Necessity and Obligation Modals in English Academic Discourse: A Corpus-Based Analysis

Ikmi Nur Oktavianti


Modals are linguistic units that seem to be ubiquitous in nearly all genres and text categories. However, there are some tendencies in which some modals are more likely to occur in a particular text category than the others. It is said that modals are less frequent in academic texts compared to fiction and news. This paper then aims at describing the modals, focusing to those expressing necessity/obligation, by using corpus-based analysis. This study uses a general reference corpus, Corpus of Contemporary American English, and compiled the data from the academic subcorpus. The results show that statistically the usage frequency of necessity and obligation modals is negligible; however, no matter how small it is, it still purports to mark something. Among the modals in the same category there are some tendencies, e.g. modal should is the most frequent of all, followed by must, have to, shall, be supposed to, and have got to. The collocate analysis focuses on should and must and found out that the most frequent verb type following these two modals belong to thinking verbs (e.g., consider, learn, understand). However the most frequent modal constructions are should have and must have enabling a slightly different interpretation. Besides, due to the nature of language in an academic setting, it is thus predictable that the use of the core modals (e.g., should, must) is more frequent than the quasi-modals (e.g., have to).


academic text, corpus, , modals, necessity, obligation

Full Text:



Allen, R. (1980). Socrates and legal obligation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Azar, B., & Hagen, S. (2016). Understanding and using English grammar. London: Pearson Education.

Baker, P. (2011). Times may change, but we will always have money: Diachronic variation in recent British English. Journal of English Linguistics, 39(1), 65–88.

Bednarek, M., & Caple, H. (2012). News Discourse. London: Continuum.

Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2016). Grammatical Complexity in Academic English. Grammatical Complexity in Academic English.

Biber, D., & Quirk, R. (Eds.). (2012). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.

Brezina, V. (2018). Statistics in corpus linguistics a practical guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Carrió-pastor, M. L. (2007). Cross-cultural Variation in the Use of Modal Verbs in Academic English. 27, 153–166.

Chafe, W. L. (1970). Meaning and the structure of language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Coates, J. (1983). The semantics of modal auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.

Collins, P. (2009). Modals and quasi-modals in English. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Collins, P. (2014). Quasi-modals and Modals in Australian English Fiction 1800-1999, with Comparisons across British and American English. Journal of English Linguistics, 42(1), 7–30.

Crompton, P. (1997). Hedging in academic writing: Some theoretical problems. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 271–287.

Daugs, R. (2017). On the development of modals and semi-modals in American English in the 19th and 20th centuries. Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English2, 19.

Davies, M. (2004). BYU-BNC (Based on the British National Corpus from Oxford University Press. Retrieved from

Davies, M. (2008). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) 560 million words. Retrieved from

Deakin, N. (2005). Civil society. In P. Addison & H. Jones (Eds.), A Companion to Contemporary Britain 1939-2000. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Dixon, R. M. W. (2005). A Semantic Approach to English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dudley-Evans, T. (1994). Academic text: The importance of the use and comprehension of hedges. ASp, (5–6), 131–139.

Eastwood, J. (2002). Oxford Guide to English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gabrielatos, C., & McEnery, T. (2005). Epistemic modality in MA dissertations. Lengua y Sociedad: Investigaciones Recientes En Lingüística Aplicada, (Lingüística y Filología no. 61), 311–331.

Gahér, F. (2003). Logical, scientific and real possibility. In H. Rott & V. Horák (Eds.), Possibility and reality. Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag.

Hardjanto, T. D. (2016). Hedging Through the Use of Modal Auxiliaries in English Academic Discourse. Jurnal Humaniora, 28(1), 37.

Hinkel, E. (2009). The effects of essay topics on modal verb uses in L1 and L2 academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(4), 667–683.

Historical Thesaurus of English. (2016). Retrieved from

Hykes, J. M. (2000). A comparison of the use of modal verbs in research articles by professionals and non-native speaking graduate students Part of the Bilingual, Multilingual, and Multicultural Education Commons, English Language and Literature Commons, and the First and Sec. Retrieved from

Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in academic writing and EAF textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 13(3), 239–256.

Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in Scientific Research Articles.

Hyland, K. (2009). Academic Discourse English in a Global Context. London: Continuum.

Leech, G., Hundt, M., Mair, C., & Smith, N. (2009). Change in contemporary english: a grammatical study.

Leech, G., & Short, M. (2007). Style in Fiction. New York: Pearson Longman.

Levin, B. (1993). English Verb Class and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation.

Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics: Volume II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mcenery, T. (2018). Corpus Linguistics: Methods, Analysis, Interpretation.

Mcenery, T., & Kifle, N. . (2001). Epistemic modality in essays of second-language writers. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic Discourse. London: Routledge.

Murphy, R. (2012). English grammar in use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Oktavianti, I. N. (2019). Verba bantu modal bahasa Inggris: karakteristik, pemakaian dan perubahan. Universitas Gadjah Mada.

Oxford Dictionary of English [computer program]. (2014). Retrieved from

Palmer, F. R. (1990). Modality and the English modals (second edition). London: Longman.

Pavey, E. L. (2010). The structure of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rajalahti, K. (2006). The modals and the quasi-modals of necessity and obligation in the Phillipine and Singapor English. University of Tampere.

Sanjaya, I. N. S., Sitawati, A. A. R., & Suciani, N. K. (2015). Comparing Hedges Used By English and Indonesian Scholars in Published Research Articles: a Corpus-Based Study. TEFLIN Journal -26(2), 209.

Stake, R. . (2010). Qualitative research: Studying how things work. New York: Guilford Press.

Tagliamonte, S. (2013). Roots of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tagliamonte, S., & D’Arcy, A. (2007). The modals of obligation/necessity in Canadian perspective. English World Wide, 28(1), 47–78.

Yamamoto, N. (1999). The use of modals in ESL academic writing. California State University.

Yang, X. (2018). A Corpus-based Study of Modal Verbs in Chinese Learners’ Academic Writing. English Language Teaching, 11(2), 122.

Zimmerman, M. J. (1996). The concept of moral obligation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
IJELTAL (Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics) by is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.


Abstracting and Indexing


Contact Us: IJELTAL (Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics;

Address: Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Sultan Aji Muhammad Idris State Islamic University of Samarinda

Jl. H.A.M. Rifadin, Samarinda, Kalimantan Timur, Indonesia. Email: