Give Me Your Tongue
B2 Upper IntermediateB2 · Module 03Class 10

B2 · Module 03 · Class 10 — How Certain Are You?

Narrative

The TechNova incident report has been submitted. The board has called an emergency session and wants Brian to present the findings in person. The problem: not all the facts are confirmed yet. The governance review is ongoing. Brian knows the outline of what happened, but attributing precise cause, timeline, or blame is premature.

Brian's task in this presentation is one of the hardest in professional English: giving the board enough certainty to feel informed, without overstating what he actually knows. Too vague and he looks like he is hiding something. Too certain and he gets caught out when the review fills in a different picture.

The language tool for this is epistemic modality — the grammar of degrees of certainty.


Epistemic Modality

Epistemic modality expresses the speaker's or writer's assessment of how certain, probable, or possible something is. In professional English, choosing the right modal or hedge is not just a grammar choice — it is a credibility choice.

 

1. The Certainty Scale — Modal Verbs

Modal verbs signal epistemic stance. The scale runs from logical deduction (must) to remote possibility (could/might).

 

Modal

Epistemic meaning

Example

must

logical deduction — only reasonable conclusion

"The flag must have reached the team lead — it was on the shared log."

will

confident prediction or strong inference

"This will have been an oversight in the handover process."

should

reasonable expectation based on procedure

"The escalation should have triggered automatically."

may

real possibility — writer considers it likely

"The delay may have been avoidable with earlier intervention."

might

weaker possibility — writer is less committed

"The resourcing decision might have been taken without full visibility."

could

theoretical possibility — writer is open, not committed

"A communication gap could account for the missing escalation."

 

Note: "must" for deduction is only used in affirmative sentences. For negative deduction ("it's impossible that"), use "can't have" or "couldn't have":

•  "That can't have been the original draft — the version number is wrong."

•  "He couldn't have known about the flag if it wasn't in the shared system."

 

2. Semi-Modals — appear to / seem to / tend to / be likely to / be bound to

These expressions hedge more softly than modal verbs. They suggest the speaker is reporting an impression or a pattern, not a certainty.

 

Semi-modal

Example

appear to

"The delay appears to have originated from a resourcing gap."

seem to

"The protocol seems to have been applied inconsistently."

tend to

"These escalation failures tend to occur during contractor transitions."

be likely to

"The review is likely to confirm the timeline we have outlined."

be bound to

"There will bound to be questions about the sign-off process."

be expected to

"The corrected delivery is expected to be confirmed by Friday."

 

3. Adverbial Hedges — calibrating certainty without a modal verb

Adverbs of epistemic stance modify the whole proposition. They work in both spoken and written registers.

 

Adverb

Certainty level

Example

certainly

very high — near certainty

"This certainly falls within our standard remediation process."

evidently

high — observable or on record

"The flag was evidently not passed to the steering committee."

presumably

moderate — reasonable assumption

"The contractor presumably handed over before leaving."

probably

moderate — more likely than not

"This probably won't affect the Q2 pipeline significantly."

apparently

reported — based on what others say

"Apparently, the version control issue had been flagged internally."

arguably

contested — reasonable but debatable

"This is arguably the most significant process failure this quarter."

conceivably

low — remote but not impossible

"A more rigorous mid-point review could conceivably have caught this."

 

4. Combining Attribution + Hedging

In formal presentations and reports, attribution (citing a source) combined with epistemic hedging produces the most precise and legally defensible statements.

 

Pattern: According to [source], [subject] may / appear to / is likely to + [verb phrase]

 

"According to the post-mortem, the resourcing shortfall may have begun as early as January."

"Based on the governance log, the flag appears to have been filed correctly — the failure was in escalation."

"As the review indicates, the timeline will likely need to be revised."

"In line with the preliminary findings, the delay is probably attributable to a single process gap."

 

Register comparison — Presenting an uncertain finding at four levels

 

● Level 1 — Board presentation (formal, hedged, precise):

   "Based on the preliminary findings, the resourcing gap may have originated in early February.

   This appears to have coincided with the contractor departure. The review will establish

   whether the escalation failure was systemic or isolated."

 

● Level 2 — Executive team briefing:

   "From what we can see, the staffing problem probably started around February. It looks like

   the flag that was raised didn't get through to the right people. We'll know more once

   the governance review is complete."

 

● Level 3 — Team discussion:

   "Sounds like the contractor left and things fell through the cracks. We think it started

   in February but we're still checking."

 

● Quick message:

   "February-ish. Still figuring out exactly what happened."

 

 

C   Vocabulary — Certainty and Evidence Language

Term

Meaning

Example in context

to corroborate

to confirm or support a claim with evidence

"The review will corroborate our initial assessment."

preliminary

early, before full information is available

"These are preliminary findings — not final conclusions."

indicative

suggesting but not proving a conclusion

"The data is indicative of a process gap, not negligence."

inconclusive

not leading to a clear conclusion

"The initial investigation was inconclusive on the root cause."

to substantiate

to provide evidence to support a claim

"We are working to substantiate the timeline."

to infer

to draw a conclusion from available evidence

"From the governance log, one can infer the flag was filed on time."

tentative

not final; open to revision

"This is a tentative timeline — subject to review."

to hedge

to express uncertainty; to avoid full commitment

"The report hedges on the question of individual accountability."

conjecture

an opinion based on incomplete information

"At this stage, attributing individual blame would be conjecture."

verifiable

able to be checked or confirmed as true

"The dates in the governance log are fully verifiable."

Brian's Board Presentation Notes

Brian has written his speaking notes for the board session. The board has asked three specific questions he must address. Read how he has calibrated his language.

 

BOARD PRESENTATION — SPEAKING NOTES | Brian Okafor

Emergency Session | 26 March 2026

 

Q1: "When exactly did the problem start?"

 

The resourcing gap appears to have emerged during the week of 3 February,

following the departure of a senior contractor. I should note that this

date is based on the project governance log and has not yet been

independently verified. The review will corroborate or revise this.

 

"Evidently the gap was not caught at the mid-point review on 17 February.

That meeting certainly took place — it is on record — but the resourcing

risk apparently was not tabled as an agenda item."

 

Q2: "Could this have been prevented?"

 

"Based on the preliminary findings, this could arguably have been

prevented had the flag been escalated in the required timeframe. Whether

it would have been is harder to say — the replacement contractor was

probably not available at short notice regardless."

 

"I would not say this was inevitable. Nor would I say it was straightforwardly

avoidable. The honest answer is: probably yes, with better process compliance."

 

Q3: "Who is responsible?"

 

"At this stage, attributing individual responsibility would be conjecture.

What we can say is that the escalation protocol was evidently not followed.

Whether that reflects individual failure, unclear process, or a combination

of both is precisely what the governance review will establish.",

 

"I am confident the review will give us a verifiable answer within ten days."

 

Discussion questions:

•  How does Brian answer Q3 without refusing to answer it? What is the rhetorical strategy?

•  Find two adverbial hedges and explain what certainty level each signals.


✏️

Practice Exercises

3 questions

New exercises to reinforce what you learned. Different from the lesson material.

Matching · 1 of 3
Fill in the Blank · 2 of 3

The contractor ___ have handed over before leaving — that is standard procedure. [modal: presumably]

Fill in the Blank · 3 of 3

This ___ reflect a wider cultural issue around risk escalation. [adverbial hedge: evidently or arguably]

Support the Work

Support This Project

Your support keeps these resources free for everyone.

Support the Work

Secure payment — no account required.

← B2 · Module 03 · Class 09 — The Incident Report
B2 · Module 03 · Class 11 — The Apology That Isn't →