cadenas causales. 
[poder + infinitive-possibility] 
 “This proves that contiguity is not a necessary condition for causality. 
You can reorganize contiguity without altering the causal chains.”28
 Modality and modal verbs in contrast 283
 (39) Soy gobernado por fuerzas que no puedo dominar. Es simplemente eso. 
¿Qué especie de fuerzas? No lo sé. Médicos, amantes, píldoras, drogas, 
bebidas. [poder + infinitive-ability] 
 “I am governed by forces I cannot control. That is all. Which type of 
forces? I do not know. Doctors, lovers, pills, drugs, alcohol.” 
 (40) Poner los puntos de luz justo bajo las cejas. Es aquí donde puedes aplicar 
las fantasías de la temporada. Nos referimos a las pailletes y purpurinas 
que están tan de moda [poder + infinitive-obligation/advisability] 
 “Apply the shimmer right under your eyebrows. This is where you can 
apply the cosmetics of the season. We mean the glitters and shimmers 
that are in fashion”. 
 (41) Nuestras inquietudes no quedan agotadas ni satisfechas en las siguientes 
preguntas (y posibles respuestas): ¿qué puedo conocer? [poder + 
infinitive-transfer] 
 “Our curiosity is neither answered nor satisfied by the following 
questions (and possible answers): what can I know?”
 (42) ¿Dónde puedo sacar dinero con mi tarjeta VISA Argentaria? [poder + 
infinitive-possibility/permission] 
 “Where can I get cash using my Visa card?”
 (43) Me preguntas si conozco a Briam Weiss, un médico psiquiatra del Hospital 
Monte Sinaí de Estados Unidos, o a algún profesional de características 
similares a las suyas. Lamento decirte que no, aunque, eso sí, te puedo 
dar alguna información sobre especialistas que merecen mi más completa 
confianza. [poder + infinitive-possibility/ability]
 “You ask me whether I know Bram Weiss, a psychiatrist at Mount Sinai 
Hospital in the States or some other colleague with similar expertise. 
I am sorry to say I do not, although I can provide information about 
specialists I personally consider highly.”
 (44) (…) la historia de la filosofía, considerada en su conjunto, es un proceso 
necesario y consecuente, racional y determinado a priori por su idea: es éste 
un ejemplo del que la historia de la filosofía puede sentirse orgullosa. Lo 
contingente debe ser abandonado a la puerta misma de la filosofía [poder 
+ infinitive-obligation/quantification] 
 “(…) the history of Philosophy, when considered as a whole is a necessary, 
rational and logical process determined beforehand by its very nature: this 
is one examplethe history of philosophy can be proud of. Contingency 
has to be abandoned before entering philosophical considerations.”
284 Rosa Rabadán
 (45) Soy una chica de 29 años con una serie de problemas que resuelvo 
comiendo de forma exagerada, por lo que he engordado mucho y mi peso 
oscila como un yoyó. ¿Qué puedo hacer? [poder + infinitive-request] 
 “I am an 18-year old female with a series of problems that I resolve by 
eating in excess, so I have put on a lot of weight and my weight fluctuates 
like a yoyo. What can I do?”
For Gómez Torrego (1999:3362) there is a politeness gradient in the use la-
belled here as ‘request’: the maximum degree of politeness would obtain by 
using the periphrasis in the conditional <+polite>, followed by the imperfect 
<±polite> and the present <−polite>, with the lower end of the cline achieved 
by means of clausal modality, using an exclamative-interrogative clause in the 
present indicative. Obviously, the predictive force of the ‘request’ gradient is 
dependent on the pragmatics of the context and the interaction between se-
mantic and contextual meanings.
