MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND EDUCATION OF UKRAINE LVIV

POLYTECHNIC NATIONAL UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF COMPUTER

SCIENCES AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES

Department

of Applied Linguistics

COURSE PAPER

Modality in English legal texts

Presented by

The student of the group FL-34

Lupii A. O.

Supervised by

The PhD in Philology

Dilai M. P.

Lviv 2022
 Abstract

English corpora were employed in this study, which was done to conduct a
scientific analysis of the use of modal verbs in legal English writings.

English legal texts are those that employ English legal language, which is a
specific variety of English utilized in the legal field. Formalized language is distinct
from natural language and is intended to promote accuracy and clear idea expression.
In other words, legal English is appropriate for creating legal papers and is employed
on a global scale in nations where English is the official language. These may
include agreements, rules for handling legal issues and legislation, etc.

The research discussed in this article looks at how frequently modal verbs are
used in the court case "The United States v. Worrall.

Modal verbs can also be categorized into several classes.

Based on the findings, we may conclude that modality, which reflects the
relationship between the statement's content and reality, can be represented through
intonation, morphological, and lexical-grammatical meanings.

The utilization of research findings for educational or other activities is just

one of numerous possibilities. can also be used for various types of scientific study.

Key words: legal text, modality, modal verb, modal form.

2
 Table of Contents

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………….2

Introduction……………………………………………………………………......4
CHAPTER 1. THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL BACKGROUND
1.1 Features in legal texts……………………………………………………………7
1.2 Modality in English legal text……………………………………………………9
1.2.1 The concept of modality………………………………………………………..9
1.2.2 Modal words as the means of expressing modality………………………...…11
1.2.3 Varieties of modal forms in the English language…………………………….11
1.3 Features of modality in English Corpora……………………………………..…12
1.4 Modal verbs……………………………………………………………….….…13
1.4.1 Obligation (must \ have to)…………………………………………………....13
1.4.2 Lack of necessity (doesn’t need to \ doesn’t have to \ needn’t get)……...……14
1.4.3 Advice (ought to \ must)………………………………………………………14
1.4.4. Suggestion ( can \ could)………………………………………………..……14
1.4.5 Ability (can \ could \ will able to)……………………………………………..14
1.4.5 Lack of ability (can’t \ couldn’t)………………………………………………15
1.4.6 Asking permission (can \ could \ may \ might)……………………………..…15
1.4.6 Giving permission (can \ may)……………………………………………..…15
1.4.7 Refusing permission (can’t \ mustn’t \ may not)…………………………..…15
1.4.8 Requests (can-could \ will-would \ may-might)………………………………15
1.4.9 Offers (shall \ can \ could)…………………………………………………….15
1.4.10 Prohibition (mustn’t \ can’t)…………………………………………………16
1.4.11 Logical assumptions (must \ can’t \ must have been \ can’t have been)…….16
1.4.12 Criticism (ought to \ should)…………………………………………………16
CHAPTER 2. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION………………………………….....
2.1 Meaning of modal verbs in English corpora……………………………………17
2.2 Features of modal verbs in legal texts…………………………………………..20

3
2.2.1 Modal verbs with positive meaning…………………………………………...24
2.2.2 Modal verbs with negative meaning………………………………………..…25
2.2.3 Ambivalent modal verbs………………………………………………………25
Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………27
References……………….………………………………………………………….29

4
 INTRODUCRION

The paper discusses the features of modality in English legal texts on the
material of the English Corpora, especially using the Corpus of US Supreme Court
Opinions.
The problem of modality has been explored by many researchers. In recent
years, scholars (T. Varenko [1], N. Vus [2], O. Pomazan [5], Yu. Pravdivtseva [6],
K. Ralduhina [7], F. Palmer [28], A. Skrypnyk [30], L. Quian [32]) have become
increasingly interested in revealing modality functions. The peculiarities of legal text
were discussed in the works of such scientists, as S. Hlushchyk [[3], I. Klymenko
[4], L. Roienko [9], N. Bobrova [11], F. Easterbrook [15], A. Liuolienė [23],
D. Mellinkoff [25], Y. Mukhaini [27].
The subject of the study is using the modal verbs in the English Corpora.
The object is the concept of modality in the legal texts on the material of the
English Corpora.
Aim and objectives of the study:
- to present the main features in the legal texts;
- to learn the concept of modality;
- to identify the problem of modality in English Corpora;
- to analyze specifics of modal verbs meaning in the English corpora;
- to analyze the features of modal verbs in legal texts.
Theoretical framework of this research paper is wide, because today there
are many works on this topic. The results of our research can be used in writing
scientific papers and serve as a basis for creating manuals.
Methodology of research paper include systematic, theoretical and practical
analysis, descriptive method and method of critical thinking.
The paper consists of an Introduction, two Chapters, Conclusion and
Bibliography.
Chapter 1 is devoted to the issue of modality in the English language and the
main features of legal texts.
5
 Chapter 2 deals with the issue of functioning the modal verbs in the English
Corpora, especially in the legal texts.

