|
This paper investigates how ought to is used in the movies Rocky III (1982), The Parent Trap (1998), Days of Thunder (1990), and some others. Discussions of should/ought to distinction (e.g., Coates, 1983; Myhill, 1997; Palmer, 1990; Westney, 1995) typically center around two issues: deonticity vs. epistemicity, and degree of subjectivity. Using the data, this paper argues for the need to recognize a third: emotionality. As a step toward enriching our understanding of ought to, this study provides a general description of how the target modal has been interpreted in previous studies. Many scholars claim that ought to is an equivalent to should and that there is hardly any difference in meaning between the modal verbs. As an instance of this, previous theories assert that both of the two modals carry the 'sense of obligation' and thus are semantically interchangeable in tag questions. It should be pointed out, however, that in this case grammar overrides meaning. As Bolinger (1977) points out, different forms have different meanings and this applies to the distinction between the two modals. The movie dialogs that have been used in this study are taken from the English movie caption database, which contains 801 million words from 978 English films. They help illustrate the characteristic of the semi-modal shown in the speaker's expression. Based on the discussion, this paper suggests that when teaching ought to the trait of the modal should be introduced in a pre-presentation stage and then should be engaged in output practice, thus exposing learners to input and output activities. |
PDF Links
Full text via DOI
Download Citation