Attention has also been paid to ‘poder + infinitive-obligation/quantifi-
cation’, both in its straight ‘obligation’ value, which links it to deber + infini-
tive and tener que + (perfect) infinitive, and in the more complex ‘obliga-
tion/quantification’ function. In the former, poder + infinitive adds a sense 
of ‘emphatic recrimination’, whereas in the second a ‘multal quantification’ di-
mension is added as in (44).29
4.4.2 Deber + infinitive. Although the statistics yield 33,163 cases, a modest 
number when compared with the typicality rate of poder + infinitive, de-
ber + infinitive is the second most frequent modal periphrasis in Spanish 
according to the data extracted from our subcorpus. The analysis of the 
representative sample for the semantic functions has resulted in a sizeable 
Table 10. PODER + INFINITIVE
MEANINGS INDICATIVE SUBJUNCTIVE %
POSSIBILITY 84.42% 79.3% 83.66%
ABILITY 7.06% 12.06% 7.8%
OBLIGATION/ADVISABILITY 2.64% 2.26%
TRANSFER 2.35% 2.01%
POSSIBILITY/PERMISSION MERGER 2.05% 1.72% 1.76%
POSSIBILITY/ABILITY MERGER 0.9% 6.9% 0.75%
OBLIGATION/QUANTIFICATION 0.29% 0.25%
REQUEST 0.29% 0.25%
TOTAL 100% 99.98% 98.74%
 Modality and modal verbs in contrast 285
inventory of possible meanings, the most salient being ‘passive obligation’ 
(44.44%), usually interpreted as necessity, as a logical condition that precedes 
the obligation. Straight ‘obligation’ (26.88%) indicates an intrinsic duty, as in 
(47) below. Both types of obligation are considered separately for the sake of 
cross-linguistic congruence and frequency distribution in the description.30 
deber + infinitive also has an ‘advisability’ function (17.21%) (48), normally 
associated with the conditional tense, and used as a polite alternative to a crude 
‘command’, another of the meanings of this periphrasis (6.07%), as in (50).31
A further function of this periphrasis is ‘wish’ (4.5%) on the part of the 
speaker concerning something which has not happened but can still happen. 
It has to be noted that 75% of the concordances in the subjunctive mood have 
this meaning, which is also possible, although less frequent, in the indicative 
(3.10%).32 This is so because there are instances in which the Spanish subjunc-
tive imperfect and the indicative conditional tense are interchangeable and/or 
neutralize each other. 
As with poder-lexical meanings (see note 27), occurrences of deber-lexi-
cal meanings do not show formal marks of periphrastic constructions, but this 
is where the similarities end. Whereas the cases of poder-lexical meanings 
found in our subcorpus can be traced to the modal meaning of ‘ability’, in-
stances of deber-lexical meanings have values totally unrelated to modal func-
tions, such as ‘owe’, ‘to be due to’, etc.33 Since these cases are easily recognizable 
on formal grounds, they do not contribute any discriminating element. Such 
cases will not be included in our contrast.
 (46) Las obras deben enviarse debidamente embaladas con materiales 
resistentes y de tipo utilizable para su devolución, a fin de preservar al 
máximo la seguridad de las obras. [deber + infinitive-passive obligation]
 “The works must be (have to be) sent appropriately packed with resistant 
materials which can also be reused for their return so as to ensure the 
maximum safety of the works.”
Table 11. DEBER + INFINITIVE
MEANINGS INDICATIVE SUBJUNCTIVE TOTAL %
PASSIVE OBLIGATION 44.44% 12.5% 44.3%
OBLIGATION 26.88% 27.59%
OBLIGATION/ADVISABILITY 16.02% 12.5% 17.21%
WISH 3.10% 75% 4.5%
COMMAND 6.2% 6.07%
TOTAL 99.99% 100% 99.67%
286 Rosa Rabadán
 (47) En cuanto a lo de tu amigo creo que debes publicarlo, al igual que los 
miembros fantasmas o los embarazos histéricos, es una patología conocida 
pero rara, y en una búsqueda en InfoMELINE no he encontrado ninguna 
infección por SIDAvirus informáticos en PC. [deber + infinitive-
obligation]
 “As for your friend’s infection, I think you must publish it. As with ‘ghost’ 
limbs and phantom pregnancies, it is a known but infrequent pathology, 
and in a search in InfoMELINE I did not find any case of infection with 
AIDSvirus in PC specialists/programmers.”
 (48) «Antes deberíamos encontrar un hospital para que descanses.» [deber + 
infinitive-obligation/advisability] 
 “First we need to find a hospital so you can rest.”
 (49) Un año más y la Administración de Justicia de Canarias no mejora como 
debiera. [deber + infinitive-wish]
 “Another year gone and the Courts of Justice in the Canary Islands are 
not improving as they should.”
 (50) En el plazo reglamentario, y debidamente identificado, debes presentarte en 
el sector de control antidopaje. [deber + infinitive-command] 
 “You must report to the anti-doping control area with an appropriate id 
within the prescribed deadline.” 
4.4.3 Haber que + infinitive. The third place in our descending typicality cline 
(19,185 cases) is occupied by haber que + infinitive, which according to 
corpus data is the most obvious expression of obligation and necessity in Span-
ish. Passive obligation is the primary meaning and accounts for 96.93% of all 
the cases analyzed, as in (51), straight active obligation being the function of 
the rest, as in (52).
 (51) Cuando haya que repetir la operación posiblemente se tendrán los guantes 
de repuesto ya algo secos o, si no lo están, por lo menos estarán calientes. 
[haber que + infinitive-passive obligation]
 “When the process needs to be repeated, it is likely that the spare gloves 
will already be somewhat dry or, if not, at least they will be warm.”
 (52) Pero aquí se puede insistir y repetir que no es conveniente pasear «comida», 
es decir, no hay que llevar demasiada comida, para tener que devolverla a 
casa; ni esforzarse en preparar o que te preparen grandes guisos. [haber 
que + infinitive-obligation]
 Modality and modal verbs in contrast 287
 “But here we can stress and repeat that it is not a good idea to “walk” 
your food, that is, you should not bring too much food, so that you 
would neither have to take it back home, nor go to the trouble of 
preparing or having elaborate dishes prepared.”
Not all experts, however, will consider haber que + infinitive a periphrasis 
(Fontanella de Weinberg 1970). Although it complies with the basic syntac-
tic properties, it presents a number of peculiarities that make it stand apart 
from the rest of the modal periphrasis we are analyzing.34 We take the stand 
of those linguists that do consider it as a periphrasis (Gómez Torrego 1988, 
Iglesias Bango 1988) and note the one feature that might prove relevant for our 
purposes — the fact that it only appears with verbs that take animate agentive 
subjects (when not used in a periphrastic construction) (Fernández Soriano 
and Táboas Baylín 1999:§ 27.3).
The two basic functions identified in the corpus data cover a wide terri-
tory where the basicmeaning is ‘obligation and/or necessity’. Gómez Torrego 
(1999:3358–9) mentions a number of more delicate interpretations where the 
semantics of the infinitive, together with the choice of tense and aspect, seem to 
be the reason for meanings such as ‘conation’ or ‘acquiescence’. Lexicalized uses 
indicating surprise, annoyance or refusal on the part of the speaker are also 
possible in interjections and exclamations, but, as noted by this author, they 
seem to be restricted to oral, colloquial uses. Since the analysis of our sample 
has not yielded any instance of these meanings, they are not reported here.35
4.4.4 Haber de + infinitive. Next in terms of typicality (12,007 cases) is haber 
de + infinitive. The primary meaning of this periphrasis is obligation, ei-
ther active (24.80%) or passive (72.60%), and it is closely related to concepts of 
‘futurity’ — a temporal value that has its roots in Old Castilian (Yllera 1980). 
Although today it has been lost to the ‘necessity/obligation’ semantic cluster, 
there are cases that exhibit an exclusive or nearly exclusive future meaning 
(2.06%). According to our data this tends to happen with haber conjugated in 
the indicative present, as in (55). Our concordances also bear witness to the 
marginal use ‘appellation’, which appears in all cases of the second person of 
Table 12. HABER QUE + INFINITIVE
MEANINGS INDICATIVE SUBJUNCTIVE TOTAL %
PASSIVE OBLIGATION 96.84% 100% 96.93%
OBLIGATION 3.15% 3.06%
TOTAL 99.99% 100% 99.93%
288 Rosa Rabadán
the indicative present of saber and is equivalent to the imperative form enté-
rate, as in (56).36 
 (53) Si tras poner en práctica — tomándoselo muy en serio — todo lo que se le 
ha recomendado en estas páginas — más los consejos que le daremos en 
el capítulo siguiente — no logra sentirse más relajado y conciliar mejor el 
sueño, tal vez le convenga probar valeriana, un sedante natural. ¡Ojo! ha 
de hacerlo sin dejar de poner en práctica todo lo que se ha explicado aquí. 
[haber de + infinitive-obligation]
 “If after conscientiously doing everything recommended in these 
pages, as well as the suggestions offered in the following chapter, you 
do not feel more relaxed and cannot get your sleep, you may want to 
try valerian, a natural sedative. But you must do so while following our 
recommendations.”
 (54) Sin embargo, salvo esta circunstancia no es normal presentar en el 
puerperio episodios de fiebre. Por lo tanto, o bien se ha de llamar al 
ginecólogo o bien se ha de acudir a un servicio de urgencias. [haber de + 
infinitive-passive obligation] 
 “However, unless in this situation, puerperal fever episodes are not 
frequent. If it happens, you must contact your gynaecologist or go to an 
emergency clinic.”
