1. Introduction

The expressions of modality are widely available as modality is universal and can be seen in almost every language. Nevertheless, the formation and level of complexity of these expressions might vary significantly from one language to another. The focus of this investigation is to demonstrate the concept of modality in English in comparison to Behdini-Kurdish, which is a dialect of Kurdish that is mainly spoken in the Duhok governorate. Modal auxiliary verbs, as established and confirmed by linguists and researchers, are the greatest source of difficulty and challenge for the majority of students learning English as a second language who come from a variety of various linguistic backgrounds (Chandra Bose 2005; Celece- Murcia and Larsern-Freeman 1999). The challenges and difficulties that Kurdish students encounter when mastering modality is the core of the problem highlighted by this study. Challenges can be attributed to the fact that, unlike English, the Kurdish language lacks both form and function modal auxiliary verbs. Furthermore, English modal auxiliaries have a wide range of interpretations. They have more than one meaning, and each interpretation may belong to a related system, which can cause linguistic ambiguity for those learning English. The purpose of this study is to compare and contrast modality as it is expressed in English and Kurdish in order to highlight any similarities and dissimilarities between the two languages.

2. Modality in English

There has been a significant amount of research conducted on modal verbs in the English language. Some notable examples include those conducted by Halliday (1970), Quirk and Greenbaum (1973), Lyons (1977), Von Fintel (1977) Leech (1987), Palmer (1990), and Kreidler (1999). All of these studies have attempted to examine modality by highlighting the multiple applications of modal verbs and the modality type represented by each modal auxiliary verb. In accordance with the classification conducted by Palmer (1979), modals have been classified as deontic, dynamic, and epistemic. According to him, deontic verbs convey needs, desires, mandates, permission, and duty. Conversely, dynamic modals denote a potential action or transformation in an actual status. Moreover, the modals of the speaker-oriented are identified as epistemic modals and are classified as a distinct category. Since both deontic and dynamic modal verbs are agent-oriented, they fall within the larger category of root modals (Bybee and Fleischman, 1995; Bybee, Perkins, Pagliuca, 1994). The semantic roles of modal verbs have been classified into six separate groups, as stated by von Fintel (2006). Epistemic, deontic, dynamic, boulomaic, teleological, and alethic categories have been collected, synthesized, and introduced into a model of collective notion provided by other scholars. Other researchers have aimed to provide a precise account of how each modal is utilized in various settings; Leech's (1987) theory is likely the best-known of these. He categorizes modal auxiliary into two different groups: epistemic and deontic. Epistemic modalities may be employed to explore "the probability, impossibility, or possibility of a certain notion. However, "Deontic modality indicates "the need for a person to perform or not in a particular manner."

Based on the kind of modals that are employed, their position in the sentence, the meaning of the sentence that is independent of the modal, and the context they are in, modals can express a variety of interpretations, including request, obligation, probability, permission, ability, possibility, and necessity which are all highly crucial in the daily conversation. To illustrate, consider sentences 1- 6 in Table 1.

Table 1. Modals in English

Sentences	Modality
(1) You must not smoke in school.	Obligation
(2) She might be in the shower.	Possibility
(3) They should make it to the flight if they go now.	Probability
(4) Alice can speak Russian.	Ability
(5) Could you please help me to fix my car?	Request
(6) You must pay your bill soon.	Necessity

Furthermore, modal operators like may, might, must, can, could, shall, should, will, would, and ought, as well as the semi-modals need and dare, might have distinct meanings based on the context. In order to shed light on the criteria mentioned above, the researcher provides some illustrations in sentences 7 and 8. It is essential to be noted that the examples are the author's own.

(7) John was absent today. He must be sick.

(8) Abiding by the new regulations, students must wear uniforms from now on.

In (7), must takes the form of an interpretation of how things should be; the speaker believes that it is possible/probable that John is sick, since he was absent. In (8), however, the speaker concludes that students are obliged to wear uniforms because it has been commanded by regulation, and this is viewed as a statement of reasoned conclusion.

Modality, based on the view of Steel et al. (1981), is typically used to represent any of the following semantic meanings:

- Probability and the associated concept of Obligation

- Certainty and its related idea, "Requirement,” and

- Possibility and the associated concept of Permission

In addition, modality in English is not limited to modal auxiliaries only (Toma & Simo, 2020). They contain modal adverbs like possibly, probably, and certainly; adjectives like possible or probable; verbs that take complements like suppose and think; and modal nouns like probability and possibility. To support this statement, the following examples are provided:

(9) Possibly she is looking for an answer.