6
 CHAPTER I
THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL BACKGROUND

1.1 Features in legal texts

A legal text has similar features to both a scientific text and an instructional
text, as it performs not only a cognitive, but also a prescriptive function. Whatever
the content of the laws may be, according to their typological characteristics, they, as
texts, are quite homogeneous. The complex of means, characteristic of them, ensures
full transfer of information to the recipient [11].
I. Klymenko affirms, that legal texts include the texts of documents, laws, as
well as scientific articles, monographs, legal instructions, descriptions, etc. Any legal
text is distinguished from others by a rich arsenal of auxiliary sign systems (for
example, diagrams, tables) [4]. The legal text doesn’t include the author's
individuality. Differences in such a text are observed only in the frequency of some
words use and, perhaps, in the degree of the presentation complexity. The author
speaks not on his own behalf, but as one of the representatives of a certain
knowledge field, is based on the achievements of the predecessors, builds the text
according to clear generally accepted rules [23].
The syntax of the legal text is characterized by structural completeness, a
variety of means that form logical connections. There are often used the logical
structures with the meaning of conditions and reasons, explicated by special
language means [3, p. 38].
L. Roienko notes, that legal documentation has textual features, a peculiar
linguistic expression. The text of most legal documents has a uniform style, contains
business vocabulary and legal terminology. Most of the legal texts consist of
specialized vocabulary [9, p. 93].
Legal documents belong to different types of documentation. D. Melinkoff
offers nine specific characteristics of the legal English language:
1. Frequent use of commonly used words with uncommon meanings.
2. Frequent use of the Old English language.
7
 3. Frequent use of Latin words and phrases.
4. Frequent use of Anglo-Norman words.
5. Use of specific legal terms.
6. Use of slang (slang of a certain group or class).
7. Frequent use of official style words.
8. Deliberate use of words and expressions with a flexible meaning.
9. An attempt at extreme accuracy of expression [25, p. 117].
Legal texts are characterized by the following features:
1. Legal documents or legal texts have a clearly defined structure, the design
of which must be followed when translating.
2. A legal document cannot contain emotionally colored vocabulary,
figurative words, colloquial, slang vocabulary.
3. The legal text allows frequent repetition of the same term in the text, which
is unacceptable and is considered a tautology in the literary style.
4. Information is presented mainly in the present tense, which presents
information as absolutely objective, timeless, as the ultimate truth.
5. The presence of Latin phrases, for example: prima facie – reliable at first
glance; ex post facto – after the event, rari passu – on equal terms, pro rata –
proportionally, Sui juris – acting on its own behalf, etc.
6. In English-language legal texts of treaties and contracts, words of Old
English origin are often used, which came from common usage (for example,
hereafter, hereafter, hereinafter, thereabout, thereby, herein, hereunder, henceforth,
hereto, herewith, hereof, herein, therein).
7. Verbs in the passive state are often used in the legal texts.
8. One of the characteristic features of the English legal text is the use of the
modal verb “shall” to express an order or obligation, as well as other modal verbs
with the meaning of obligation.
9. The presence in legal texts of special idiomatic expressions and
phraseological combinations that are not used or are rarely used in the literary
language (for example, to meet claim – to dispute a statement; under the terms of
8
agreement – under the terms of the agreement; all and sundry – all and
everyone) [9, p. 92].
Thus, the legal texts has a uniform style, contains business vocabulary, legal
terminology and specialized vocabulary. Legal texts are characterized by having a
clearly defined structure, using the present tense, Latin phrases, words of Old
English origin, verbs in the passive state etc.

1.2 Modality in English legal text

The phenomenon of modality is still the object of research by many linguists.
Modality is a complex multidimensional functional-semantic category that expresses
the speaker’s attitude to the expressed, the assessment of the attitude to objective
reality. The content of the expressed can be considered as real or unrealistic, possible
or impossible, necessary or probable, desirable or undesirable, etc. Modality is
differentiated into objective and subjective. Subjective modality, unlike objective, is
an optional feature of expression and is expressed by such means as: order,
intonation, lexical repetitions, modal words and verbs, exclamations, insertion words
and phrases, insertion sentences, words in sentence [11]. Legal texts – by their very
nature – exhibit a variety of ‘modal’ meanings essential to their content and texture.
Linguistically speaking, modality is a noticeable feature of legal texts, the fact that
justifies the carry out of this study. In fact, it is one of the most prominent and
distinctive characteristic inherited in these texts because of their very nature as
directive and expository instances of language use. In other words, legal texts – in
addition to their structural and contextual variation – display a variety of modal
meanings such as ‘obligation’, ‘prohibition’, ‘recommendation’, ‘advice’,
‘authorization’, etc., to mention some but not all of these meanings [27, p. 15-16].