 (55) También deberás hacer la fosa de frío, de manera que la entrada quede 
más baja que la zona donde has de dormir (aire cálido arriba, frío abajo). 
[haber de + infinitive-futurity]
 “You must also build a cold trench, so that the entrance is at a lower 
level than the area where you will be sleeping (warm air above, cold air 
below).”
 (56) Pensarás que en verano no tendrás problemas, pero has de saber que 
pocos son los días al año que podrías dormir al raso sin ningún medio de 
protección. [haber de + infinitive-appellation]
 “You may think that there will be no problem in the summer, I must tell 
you there will be very few days in a year that you will be able to sleep in 
the open air without any protection”
4.4.5 Tener que + infinitive37. The most salient meaning of tener que + infin-
itive (10,547 cases) is again ‘obligation’, active (76.36%) or passive (21.03%), 
and the scope it covers in the obligation/necessity cluster overlaps many times 
with that of deber + infinitive. The choice between the two is related mainly 
to stylistic and pragmatic reasons. As reported by our informants deber + 
 Modality and modal verbs in contrast 289
infinitive tends to be more formal, and it is preferred in the written mode 
and in interaction when the situation is either formal or strained. tener que + 
infinitive is used in less marked and/or neutral contexts.
 (57) Pero mujer, eso no es problema, …aquí tienen toda una jungla de artilugios 
para acercar y alejar media Sicilia hasta donde les parece. Tú sólo tienes 
que preocuparse por mantener la naturalidad hasta el final. [tener que + 
infinitive-obligation]
 “But my dear, that is not a problem… these people have got all sorts 
of ways at their disposal to draw together or scare away half of Sicily 
depending on the situation. All you have to do is remain neutral until 
the end.”
 (58) Esto indica que las picaduras pueden llegar a ser mortales tanto en 
personas sensibilizadas como en otras que, aun habiendo recibido 
picaduras anteriores, nunca manifestaron reacciones. En estos casos, el 
tratamiento tiene que ser inmediato. [tener que + infinitive-passive 
obligation]
 “This indicates that stings can be fatal both for sensitized individuals 
and for those who have never shown any reaction when they were stung. 
Under these circumstances, treatment must be applied immediately.”
A further function conveyed by this periphrasis is ‘confident inference’ (1.55%), 
which is the same type of meaning as that embodied by ‘deber de + infini-
tive-tentative inference’, only the degree of certainty is higher when tener 
que + infinitive is used as in (59) below.38 Two less frequent values are ‘advis-
ability’ (0.51%) and ‘wish’ (0.51%), which would appear to be a particular use 
in the conditional, as shown in (60) and (61).
 (59) camarero Yo no he visto nada ni me han entregado nada./ miguel No 
hace ni diez minutos… tienes que haberla visto./ camarero Pues, no, no le 
he visto. [tener que + infinitive-tentative inference]
Table 13. HABER DE + INFINITIVE
MEANINGS INDICATIVE SUBJUNCTIVE TOTAL %
OBLIGATION 25.2% 11.11% 24.80%
PASSIVE OBLIGATION 72.08% 77.77% 72.60%
FUTURITY 2.16% 2.06%
APPELLATION 0.54% 0.51%
TOTAL 99.98% 99.99% 99.97%
290 Rosa Rabadán
 “waiter: I haven’t seen anything and nobody has given me anything./
miguel: It was less than ten minutes ago… you must have seen her./
waiter: Well, no, I haven’t.” 
 (60) El secretario general del PSOE defendió de nuevo que deberíamos hacer 
una apuesta por culminar la legislatura, pero advirtió que el problema 
es que este Gobierno tendría que considerar que no se está apoyando 
sobre unas bases muy sólidas. [tener que + infinitive-obligation/
advisability]
 “The Secretary General of the PSOE defended again the idea that we 
should make an effort to complete our term of office. But he warned that 
the problem is that this administration would have to consider that it is 
not based on very solid principles.”
 (61) Un caso extraordinario de esto es, por ejemplo, El bebé de Rosemary, de 
Polanski, que, en las intenciones del director — según pueden leerse en 
reportajes — tendría que haber sido un texto fílmico mucho más “definido” 
de lo que realmente es. [tener que + infinitive-wish]
 “A conspicuous example of this is, for instance, Rosemary’s Baby, a film 
by Polanski. If we go by press reports, the director’s intention was that the 
filmic text should have been far more clearly defined than it actually is.”