(10)Jack would probably recognize the fastest way.

(11) The snake that bit her was certainly poisonous. (Marriam, 2002)

(12) Is it possible to end the war?

(13) Alice believes it is more probable that the pen belongs to Tom, her brother.

(14) I suppose Iraq’s economy depends solely on oil.

(15) I think we have gone through a lot lately.

(16) The probability is that gold prices will decrease.

(17) I am thinking about the possibility of getting married.

Lyons (1977) classifies modals into two categories: epistemic and deontic, which are widely recognized and considered the two semantically most essential forms of modality (van der Auwera & Plungian 1998) that are expressed by various linguistic elements (Suhadi 2011).

2.1 Deontic Modality

The Greek words "deont, deon," which mean an obligation, are the source of the modern word "deontic." This word, however, is drawn from the context of permission and obligation. Agent-oriented acts are of significance to deontic modals, as stated by Lyons (1977, p. 792). Modals like may, should, and "must" reveal whether the notion given by a command is acceptable, strongly advised, or obligated according to some normative framework like morality, convention, law, etc. Should/ought to, daren't, needn't, and shall are auxiliaries for the task at hand, while must, may, and can are used for requesting and granting permission.

Deontic modality, like epistemic modality, can be defined in terms of the degree of duty involved. We can categorize deontic modals as follows: necessity, advisability, and possibility (permission).

2.1.1 Deontic Possibility

The lowest amount of obligation is expressed by deontic possibility, which is permission. The following are some of the various linguistic contexts in which this form of deontic modal can be understood:

2.1.1.1 Modal

It is possible to interpret the meaning of deontic possibility primarily through modals. May and Can are modal verbs that communicate deontic permission and possibility.

(18) Students may bring their calculators to the exam room.

2.1.1.2 Clause with Adjective

The deontic possibility can be expressed in a clause with the adjective "possible" in it.

(19) It is possible that they will have to return to the office soon.

2.1.1.3 Clause with Past Participle

A clause with the past participle permitted or allowed could be interpreted as expressing a deontic possibility.

(20) They are allowed to open their dictionaries during the reading exam.

2.1.2 Deontic Advisability

The intermediary level of obligation, represented by the following linguistic features, is known as deontic advisability.

2.1.2.1 Modal

Should and ought to serve as interpretive operators for deontic advisability.

(21) Professional drivers should always examine their cars before they go far.

2.1.2.2 Clause with an adjective

Deontic advisability can be realized by the use of a clause containing the adjective advisable with an infinitive or a that-clause.

(22) It is advisable for you to do a lot of exercise.

(23) It is advisable that you prepare well for the conference.

2.1.2.3 Clause with Past Participle

A clause carrying an infinitive or that clause headed by past participles such as advised, suggested, and supposed might be viewed as having deontic advisability.

(24) Better policies are suggested to solve the global inflation issue.

2.1.3 Deontic Necessity

Deontic necessity is a commitment expressing an extreme obligation, and it is communicated through many linguistic markers such as:

2.1.3.1 Modal

Deontic necessity can be demonstrated by using the modals must, have to, ought to, and need.

(25) Students have to wear their badges before they enter the university campus.

2.1.3.2 Clause with Adjective

Adjectives like "necessary," "urgent," "compulsory," and "obligatory" placed before an infinitive or that clause can also communicate deontic necessity.

(26) It is urgent to send the files before arranging the invoice.

2.1.3.3 Clause with Noun

Deontic necessity can be realized by a clause with the nouns obligation and necessity or a that-clause with the impersonal it as the antecedent.

(27) It is the obligation of parents to take good care of their children.

2.1.3.4 Clause with Past Participle

Deontic necessity may be conveyed by the occurrence of the past participles required and obliged after a Deontic infinitive or that clause within a phrase.

(28) The employees are obliged to wear masks inside the company building.

2.2 Epistemic Modality

The term epistemic derives from the Greek word "episteme," which signifies "knowledge." And it is related to the speaker's judgment and evaluation of the level of certainty on a proposition. Epistemic modality is also concerned with indicating how the speakers communicate their doubts, guesses, and certainties. The two primary forms of epistemic modals are past and non-past: can't, couldn't, will, would, must, may, might, needn't, daren't, should, and ought to, which enables speakers to communicate 'possibility,' 'probability,' 'deduction,' and 'certainty' Berk (1999).

