抄録
This paper will give a semantic account of the following contrast: purpose clauses introduced by ‘so that’—containing modals such as will/would, can/could and may/might—have illocutionary force as intention, whereas result clauses followed by ‘so that’ imply the factual rather than putative idea. The claim will be made that it is a fallacy to assume that there is some difference between the two semantically as well as syntactically.
This discussion has two theoretical implications. One is that these clauses overlap in meaning; both express result—at a result. The other is that the choice of auxiliary modals depends upon a characteristic and behaviour in itself.