4.4.6 Deber de + infinitive. The least frequent of all modal periphrases in Span-
ish is deber de + infinitive (875 cases) and, according to the late Alarcos Llor-
ach (1994), its only meaning is ‘tentative inference’, which makes for 64.36% of 
all occurrences. Our data, however, provide strong evidence of the overlap in 
the use of the obligation/necessity periphrasis deber + infinitive in the ma-
jority of its senses and deber de + inf as shown in examples 63 to 66.
 (62) Sospecho que debe de haber un error en los cálculos, pues por un solo día es 
poco probable que el incremento de consumo de siete meses varíe de 5,51 a 
4,92 por 100. [deber de + infinitive-tentative inference]
Table 14. TENER QUE + INFINITIVE
MEANINGS INDICATIVE SUBJUNCTIVE TOTAL %OBLIGATION 80.05% 47.82% 73.36%
PASSIVE OBLIGATION 16.09% 45.65% 21.03%
CONFIDENT INFERENCE 1.76% 1.55%
OBLIGATION/ADVISABILITY 0.58% 0.51%
WISH 0.58% 0.51%
TOTAL 99.87% 99.99% 99.96%
 Modality and modal verbs in contrast 29
 “I have the feeling that there must be an error in the calculations: it is not 
very likely that the increase in consumption for 7 months varies from 
5.51% to 4.92% on account of just one day.”
 (63) Las características sociales, económicas y políticas de los países deudores 
es muy variada y por ello también debe de serlo el tratamiento a su deuda 
externa. [deber de + infinitive-passive obligation]
 “The social, economic and political characteristics of the debit countries 
are very different. That is why their foreign debt must be treated 
differently.”
 (64) chaqueta: Tiene que ser de material flexible, debe de llevar un enganche 
para la correa. Su misión es la de dar una mayor sujeción al tirador. 
[deber de + infinitive-obligation]
 “Jacket: It must be made of a flexible material and have a strap. This is to 
improve the hunter’s safety.”
 (65) De centros como los existentes en esa magnífica ciudad que es 
Montpellier, cuna de la medicina en Europa, debería de aprender nuestra 
Administración; eso también es Europa. [deber de +infinitive-
obligation/advisability]
 “Our administration should learn from centres such as those in the 
magnificent city of Montpellier, the birthplace of modern European 
medicine; that is also (part of what) Europe (is).”
 (66) En caso de ingestión masiva del fármaco, debe de acudirse inmediatamente 
al médico quien establecerá las medidas necesarias. [deber de + 
infinitive-command]
 “If a massive dose of the medicine is taken, you must see your doctor 
immediately. He/she will indicate the course to follow.”
4.5 Juxtaposition English-Spanish
The description of the modal encoding capabilities of a number of modal Eng-
lish verbs and of Spanish modal periphrases along the same lines provides us 
with separate maps of the expressive capabilities of each language. The fact that 
the ultimate aim of the contrast is to provide potential translation choices means 
that semantic function delimitation has been done taking cross-linguistic pe-
culiarities into account. In the juxtaposition stage, functions and expressive 
means associated with them in both languages are confronted, functions alien 
to our stated area of research discarded and “holes” and dissimilarities in the 
292 Rosa Rabadán
bilingual map identified. For the sake of clarity, functions are presented in al-
phabetical order in Table 16.
The juxtaposition of the data obtained in the descriptive stage yields 20 
uses with a far from symmetric distribution in the two languages. Four macro-
regularities have been observed, which leave us with four groups of functions, 
defined by means of binary oppositions:
1. modal functions vs. non-modal functions
2. universal functions vs. local functions
3. universal functions vs. local (Spanish) functions
4. universal functions vs. local (English) functions
Of the 20 functions conveyed by our chosen formal inputs, three cannot be said 
to correspond strictly to modal meanings: ‘aspectual’, ‘concessive’ and ‘transfer’. 
However, they are kept in our map on account of their discriminating value. 
A second group consists of all those meanings that in both English and 
Spanish are conveyed by one or more of the formal resources singled out for 
this enquiry. These meanings and their associated forms will constitute the 
core of our contrast here.
The third group is composed of those semantic values that are only con-
veyed by the Spanish forms, which because of our directionality English into 
Spanish, are ruled out of the analysis. Spanish modal periphrases do convey 
‘appellation’, ‘command’, ‘futurity’, ‘obligation/quantification’ and ‘wish’, but 
these functions are not expressed in English by means of the ‘possibility’ and 
‘obligation/necessity’ modals. Further work in adjacent clusters could well 
modify this position and will hopefully supply the modal correspondents in 
English for these uses. 