The degree of certainty determines how epistemic modals are interpreted: probability (see 29), certainty (see 30), and possibility (see 31).

(29) Probably, it will not rain as heavily this winter as the previous one.

(30) With the new signings, Barcelona will definitely win many trophies this year.

(31) Perhaps, Messi will return to Barcelona to retire there next year.

2.2.1 Epistemic Certainty

Epistemic certainty is the highest level of confidence that can be placed in a proposition based on the speaker's comprehension of that proposition. It can be distributed through a variety of linguistic qualities, including the following:

2.2.1.1 Modals

The modal operators must and will are frequently employed when expressing epistemic certainty

(32) His manager will be disappointed as he has not completed his work after three months.

2.2.1.2 Modal Adjunct

Epistemic certainty can be conveyed by the use of modal adjuncts such as definitely, certainly, and surely.

(33) The dinner is certainly well-prepared. It was cooked for fifty minutes.

2.2.1.3 The combination of modal adjuncts and modals

Modals and modal adjuncts combination can represent epistemic certainty.

(34) The seminar will definitely be held next Sunday.

2.2.1.4 Conditional Clause

The realization of epistemic certainty can also be expressed in the form of a conditional clause. If one thing happens, another is nearly guaranteed to follow.

(35) If I cross the international dateline, the time will change.

2.2.1.5 Clause with Noun

A clause beginning with there and ending with the word certainty might imply epistemic certainty.

(36) There is a certainty that capitalism will collapse one day.

2.2.1.6 Clause with Past Participle

Realization of epistemic certainty can also occur in the form of a clause containing an infinitive or that-clause preceded by the past participle. It can also be stated that it is the nature/the meaning of the past participle that determines whether it is an epistemic certainty in question or not.

(37) It is confirmed that the Ministry of Higher Education will commence a new program for studying MA and Ph.D. in the region’s universities.

2.2.1.7 Lexical Verbs

Epistemic certainty may also be obtained through the use of lexical verbs such as believe and guarantee.

(38) Following the global financial crisis, the company manager guarantees to pay all his employees on time.

2.2.1.8 Lexico-Modal Auxiliaries

It is possible to determine epistemic certainty by making use of lexico-modal auxiliaries such as "be sure to," "be bound to," and "be certain to."

(39) He is certain to win the race.

2.2.2 Epistemic possibility

The term "epistemic possibility" refers to the minimal level of assurance in a statement depending on the speaker's comprehension of it and is expressed by several linguistic features, some of which are listed below:

2.2.2.1 Modal adjuncts

Modal adjuncts like maybe, possibly, and perhaps can convey the epistemic possibility meaning.

(40) Perhaps, the conference will be held next Wednesday.

2.2.2.2 Modals

Modal operators, such as can, could, may, and might, are another way to represent epistemic possibility.

(41) She could finish her project tomorrow.

2.2.2.3 Combination of Modal and modal Adjunct

Combining modals with modal adjuncts is an additional way of expressing epistemic possibility.

(42) New teachers from abroad may possibly arrive next week.

2.2.2.4 Conditional Clause

A conditional clause can represent the epistemic possibility. When one event occurs, it's quite certain that another will follow.

(43) If I win the lottery, I may travel to Switzerland.

2.2.2.5 Clause with Noun

The realization of the epistemic possibility takes the form of a clause starting with there, followed by the word possibility, and a that-clause.

(44) There is a possibility that Mike will come late today.

2.2.2.6 Clause with Past Participle

It is also possible to convey epistemic modality through the use of a clause with the verb “allowed” past participle that is followed by a base.

(45) The kid was allowed to use the tablet for 30 minutes.

2.2.2.7 Clause with Adjective

An epistemic possibility can be realized in a clause that begins with the adjective possible and follows with either an infinitive or a that-clause.

(46) It is possible that there will be elections again by the end of the next year.

2.2.2.8 lexical verbs

The lexical verbs suppose, guess, and think are also representations of epistemic probability.

(47) I suppose we will finish the project before the deadline.

2.3 Modals in a different situation from usual

Some English modals may have relative meaning in terms of deontic and epistemic modals; this can cause ambiguity and misunderstanding for English language learners. In order to confirm such an argument, the following modals are provided.