1.2.1 The concept of modality

N. Vus singles out three interpretations of the term “modality” in linguistics:
1) modality is the relation of the statement content to reality (V. Vynogradov,
A. Mirovich and K. Svoboda);
9
 2) I. Bellert, A. Boguslavsky, A. Vezhbytska and V. Maldzhieva understand
modality as the relation of the speaker to the content of the utterance;
3) modality as a combination of the content relation of the statement to
reality and the relationship of the speaker to the content of the statement is
considered by such scientists as U. Gaevska and V. Shmilauer. They claim that
modality is a rather complex multifaceted concept that includes several phenomena
that overlap each other [2, p. 122].
Yu. Pravdivtseva believes that the most widespread definition of language
modality is that this category expresses a message from the speaker's point of view.
At the same time modality includes grammatical means that have become established
in grammar due to the purpose of language as a means of communication and ensure
the availability of the thought being communicated. Yu. Pravdivtseva has identified
two types of modality: objective and subjective. Objective modality reflects the
speaker’s attitude to reality from the perspective of the speaker. Subjective modality
reflects the speaker’s means of qualifying the objective content of his/her
message [6, p. 380].
Text modality, reflecting the most common and essential features of the text,
namely the attitude of the one who speaks or writes, can be manifested on the surface
by lexical means. Composites, while occupying an intermediate place between
simple words, derivatives, abbreviations and idioms, are considered one of the most
promising ways of explication.
Composites are one of the expressing means of modality in the text that
exists in the following aspects:
1. The reality/irrelation of the text world. The category of modality is divided
into two types:
a) attributive-modal value;
b) subjective-modal value [1, p. 138].
2. The author's evaluative and emotional attitude to the characters, the text as
a whole, created to formulate the reader’s representation of a similar emotional and

10
evaluative character, to direct actions with the result (iclocutive active
force) [7, p. 156].
3. The intended assessment of the reader. The reader’s assessment is the
result of empathy, which is formed in his/her imagination. With the help of the
nominations, the author can influence the reader, taking into account the set of
his/her expectations, beliefs, tastes, age characteristics, that is, providing for his
assessment [7, p. 157].
Thus, modality is about a speaker’s or a writer’s attitude towards the world. It
refers to the ways language can express various relationships to reality or truth.

1.2.2 Modal words as the means of expressing modality

Modality, being an extralinguistic category that expresses the speaker’s

attitude to reality, includes:
- phonetic means (accent and intonation);
- lexical and grammatical means (modal verbs);
- lexical means (modal words and modal expressions) that express subjective
modality;
- grammatical means that express grammatical modality [8, p. 170].
Lexical means of expression modality are modal words, parenthesis with
modal meaning. Modal auxiliary verbs, such as the English words may, can, must,
ought, will, shall, need, dare, might, could, would, and should, are often used to
express modality in the English language [30].

1.2.3 Varieties of modal forms in the English language

Modality is not homogeneous. It contains two layers and we can differentiate
between two types of modality (primary and secondary modality). The first type
expresses the relations between the subject of the sentence and the action. The action
may be presented as possible, permissive, obligatory, necessary, desirable or
unnecessary for the subject. It is expressed by the modal verbs in their verb-oriented

11
meanings: ability, possibility, permission, necessity, obligation etc. E.g. Children
must be seen but not heard. I can jump puddles. You may be free for today. The
second type of secondary modality expresses the attitude of the speaker to the
contents of the utterance or the speaker's evaluation of the event presented in the
utterance. This type of modality can be expressed by:
1) modal words and modal adverbs and modal particles: maybe, probably,
certainly, of course, perhaps, sure, evidently, supposedly, luckily, fortunately etc.
(E.g. This is probably the best chance you have ever had);
2) by modal verbs in their sentence-oriented meanings: probability, doubt,
supposition, certainty, disbelief (E.g. She couldn't have done it alone);
3) by modalized verbs seem, to appear, happen, chance (for example, She
appeared to be holding something back from him);
4) by the so called performative verbs and phrases which name speech and
mental acts: think, suppose, guess, doubt, be certain, be sure etc. (e.g. I guess you
are right; I am afraid this is true);
5) by special syntactic structures like ‘tag questions’ (for example, This is
true, isn't it?);
6) by intonation and word order.
Thus, as we can see the modal verbs participate in the expression of two
kinds of modality.