Group 4 includes those English functions for which no correspondence 
has been found in Spanish. Values such as ‘aspectual’, ‘hypothetical’, ‘predic-
tion’ and ‘quasi-subjunctive’ are not among the meanings conveyed by Spanish 
modal periphrases. It makes sense then to hypothesize that there must be other 
Table 15. DEBER DE + INFINITIVE
MEANINGS INDICATIVE SUBJUNCTIVE TOTAL %
TENTATIVE INFERENCE 65.31% 64.36%
PASSIVE OBLIGATION 21.77% 21.45%
OBLIGATION 6.64% 6.54%
OBLIGATION/ADVISABILITY 3.69% 100% 5.09%
COMMAND 2.58% 2.54%
TOTAL 99.99% 100% 99.98
 Modality and modal verbs in contrast 293
Table 16. Juxtaposition English-Spanish
ENGLISH FUNCTION SPANISH
can (32.24%)
could (18.43%)
ABILITY poder + inf (7.8%)
APPELLATION haber de + inf (0.51%)
can (4.03%)
could (3.28%)
ASPECTUAL transfer (2.01%)
COMMAND
deber + inf (6.07%)
deber de + inf (2.54%)
may (9.09%) CONCESSIVE
FUTURITY haber de + inf (2.06%)
should (6.09%) HYPOTHETICAL
must (24.87%) CONFIDENT INFERENCE tener que + inf (1.55%)
ought to (22.56%)
should (12.69%)
TENTATIVE INFERENCE deber de + inf (64.36%)
must (44.61%) (ACTIVE) OBLIGATION
tener que + inf (73.36%)
deber + inf (27.59%)
haber de + inf (24.8%)
deber de + inf (6.54%)
haber que + inf (3.06%)
should (76.5%)
ought to (76.26%)
can (0.75%)
OBLIGATION/ADVISABILITY
deber + inf (17.21%)
deber de + inf (5.09%)
poder + inf (2.26%)
tener que + inf (0.51%)
must (30.51%) PASSIVE OBLIGATION
haber que + inf (96.93%)
haber de + inf (72.6%)
deber + inf (44.3%)
deber de + inf (21.45%)
tener que + inf (21.03%)
OBLIGATION/QUANTIFICATION poder + inf (0.25%)
can (8.81%)
may (4.54%)
could (3.53%)
might (0.51%)
PERMISSION poder + inf (1.76%)
might (99.48%)
could (74.24%)
may (84.09%)
can (51.38%)
POSSIBILITY poder + inf (83.66%)
can (2.77%) PREDICTION
should (4.56%)
may (2.27%)
QUASI-SUBJUNCTIVE
could (0.5%) REQUEST poder + inf (0.25%)
TRANSFER poder + inf (2.01%)
WISH
deber + inf (4.5%)
tener que + inf (0.51%)
294 Rosa Rabadán
formal resources in Spanish that this language has recourse to; only they are 
not to be found in the ‘similarity across languages’ area that is being examined 
here. Given the type(s) of meaning(s) and their adscription to other grammati-
cal devices such as verbal mood and aspect, an ensuing enquiry into their dis-
tribution in Spanish should furnish expressive options for these values.
Since our ultimate aim here is to unveil how much of the ‘possibility’ and 
‘obligation/necessity’ functions is covered by the Spanish modal periphrases, 
it is obvious that group 2 is the object of our analysis. Another regularity ob-
served in the juxtaposed data concerns the very different position of the re-
sources in the typicality cline in their respective language and the subsequent 
implications this has both for linguistics and for translation applications.
The expression of ‘ability’ presents such a typicality divergence between 
the usage of can (32.24%) and could (18.43%) in English and that of poder 
+ infinitive (7.8%) that it makes sense to hypothesize that Spanish has some 
other more central resources to express this semantic value, and that the modal 
periphrasis is only one of the possibilities to do so.
The same dissimilar distribution occurs with ‘confident inference’. Where-
as English must (24.87%) seems to be a central means of expression for this 
meaning, Spanish tener que + infinitive (1.55%) can be taken only as an 
incidental use.
By contrast, ‘tentative inference’ displays the opposite phenomenon. While 
English relies on both ought to (22.56%) and should (12.69%) to convey this 
meaning, Spanish offers the neat solution of deber de + infinitive (64.36%), 
a clear case of specialized meaning-form association.
A most important function of the ‘obligation/necessity modals’ is ‘obliga-
tion/advisability’, represented by should (76.5%), ought to