Bělíková Zuzana The Modal Verb Could and its Equivalents in Translation

1.1.1
 
Deontic/Root Modality 
It deals with obligation, prohibition and permission of the deontic source. The source is
the one that emanate all mentioned above (Huddleston and Pullum 2002, 178). “The term 
DEONTIC is often used in the literature to refer to root necessity meaning. However, 
‘deontic’ does not always cover the same conceptual load: for some, ‘deontic modality’ is 
synonymous with (any instance of) ‘nonepistemic modality’.” (Depraetere and Verhulst 
2008) It always regards to the future because it is the only time that can be changed or 
affected. It can be made in the past though (Palmer 1986, 97). 
2) John may/can come in now. 
 
 
 
 
(Palmer 1986, 98) 
“To analyze sentences which contain root modals, extract the modal verb and the NP 
subject from the sentence and replace it with paraphrases such as NP is permitted to, NP is 
obliged to, NP is able to.” (Cook 1978) 
3) You can smoke in the lounge. 
 
 
= You are permitted to smoke in the lounge. 
(Cook 1978)
1.1.2
 
Epistemic Modality 
This modality is connected with knowledge of a speaker (Huddleston and Pullum 2002, 
178). The speaker makes judgment of the certain situation (Palmer 1987, 97). This 
modality can cover the past, the present and the future. This is the obvious difference 
between epistemic and deontic modality (Palmer 1986, 97). 
4) John may be there.
 
 
 
 
 
(Palmer 1986, 58) 
 
Palmer (1986, 57) also describes weak and strong epistemic judgments. The modal verbs 
may and must are involved. “Epistemic modals modify a sentence and deal with the truth 
value of the sentence.” (Cook 1978) Cooks states that we can classify modals as epistemic 
ones when we replace them with phrases like It is possible that or It is necessary that 
(1978). 

---

Philosophical Faculty, Palacký University Olomouc 
12 
5) John may be lying. 
 
 
= It is possible that John is lying.
(Cook 1978)