1.3 Features of modality in English Corpora

English corpora were created by M. Davies, and they are the most widely
used online corpora. They are used for many different purposes by teachers and
researchers at universities throughout the world. In addition, the corpus data (e.g.
full-text, word frequency) has been used by a wide range of companies in many
different fields, especially technology and language learning [16]. The features of
modality will be identified on the material of English corpora, especially in legal
texts, which, as it was mentioned, include a variety of ‘modal’ meanings essential to
their content and texture [27, p. 15].
12
 1.4 Modal verbs
Modal verbs have simple forms, but a wide variety of semantic connotations
and communicative functions. These functions can generally be related to a scale
ranging from possibility (“may”) to necessity (“must”). At the onset, we need to
distinguish the true modal verbs from the words with modal usage (e.g. have to,
ought to) [22].
The true modal verbs include may, might, can, could, will, would, shall and
should. J. Lyons, from the perspective of speakers, divided the modality into two
types: epistemic and deontic modality [24]. By considering the special features of
“can” and “will”, F. Palmer proposed the third type of modality: dynamic modality.
Epistemic modality refers to the general possibility or necessity [28].
In contrast, deontic modality is concerned with possibility and necessity in
terms of freedom to act (including ability, permission, and duty). Root modals can be
used to express the possibility and necessity as well. The possibility, different from
the general possibility, is based on certain conditions (e.g. ability or with
permission).
The same modal verbs can be used with different modality types in different
conditions. Different groups of modality are related with different politeness degree
of the speech. Modal verbs of high value indicate an impolite speech (Leech, 1983),
which is liable to cause the reader/listener’s disfavor, whereas low value modals
suggest a most polite use of language [32].
The different types of English modal verbs meanings will be considered in
more detail in the following points of our study.

1.4.1 Obligation (must \ have to)

Modal verbs must and have to are all used to express strong obligation. They
have equal strength. There can be difficulties with using must and have to. In brief,
the rule is that must is used for internal obligations, and have to is used for external
obligations (for example, My tooth is sore. I must go to the dentist. To travel, you
have to carry a passport) [19].
13
 1.4.2 Lack of necessity (doesn’t need to \ doesn’t have to \ needn’t get)
Doesn’t need to \ doesn’t have to \ needn’t get are used to say that something
is not a necessity (for example, You needn’t take any food with you. Snacks are
provided). To indicate the lack of necessity in the past or future time, we use not
need to and not have to (for example, We didn’t to go to work on Saturday) [21].

1.4.3 Advice (ought to \ must)

The word “advice” is a general term that is used in describing the modal
verbs ought to and must. The modal verb ought to is a close for must and expresses
advice with a warning of a possible unpleasant result if indicated advice is not
followed [10].

1.4.4. Suggestion (can \ could)

The modal verbs can and could are used in English in polite requests, in
speech and in writing, in communication with strangers and with those we know.
Can is considered the least “polite” of the verbs. We also use can and could to make
suggestions (for example, We could meet at the weekend) [12].

1.4.5 Ability (can \ could \ will able to)

The word “ability” is a general term that is used in describing the modal verb
can. It includes general ability to do something; physical and mental ability or skill
to do something; freedom, right, or opportunity to do something (е.g. He can run
very fast). The modal verb can in the meaning “ability” is used in affirmative and
negative statements and questions in the present and future (e.g. He can start
tomorrow. / He will be able to start tomorrow). Could is the past form of can in the
meaning “ability” [26].

14
 1.4.5 Lack of ability (can’t \ couldn’t)
To express the opportunity or inability to do something there should be used
can’t \ couldn’t (e.g. I can’t sing. We can’t play the guitar. When I was five, I
couldn’t read very well) [26].

1.4.6 Asking permission (can \ could \ may \ might)

The modal verbs can, could, may and might are used in English when
applying for permission to take action. The modal verb can in the form of circulation
for resolution is used quite often, both in official and not official form [26].

1.4.6 Giving permission (can \ may)

Can is used to give permission. May is a more formal and polite way of
giving permission. Can is used to say that someone has permission to do something.
May is a more formal and polite way of saying that someone has permission [26].

1.4.7 Refusing permission (can’t \ mustn’t \ may not)

The modal verbs can’t, couldn’t, may not are used in English when refusing
permission to take action. We use can't, mustn’t and may not to refuse permission or
say that someone does not have permission (e.g. You can't go home yet) [26].