2.3.1 Can / Could

The modal operators can and could have contextual meaning because can in the positive form is never epistemic (Coates, 1983). Palmer (1990) argues that using can and could in epistemic modalities is difficult and problematic. Additionally, epistemic is only ever expressed in non-assertion structures (Goossens, 1979). In interrogative constructions, can can be employed epistemically to convey surprise, confusion, or uncertainty.

(48) Can he be kidding?

Can in (48) also conveys the epistemic possibility

(49) A. They can easily get lost in this city.

(49) B. You can leave now.

However, in (49B), it carries the meaning of deontic possibility, which means that it is possible for the addressee or he/she is allowed to leave.

2.3.2 May / Might

Coates (1983) argues that the modal may could be used to show that the speaker is unsure of the truth or validity of a proposition. It also has the potential to bring about a sense of certainty.

(50) It may rain tomorrow.

(51) He may go to Duhok every day.

(52) You may take your exam papers with you.

In (50), if meteorologists use it, may carries epistemic certainty because it is supported by scientific evidence from an observation of the local climate. To show uncertainty about an event beyond human control, the speaker uses may instead of must, but tomorrow will definitely rain from a scientific perspective. The epistemic possibility is expressed, however, if the sentence is pronounced by a person with unusual background or experience.

Considering that he may be required to make the trip to Duhok daily, the modal operator may in (51) represents epistemic possibility. Moreover, it is to be noted that in this case phonological cues, such as stress, might also play a role in determining which of the two types of modality (epistemic or deontic) is indicated. However, as phonological cues are not within the main scope of this study, the point will not be investigated any further in this paper.

Moreover, the word may in (52), which is the lowest deontic modal expressing permission, implies that the students are authorized to take their exam sheets.

2.3.3 Should

The modal operator should also offers a variety of interpretations depending on the context.

(53) John is not picking up his phone. He should be sleepy.

(54) In winter you should always carry an umbrella with you.

Should has an epistemic connotation in (53) and a deontic meaning in (54), respectively.

2.3.4 Must

The modal operator must has a contextual meaning in both epistemic and deontic contexts.

(55) The meat has been grilled for fifteen minutes. It must be well-cooked.

(56) Students must submit their reports next week by the latest.

The use of must in (55) denotes a high level of epistemic certainty because, in most cases, meat grilled for 15 minutes will be thoroughly cooked. In contrast, the modal operator must in (56) conveys deontic meaning with the strongest sense of obligation since it is a requirement that all students at universities must adhere to.

3 Modality in Behdini-Kurdish

In Behdini-Kurdish, simple sentences are made up of just one verb, referred to by Warya (1996), which can carry three different moods: indicative, imperative, and subjunctive. According to (Kholi, 1982), the subjunctive mood employs modal auxiliaries, which are modal verbs that convey the speaker's attitude. In Behdini Kurdish, these verbs have lost their subjunctive/conditional aspect. In other words, they precede the subject of the sentence without taking any concord morphemes, aspects, or tense features. In light of this, their presence demonstrates that they are not auxiliary verbs but rather lexical items as they express a situation rather than providing assistance to the main verb. This is due to the fact that an auxiliary verb is a verb that helps the main verb in a sentence (Kholi, 1982). Accordingly, anything that comes before the subject of a sentence has to provide some kind of information about the context of the sentence and can be referred to in Kurdish as a "Reje” meaning “form," which performs the role of a lexical item rather than an auxiliary verb.

Consider the following examples.

(57) Di-vêt Ez bi-xwîn-im.

PRST-want I.ACC SUB-study-1SG

“I must study.”

(58) Min di-vêt Ez bi-xwîn-im.

I.ERG PRST-want I.ACC SUB-study-1SG

“I want to study.”

In (57) the verb “divêt" expresses the necessity that the speaker needs to study, thus it is a modal. However, in (58) as it follows the subject and turns the sentence into a complex sentence, which consists of a dependent and an independent clause; consequently, it acts more like a conjunction to combine two clauses together (Ahmed, 2020).

Furthermore, modal meaning is conveyed in distinct means of syntactic structure (Toma and Simo 2020), including:

Phrases (di şîyan daye, şîyan hene)

(59) Azad-î şîyan-ên jenîn-a gîtar-ê hene.

Azad-OBL ability-Ez playing-Ez guitar-OBL have

“Azad can play the guitar.

(60) Di şîyan da-ye sobe baran bi-bar-ît.

In possibility Prep.Ext-Cop tomorrow rain SUB-come-3SG

“It may rain tomorrow.”

