Modals of Probability
Academic Modals of Probability
The core modal verbs used in academic writing are: can and could; may and might; shall and should; will and would. Each pair is the present tense form, and the second is the past tense form. The past tense forms (e.g. could, would etc.) are generally understood as more hypothetical, tentative and polite than the equivalent present tense forms.
In academic writing, these common modal verbs fall into the following three ‘meaning groups’:
- Possibility: can/could, may/might
- Necessity: should
- Prediction: will/would
Modal Summary
As you see, there are four modals that express 'possibility'. Consider the summary of tenses link below, paying attention to the difference between the may/might and can/could modals: Summary of Academic Modals
Modal Usage
As well as being used to adjust levels probability, modal verbs can also make a statement more tentative or less straightforward. Writers often use modal verbs in this way when they want to soften the effect of their statement, with a view to protecting the statement from attack. In the academic world, this use of modals is called 'hedging'.
Oxford Conclusion Examples
Modals & Hedging
Example 1
"The question of how cases outside the civil liberties issue area are decided has not been addressed, and such cases are decided less attitudinally than civil liberties cases; Segal et al. (1995) find less convincing results for economic issues than civil liberties issues. Equally it has been assumed that judicial civil liberties attitudes can be represented on a unidimensional scale, and, as the results have indicated, this is open to question."
Example 2
The question of how cases outside the civil liberties issue area are decided has not been addressed, and it might be that such cases are decided relatively less attitudinally than civil liberties cases; Segal et al. (1995) find somewhat less convincing results for economic issues than civil liberties issues. Equally it has been assumed that judicial civil liberties attitudes can be represented on a unidimensional scale, and, as the results have implied, this may well be open to question.
Analysis
Example 1 is 'unhedged', and appears more assured and direct. Example 2 is 'hedged', and the statements are put across in a more cautious way. The modals that are used for hedging are highlighted in bold.
Note: There are other hedging constructions used in Example 2. To review these, please see Hedging.
Common functions of modal use
Excerpts from MPLS Writing:
ExcerptAnalysis
Microstructurally, doping could disrupt the hexagonal aromatic network and thus reduce the area contributing to friction around the fibre, thereby increasing path tortuosity and the amount of work to fail the material.
Theoretical Possibility: We don't know if it ever happens
The writer makes a truth claim but does so in a speculative manner. "might" and "could" are synonymous in this usage.
This use of "could" represents speculation, so "can" can not be used here: "can" would imply that it sometimes happens for sure.
This is sometimes called "hypothesising": the writer states a theoretical possibility that requires further testing to investigate.
Similarly, variations in interfacial shear stresses found in fibres of similar environments may be due to the variations in thermal residual stresses between the BN coating and the fibre from processing.
Factual Possibility
This explanation sounds more sure than the excerpt above because the writer uses "may". Thus, they indicate more certainty than if they had used "might". It is likely the writer, whilst not fully sure, has some reason to believe the statement.
This could also be called "hypothesising": the writer states a possibility that requires further testing to confirm. Although in this case, the writer appears to suspect that the claim is true rather than the speculative example of "could" shown above here.
The larger spread on the BN interlayer might have also been due to the increased probability of probing the neighbouring SiC fibre or matrix (geometric constraints), thus requiring an upper-limit censoring of the raw data.
Theoretical Possibility: Something that happened in the past
The writer seeks to explain one of their own findings.
"might have" is used to talk about findings framed in past tense in the form: "A phenomenon occurred ... (that) might have been because ..."
Over time, the BN interphase coating can degrade due to cyclic loading and environmental exposures as a result of frictional heating and oxidation. These can change the properties of the fibre interphase resulting in regions that are embrittled or have poor load sharing.
Theoretical Possibility: It sometimes happens but not always
The first "can" is used here to indicate that BN interphase coating does not always degrade, but that it sometimes does.
The second "can" indicates that "frictional heating and oxidation" do not always "change the properties ..." but that it sometimes does.
The push-out (or push-through) technique must not be confused with the push-in (or push-down) technique.
Fibre coatings must be relatively thin (under 500 nm) in order to trigger the aforementioned fibre debonding30 and maximise failure strains without hindering the ultimate strength properties.
Logical Necessity: Writer makes a strong recommendation
"Must" is used here to recommend important actions in a scientific process.
"Must" is a stronger direction than "should" when recommending: by using "must", the writer's own voice is heard clearly as they send an unambiguous instruction to their fellow researchers. Perhaps they chose "must" to guide others away from a potential pitfall.
It was found that the added presence of water had more noticeable repercussions on the micro-mechanical performance, when contrasted to heightened temperature exposure in vacuum. This suggested that future tests on the CMC for lifing purposes should be performed with steam-exposure, in-situ. Indeed, despite results from these chapters, the dominating failure mechanism still needs to be observed.
Logical Necessity: Writer makes uncontroversial recommendations
As is common in the final moves of a conclusion, this writer outlines their own views regarding future research directions. By using "should" and "need", they signal their own views clearly (i.e., their writer's voice is clear) in a message to future researchers.
The writer selects "should" rather than "must" presumably because they do not see any reason to emphasise this point (perhaps because the recommendation is fairly uncontroversial and likely to be accepted easily by others).
Excerpts from Social Science Writing:
ExcerptAnalysis
However, while distance itself may not be an adequate proxy for the level of choice being exercised, the extent to which pupils are foregoing the nearest school might serve as a more reliable indicator of 'active choice' (Echols et at, 1990; Smith et al, 1999; Taylor, 2001).
Factual Possibility: The writer has some reason to believe something is true
The writer uses "may not" to mark an assumption: They have reason to believe this claim; however, they are not confident enough in the claim to state "distance is not an adequate proxy".
Theoretical Possibility: We don't know if it ever happens
The writer then offers an alternative view, using "might" to indicate a speculative hypothesis, which they then go on to address in the following text.
... an empirical analysis of market impacts would require both an agreed definition of what constitutes segregation/polarization ... and a method of 'proportionate analysis' that could control for economic and demographic influences on the variables of interest (Gorard, 2000b).
Prediction: What would happen, if the world were different
This excerpt makes an argument by imagining a better world. The reality is that there is no "empirical analysis of market impacts" in this context. The implied condition is "if there were an empirical analysis of market impacts".
Here, "could" refers to the ability of something, if the world were different.
The practical implications of whether disadvantaged pupils are concentrated in a few failing schools or across many sub-par schools can be of great importance to policy ...
Theoretical Possibility: It sometimes happens but not always
The writer's choice of "can be of great importance" suggests it is sometimes of great importance but always. The writer chooses to avoid the stronger claim "is of great importance", perhaps because they cannot be sure that this is true in all cases.
Further research on the impact of choice is needed in order to elucidate more effectively the benefits before and after the institution of legislative reform. Such research, which must rely upon more heavily quantitative calculations of school compositions, has begun during the past five years ...
Logical Necessity
As is common in the final moves of a conclusion, this writer outlines their own views regarding future research directions. By using the semi-modal verb "need" and the modal verb "must", they signal their own views clearly (i.e., their writer's voice is clear).
"need" indicates that the writer sees "[f]urther research on the impact of choice" as necessary.
"must" is stronger than need and indicates the writer's personal view that "rely[ing] upon more heavily quantitative calculations" is essential.