1.4.8 Requests (can-could \ will-would \ may-might)

To ask questions in a very polite way, there should be used: Would you/
Could you/ Might you (please) + simple verb + ...? To ask questions in a polite but
more casual way, there should be used: Will you/ Can you/ May you (please) +
simple verb + ...? The word “may” is not used in a polite question when “you” is the
subject [26].

1.4.9 Offers (shall \ can \ could)

Can, could, shall are used to express offers (e.g. Can I help you?) The modal
verb shall is used to express a desire, a proposal to perform an action. The modal
15
verbs can and could are also used in English to express an offer to provide a
service [26].

1.4.10 Prohibition (mustn’t \ can’t)

As modals of prohibition, mustn’t and can’t are both used to show that
something is forbidden, prohibited or not allowed. They often express rules and
laws [26].

1.4.11 Logical assumptions (must \ can’t \ must have been \ can’t have
been)
Must is used in affirmative sentences and expresses positive logical
assumptions. Can’t is used in negations and expresses negative logical assumption.
Must have been / canєt have been expresses the assumption that the action is
happening or not happening at the moment of speaking or during the present period
of time [26].

1.4.12 Criticism (ought to \ should)

Should and ought to are used to express criticism or disapproval with
reference to present or future time (e.g. You shouldn't be sitting here just doing
nothing!) [26]

16
 CHAPTER ІІ
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

2.1 Meaning of modal verbs in English corpora

Legal texts based on the English Corpora [16] material, especially in the
Corpus of US Supreme Court Opinions, were chosen to study the peculiarities of the
modal verbs use. The chosen corpus contains approximately 130 million words in
32,000 Supreme Court decisions from the 1790s to the current time [14].
When analyzing the features of the modal verbs functioning in the Corpus of
US Supreme Court Opinions, first of all, it is necessary to trace the frequency of the
modal verbs use, which is presented in the Fig. 2.1.

Modal Frequency Examples

verbs of using
may 288229 Congress think any provision necessary to effectuate the
Constitutional power of the government, they may establish it
by law [31].
might 79006 On ordinary occasions, these dignified opinions might
influence me greatly [13].
can 183977 But, on the second count, there can be no possible doubt, if
the testimony is credited [31].
could 128700 The Constitution evidently contemplated no taxes as direct
taxes, but only such as Congress could lay in proportion to
the census [20].
will 137633 The nature of our Federal compact, will not, however,
tolerate this doctrine [31].
would 286527 Such an act would be a monster in legislation, and shock all
mankind [33].
shall 170392 In the mean time I shall subscribe myself to be, your obedient
and very humble servt. to command [31].
17
 should 151172 If the Legislature had passed an act declaring, that, in future,
there should be no trial by Jury, would it have been
obligatory? [33]
must 136124 It is their commission; and, therefore, all their acts must be
conformable to it, or else they will be void [33].
ought to 8387 But the words are doubtful; and, therefore, they ought to be
so construed, as to conform to the general principle of the
Constitution [18].
need 30158 The laws of Congress need no non obstante clause [17].
dare 137 Negroes there now know that they risk losing even
segregated public facilities if they dare to protest
segregation [29].

Figure 2.1. The frequency of modal verbs using in

the Corpus of US Supreme Court Opinions

So, some modal verbs are characterized by a high frequency of use (for
example, the modal verb may is used 288229 times, the modal verb would is used
286527 times), and some of them are used extremely rarely (for example, the modal
verb dare is used only 137 times).
The following illustration shows the results of searching for the frequency of
using the modal verb dare in the Corpus of US Supreme Court Opinions:

18
 Figure 2.2. Results of using the modal verb dare
in the Corpus of US Supreme Court Opinions

The next Fig. 2.3 demonstrates frequency of using modal verbs in the Corpus
of US Supreme Court Opinions:

Fig. 2.3. Frequency of using modal verbs

in the Corpus of US Supreme Court Opinions

19
 Thus, according to the results of the frequency of the modal verbs using in
the selected corpus, it was found that most often in legal texts such modal verbs are
used as may, can, could, will, would, shall, should, must. Modal verbs might, ought
to, need, dare are used much less often.

2.2 Features of modal verbs in legal texts

The next step of our research is tracing the peculiarities of the modal verbs
meaningі in the legal texts, because, as the theoretical material of our work
demonstrates, their meaning can differ in different contexts.
For making analysis, the legal text “The United States v. Worrall” [31] is
taken, in which there will be trace the functioning of modal verbs and determine their
meanings.
The chosen text includes such modal verbs, as may, can, could, will, would,
shall, should, must and might. The Fig. 2.4 demonstrates the frequency of using
them.

Modal Frequency Examples from the text

verbs of using
can 15 Affirmative sentence:
… and, consequently, it is not a subject on which the Judicial
authority of the Union can operate [31].
Negative sentence:
Every power is matter of definite and positive grant; and the
very powers that are granted cannot take effect until they are
exercised through the medium of a law [31].
Interrogative sentence:
Can the offence, then, be said to arise under the Constitution,
or the laws of the United States? [31]
may 14 Affirmative sentence:
20
 But another ground may, perhaps, be taken to vindicate the
present claim of jurisdiction … [31]
Interrogative sentence:
The true point of view for considering the case, may be
ascertained … he would not have been indictable in the Courts
of the United States? [31]
could 7 Affirmative sentence:
But the existence of the Federal government would be
precarious, it could no longer be called an independent
government … [31]
Negative sentence:
… and, by a parity of reasoning, he could not be punished in
New Jersey … [31]
will 16 Affirmative sentence:
Hence … will soon discover, that the whole of the common law
of England has been no where introduced … [31]
Negative sentence:
I will not say whether the offence is at this time cognizable in
a State Court [31].
would 11 Affirmative sentence:
If he would be so indictable … the offence of the person who
tempted him, must be equally the subject of animadversion
before the same judicial authority [31].
Interrogative sentence, negative meaning:
The true point of view for considering the case … he would
not have been indictable in the Courts of the United
States? [31]
shall 17 Affirmative sentence:
And also, 'that the Secretary of the Treasury be authorized to

21
 provide by contract, which shall be approved by the President
of the United States … [31]
Negative sentence:
… when committed, shall not be punished by the Circuit
Court, upon the principles of common law punishment [31].
should 5 Affirmative sentence:
If I should be so happy in your recommendation of this work, I
should think myself very ungrateful … [31]
must 13 Affirmative sentence:
… the offenders must escape with absolute impunity [31].
might 6 Affirmative sentence:
But, certainly, Congress might have provided, by law, for the
present case, as they have provided for other cases, of a
similar nature … [31]

Figure 2.4. Using modal verbs

in the legal text “The United States v. Worrall”

As the results of the legal text analysis prove, the modal verbs may, can,
could, will, would, shall, should, must and might are often used here. In the process
of research, there was not found such modal verbs as ought to, need and dare. The
modal verbs can, may, will, would, shall, must are most often used, than could,
should and might.
The total number of modal verbs used in the legal text “The United States v.
Worrall” is 104 lexical units. For clarity, the following diagram is presented:

22
 Figure 2.5. Frequency of using modal verbs
in the legal text “The United States v. Worrall”

Thus, it is appropriate to divide modal verbs into three groups: 1) modal

verbs with the positive meaning (advice, suggestion, giving permission); 2) modal
prepositions with the negative meaning, refusing permission, prohibition, criticism);
3) the ambivalent modal verbs, asking permission, offers, logical assumptions).

1. Advice (must).
Modal verbs with positive meaning 2. Suggestion (can).
3. Ability (can).
4. Giving permission (can \ may).
1. Lack of ability (can’t \ couldn’t).
Modal verbs with negative meaning 2. Refusing permission (can’t).
3. Prohibition (can’t).
4. Criticism (should).
1. Obligation (must).
23
 Ambivalent modal verbs 2. Asking permission (might).
3. Offers (shall \ can \ could).
4. Logical assumptions (must \ can’t \
must have been).

Figure 2.6. Meanings of modal verbs

in the legal text “The United States v. Worrall”

In the following points of our work, there will be traced the semantic features
of the modal verbs.

2.2.1 Modal verbs with positive meaning

The following groups of the modal verbs have the positive meanings:
1) Advice (must):
… an appeal must be made to the State tribunals, or the offenders must
escape with absolute impunity [31].
2) Suggestion (can):
If, indeed, the United States can be supposed, for a moment, to have a
common law, it must, I persume, be that of England [31].
3) Ability (can):
Any thing which can prevent a Federal Officer from the punctual … [31]
4) Giving permission (can \ may):
Whether the Courts of the United States can punish a man for any act, before
it is declared by a law of the United States to be criminal? [31]
Whenever, then, Congress think any provision necessary to effectuate the
Constitutional power of the government, they may establish it by law [31].
Thus, the positive meaning in the legal text “The United States v. Worrall”
have the next modal verbs: must, can and may. This modal verbs have the meaning
of advice, suggestion, ability and giving permission.
2.2.2 Modal verbs with negative meaning
24
 Negative meaning have the next modal verbs:
1) Lack of ability (can’t \ couldn’t):
… and unless he is convicted upon that, he cannot be convicted on the
second count … [31]
… and, by a parity of reasoning, he could not be punished in New
Jersey [31].
3) Refusing permission (can’t):
… for, the defendant, it is said, cannot be punished in Pennsylvania, because
the letter was delivered to Mr. Coxe in New Jersey [31].
4) Prohibition (can’t):
The criminal jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, which, wherever it exists, must
be exclusive of State jurisdiction, cannot, perhaps, fairly be held to operate
retrospectively [31].
5) Criticism (should):
Congress had undoubtedly a power to make a law, which should render it
criminal to offer a bribe to the Commissioner of the Revenue [31].
Thus, the modal verbs can’t, couldn’t and should have the negative meaning
and they express lack of ability, refusing permission, prohibition and criticism. These
modal verbs includes the negative participle not, but the verb should does not have.