Particles (pêdivîye, divêt, dibît, renge)

(61) Di-vêt pêgîrî-yê bi yasa-yê bi-kî

PRST-want obligation-Ez in law-OBL SUB-do

“You should abide by the law.”

(62) Dibît kompanî te wergrît.

Maybe company you.ERG take

“The company may hire you.”

(63) Renge kompanî te wergrît.

May company you.ERG take

“The company may hire you.”

Lexical verbs (dişêt)

(64) Ew di-şêt du ziman-an b-axivît.

He.ACC PRST-can two language-Pl SUB-speak

“He can speak two languages.”

Modality can be delivered by adverbs of supposition and temporal adverbs:

(65) Weheye em bi-ç-în komb-î sube

May we SUB-go-3PL meeting-OBL tomorrow

“We may go to the meeting tomorrow.”

(66) Dibît ew jibîr bi-k-et ya te jê daxwaz kirî.

May he forgetting SUB-do-3SG Ez.FEM you from him asking did

“He/she may forget what you asked from his/her.”

Sentences (65) and (66) deliver uncertainty using modals outside and before the simple sentence. In (65), the speaker expresses the possibility that they may or may not go to the meeting tomorrow. In (66), the speaker is uncertain that he/she may forget what has been asked.

Modality is a particular mood that the speaker uses to express his/her attitude such as belkî, xozî, bêgoman, heker (Kholi, 1982).

(67) Xozî ez digel Lava-yê b-axiv-im

Hopefully I with Lava-OBL SUB-talk-1SG

“I wish I could talk to Lava.”

The word “Xozî” in sentence (67) is a word that is used to express modality rather than a verb.

(68) Divêt ez digel Lava-yê b-axi-vim.

Must I with Lava-OBL SUB-talk-1SG

“I have to talk to Lava.”

69. Çêdbît ez digel Lava-yê b-axi-vim.

Maybe I with Lava-OBL SUB-talk-1SG

“I may talk to Lava.”

However, the verbs divêt and çêdbît that are used before the simple sentences are modals expressing a situation of necessity and possibility.

3.1 Kurdish modals as equivalent to English modals

1. Kurdish phrases (çêdbît, weheye, dibît, renge) are in close proximity to English may. Their position in English is limited chiefly to following a subject or preceding a subject in an interrogative sentence. However, in Kurdish, they usually precede the sentence. In other words, Kurdish modals always occur at the beginning of the sentence.

(70)

a. Weheye ew li ofîs-ê b-it.

b. Dibît ew li ofîs-ê b-it.

c. Çêdibît ew li ofîs-ê b-it.

e. Renga ew li ofîs-ê b-it.

Maybe he in office-OBL be-3SG.

“He may be at the office.”

As highlighted in (70), all the above Kurdish expressions are parallel to the English may, which are used epistemically and precede a proposition.

The lexical verbs (dişet, dêstîrdayîne, roqsetdayine) are probably the closest equivalent to English can and may.

(71)

a. Ew dişen li vêrê rîn-in.

b. Ew dêstîrdayîne li vêrê rîn-in.

c. Ew roqsetdayine li vêrê rîn-in.

They can/may in here sit-3PL

“They may/can sit here.”

As for pênevêt, divêt, pêdivîye, fere, and bêgoman , must and should can be used as their closest equivalent, and for the past of pêdivîye ba, vîyaba, bêgoman- vîyaba, vîyaba, pêdivîye ba) must have + past participle, and should+ past participle are used as a close meanings to them.

(72)

a. Pêdivîye to qawîş-a silametî-yê girêd-ey.

b. Divêt to qawîş-a silametî-yê girêdey

c. Fere to qawîş-a silametî-yê girêdey

Must-is you belt-Ez.FEM safety-OBL fasten-3SG

“You must fasten your seatbelt.”

c. Bêgoman cigare kêşan dijurve çê-na-bît.

d. Pênevêt cigare kêşan dijurve çê-na-bît.

Certainly cigarette smoking indoors allowed-NEG-be

“You must not smoke indoors.”

The modal operator should can also share a similar meaning of divêt, pedivîye, bêgoman, and pênevêt, but, should, which is a weak obligation (Quirk et al. 1985) is applied to deliver necessity, probability, conditional, advise recommendation and commitment. In comparison, must is realized as a substantial obligation and unavoidable requirement.

(73)

a. Divêt tu hewildey piçek bi-nv-î.

b. Pedivîye tu hewildey piçek bi-nv-î.

Must-is you try some SUB-sleep-2SG

“You should try to get some sleep.”

The modal must in (72) conveys a strong obligation that the seatbelts have to be fastened, and no one can smoke indoors because it is illegal and not permitted. On the other hand, using should in (73) indicates a sense of advice and necessity that he/she needs to get some sleep as a result of tiredness or sleeplessness.

(74)

a. Pêdivî-bu rêveber hati-ba agehdarkirn ji layê teve.

b. Vîya-ba rêveber hati-ba agehdarkirn ji layê teve.

C. Fer-bu rêveber hati-ba agehdarkirn ji layê teve.

Must-was manager be-SUB informed by means you

“The manager should have been informed by you.”

(75)

a. Vîya-ba tu hati-ba-yî

b. Pêdivî-bu tu hati-ba-yî

c. Fer-bu tu hati-ba-yî

Must-was you SUB-come-2SG

“You should have come.”

In (74), must is applied to carry a sense of inference and a conclusion of an obligation that has to do with the past time status. Nevertheless, should in (75), mostly represents necessity and requirement that had to have happened in the past.

Conclusions

Several conclusions have resulted from this study. Comparative findings between English and Kurdish are presented in Table 2, below:

Table 2. Similarities and differences between English and Kurdish Modality

English	Kurdish
Modality is used to express necessity, ability, possibility, certainty, and obligation	Similarly, necessity, ability, possibility, certainty, and obligation are delivered by modality in the Behdini-Kurdish.
Modal auxiliaries are the primary tools for conveying modality meaning, and they are defined as shall, should, can, could, will, would, say, might, and must.	In Kurdish, the meaning of modality can be represented using a variety of syntactic patterns as Phrases (such as di şîyan daye, şîyan hene) Particles (such as pêdivîye, divêt, dibît, renge), and Lexical verbs (such as dişêt).
Modals in English are divided into two categories, epistemic and deontic, as both are widely recognized as the two semantically most prominent varieties of modality.	In contrast, no such categorical distinction between modals exists in Kurdish.
Modal auxiliaries are often placed after the subject and preceding the main verb.	Modals appear at the beginning of the sentence, preceding the subject, and are beyond a simple sentence.
Most modals in English can be used in more than one context or with more than one meaning. Examples of such words are can for indicating permission and ability and must for indicating an absolute obligation and certainty.	However, modality is only represented by the lexical word “dişêt,” which may be used interchangeably to denote both ability and permission in Kurdish.
In English, subject-verb inversion transforms the sentence into a question that functions as a request or permission.	Due to the fact that modals already precede the topic in Kurdish, interrogatives, permissions, and/or requests are not formed by placing modals before the subject, as they are in English.
Placing modals before the subject or between the subject and the verb does not influence the sentence type; even by moving the modals around, the type of sentence is maintained.	The modal appearing after the subject will change a simple sentence into a complex sentence containing two (dependent and independent) clauses.
In English, modals must precede the base form of the verb.	However, in Kurdish, they precede the subject with no specific role for the main verb.
In English, it is not acceptable to use modals as conjunctions when combining two clauses.	In Kurdish, on the other hand, modals can combine two clauses and create a complex sentence out of a simple one just by changing the place of modals in the sentence. Consider the following example: Min di-vêt Ez bi-xwîn-im. I.ERG PRST-want I.ACC SUB-study-1SG “I want to study.” The verb di-vêt follows the subject and turns the sentence into a complex sentence, which consists of a dependent and an independent clause; consequently, it acts more like a conjunction to combine two clauses together (Ahmed, 2020).
Different levels of obligation are expressed by modal verbs i.e., some modals are stronger than others. For example, must shows the strongest and highest level of obligation and commitment. Here the addressee has no options than to adhere to the regulations. On the contrary, should demonstrate a weaker level of commitment. Here should can be used to offer an advice where the addressee has the options whether to take the advice or ignore it.	However, no such level of obligation is found in Kurdish.
Some modals are contextual i.e., the context decides the level of commitment whether it is weak or strong. For example, (76) shall we watch a movie? (77) The company shall maintain quality standards or else it shall be closed. In (76) shall is employed to convey a suggestion which either can be accepted or declined by the addressee, while in (77) shall displays imposing terms and mandatory obligation where the addressee has no other choices than to abide by.	There is no such a case in Kurdish.