2.2.3 Ambivalent modal verbs

The next group of modal verbs includes those that have a vague semantic
meaning, that is, they cannot be included either in verbs with a positive meaning, or
in verbs with a negative meaning. For example:
1) Obligation (must):
The writing and the delivery at the Post … must be considered, in effect, as
one act … [31]
2) Asking permission (might):
… and even as far as the forgery might be supposed to deceive the public
officers … [31].
25
 3) Offers (shall \ can \ could):
… and, consequently, it is not a subject on which the Judicial authority of the
Union can operate [31].
… could thus be made by fraud, the experiment of force might next be
applied [31].
… but, likewise, to all such as shall arise under the laws of the United
States [31].
4) Logical assumptions (must \ can’t \ must have been):
… but the offence must, also, appear to be legally defined, and it must have
been committed within the jurisdiction of the Court, which undertakes to try and
punish it [31].
… and the very powers that are granted cannot take effect until they are
exercised through the medium of a law [31].
Thus, the ambivalent meaning have the next modal verbs: must, might, shall,
can, could, can’t and must have been. These modal verbs have such meaning, as
obligation, asking permission, offers, logical assumptions.

CONCLUSIONS

26
 The legal texts has a uniform style, contains business vocabulary, legal
terminology and specialized vocabulary. Legal texts are characterized by having a
clearly defined structure, using the present tense, Latin phrases, words of Old
English origin, verbs in the passive state etc.
Modality is about a speaker’s or a writer’s attitude towards the world. It
refers to the ways language can express various relationships to reality or truth.
The different types of English modal verbs meanings will be considered in
more detail in the following points of our study.
Legal texts based on the English Corpora material, especially in the Corpus
of US Supreme Court Opinions, were chosen to study the peculiarities of the modal
verbs use.
According to the results of the frequency of the modal verbs using in the
selected corpus, it was found that most often in legal texts such modal verbs are used
as may, can, could, will, would, shall, should, must. Modal verbs might, ought to,
need, dare are used much less often.
As the results of the legal text analysis prove, the modal verbs may, can,
could, will, would, shall, should, must and might are often used here. In the process
of research, there was not found such modal verbs as ought to, need and dare. The
modal verbs can, may, will, would, shall, must are most often used, than could,
should and might.
It is appropriate to divide modal verbs into three groups: 1) modal verbs with
the positive meaning (advice, suggestion, giving permission); 2) modal prepositions
with the negative meaning, refusing permission, prohibition, criticism); 3) the
ambivalent modal verbs, asking permission, offers, logical assumptions).
The positive meaning in the legal text “The United States v. Worrall” have
the next modal verbs: must, can and may. This modal verbs have the meaning of
advice, suggestion, ability and giving permission.
The modal verbs can’t, couldn’t and should have the negative meaning and
they express lack of ability, refusing permission, prohibition and criticism. These
modal verbs includes the negative participle not, but the verb should does not have.
27
 The ambivalent meaning have the next modal verbs: must, might, shall, can,
could, can’t and must have been. These modal verbs have such meaning, as
obligation, asking permission, offers, logical assumptions.

References

28
 1. Варенко Т. К. Мовні засоби вираження модальності у жанрі фентезі
(на матеріалі романів С. Мейер) / Вісник ХНУ. №1022. Харків : 2012. С. 136–
140.
2. Вус Н. Й. Модальність та її трактування у працях дослідників /
Слов’янський збірник. Одеса : 2006. Вип. 12. 128 с.
3. Глущик С. В. Сучасні ділові папери. Київ : Літера, 2013. 415 с.
4. Клименко І. Юридичний текст в аспекті перекладу. URL :
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/268530981.pdf (дата звернення: 03.10.2022).
5. Помазан О. Модальність. URL :
file:///C:/Users/Admin/Downloads/3898-%D0%A2%D0%B5%D0%BA
%D1%81%D1%82%20%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%82%D1%96-
7833-1-10-20170613.pdf (дата звернення: 03.10.2022).
6. Правдівцева Ю. С. Розкриття функцій модальності під час перекладу
англійського тексту / Наукові записки Національного університету «Острозька
академія». 2014. Вип. 45. С. 308-310.
7. Ралдугіна К. О. Модальність як логіко-філософська та лінгвістична
категорія / Вісник Запорізького національного університету. Запоріжжя : 2008.
№1. С. 156–161.
8. Рецкер Я. И. Теорія перекладу і перекладацька практика. Нариси
лінгвістичної теорії перекладу. М. : «Р.Валент», 2006. 240 с.
9. Роєнко Л. Особливості перекладу юридичних текстів / Актуальні
питання іноземної філології. Вип. 15, 2021. С. 91-96. URL :
https://er.knutd.edu.ua/bitstream/123456789/19648/1/Роєнко_Горлатова_Редько_О
собливості_перекладу_юридичних_текстів.pdf (дата звернення: 03.10.2022).
10. Advice (ought to \ must). URL : https://usefulenglish.ru/grammar/advice-
should-ought-to-had-better (Last accessed: 02.10.2022).
11. Bobrova N. Peculiarities of the English Legal Text Discourse: The Issues
of Interpretation and Translatability. URL :
file:///C:/Users/Admin/Downloads/Peculiarities_of_the_English_Legal_Text_Discou
rse_.pdf (Last accessed: 02.10.2022).
29
 12. Can / Could (permission – request – suggestion). URL :
https://ru.stegmax.com/grammar/modal-verbs/can-could-permission-request-
suggestion/ (Last accessed: 02.10.2022).
13. CHISHOLM v. STATE OF GA. URL : https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-
supreme-court/2/419.html (Last accessed: 02.10.2022).
14. Corpus of US Supreme Court Opinions. URL : https://www.english-
corpora.org/scotus/ (Last accessed: 02.10.2022).
15. Easterbrook F. Reading law: the interpretation of legal texts. URL :
https://jm919846758.files.wordpress.com/2020/09/rlilt.pdf (Last accessed:
02.10.2022).
16. English Corpora. URL : https://www.english-corpora.org (Last accessed:
02.10.2022).
17. GIBBONS v. OGDEN. URL : http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-
court/22/1.html (Last accessed: 02.10.2022).
18. HOLLINGSWORTH v. STATE OF VIRGINIA. URL :
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/3/378.html (Last accessed:
02.10.2022).
19. Horner School of English. URL :
https://www.hornerschool.com/expressing-obligation/#:~:text=Strong
%20Obligation&text=Often%20learners%20have%20difficulties%20with,is
%20used%20for%20external%20obligations. (Last accessed: 02.10.2022).
20. HYLTON v. US. URL :
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/3/171.html (Last accessed:
02.10.2022).
21. Lack of necessity. URL : https://english4real.com/grammar-modals-
neednt.html (Last accessed: 02.10.2022).
22. Leech G. Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman, 1983.
23. Liuolienė A. LEGAL ENGLISH AND ADAPTED LEGAL TEXTS.
URL :

30
file:///C:/Users/Admin/Downloads/Legal_English_and_Adapted_Legal_Texts.pd f
(Last accessed: 02.10.2022).
24. Lyons J. Semantics. Cambridge University Press. 1977.
25. Mellinkoff, D. The Language of the Law. Boston : Little Brown, 1963.
526 p.
26. Modal verbs and modality. URL :
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/modal-verbs-and-
modality (Last accessed: 02.10.2022).
27. Mukhaini Y. Modality in legal texts. 2008. 39 p. URL :
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/11933525.pdf (Last accessed: 02.10.2022).
28. Palmer F. R. Modality and the English modals. London and New York:
Longman, 1990.
29. PALMER v. THOMPSON. URL : https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-
supreme-court/403/217.html (Last accessed: 02.10.2022).
30. Skrypnyk A. V. Lexical and grammatical means of expressing modality.
URL : https://elib.bsu.by/bitstream/123456789/165069/1/Skrypnyk_A.V.
%20LEXICAL%20AND%20GRAMMATICAL%20MEANS%20OF
%20EXPRESSING%20MODALITY%20%28BASED%20ON%20ENGLISH
%20ISTRUCTIONS%29.PDF (Last accessed: 02.10.2022).
31. THE UNITED STATES v. WORRALL. URL :
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/2/384.html (Last accessed:
02.10.2022).
32. Qian L. A Corpus-Based Study of Modal Verbs Use in English Writing
by EFL Learners. URL : https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/236293747.pdf (Last
accessed: 02.10.2022).
33. VANHORNE'S LESSEE v. DORRANCE. URL :
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/2/304.html (Last accessed:
02.10.2022).

31
32