Modality in the Albanian language: A corpus-based analysis of administrative discourse

4.1.1 Indicative mood – modality of factuality and authority

The indicative mood is the dominant form in official documents. It is used to present factual statements, declare institutional decisions, define binding legal realities, and describe ongoing or routine processes.

Examples from the corpus ALDOC:

1. An internal academic resolution adopted by a university board states:

   “Vendimi është miratuar në mbledhjen e fundit të bordit akademik” (The decision was approved in the last meeting of the academic board) presenting institutional action through the indicative mood to convey factual and formal authority.

2. Administrative process guidelines specify:

   “Procedura nis pas regjistrimit të dokumentacionit” (The procedure starts after the registration of the documentation) marking procedural sequencing through an assertive, action-oriented indicative structure.

These examples illustrate truth modality, where the verb presents information as an established, official reality.

4.1.2 Subjunctive mood – Modality of obligation, possibility, and necessity

The subjunctive mood is widely used in formal documents to encode obligation or duties, possibility and permissions, and expected outcomes under official norms

It is commonly found after expressions such as duhet (must), kërkohet që (it is required that), është e nevojshme që (it is necessary that), or in impersonal passive constructions.

Examples from the corpus:

1. A financial directive issued by a ministry to subordinate institutions states:

   “Është e nevojshme të dorëzohet plani financiar brenda afatit” (It is necessary that the financial plan be submitted within the deadline) formalizes an institutional obligation, using impersonal language to reinforce procedural clarity.

2. A public recruitment directive includes the formulation:

   “Kërkohet që kandidati të përmbushë kriteret e përzgjedhjes” (It is required that the candidate fulfill the selection criteria) encodes institutional obligation through an impersonal subjunctive construction.

3. A regulatory instruction from a central authority affirms:

   “Duhet të sigurohet përputhja me legjislacionin në fuqi” (Compliance with the applicable legislation must be ensured) encodes mandatory institutional alignment through an impersonal modal construction.

The subjunctive is key in expressing impersonal necessity and institutional obligation, and allows for distancing the agent from the duty, which is typical of bureaucratic discourse.

4.1.3 Imperative mood – modality of direct command

The imperative mood appears less frequently in normative texts but is present in:

1. Instructions,

2. Application forms, and

3. Procedural manuals.

It expresses direct commands and requests, typically directed toward individuals or subordinate entities.

Examples from the corpus:

1. A standardized form from the Ministry of Education includes the instruction:

   “Plotësoni formularin sipas udhëzimeve të mëposhtme” (Fill out the form according to the following instructions), issuing a direct command through the imperative mood typical of administrative templates.

2. Document submission procedures published by the Ministry of Health state:

   “Dorëzoni dokumentet në formatin e kërkuar” (Submit the documents in the required format) articulates institutional instruction through a clear and concise imperative structure.

Unlike the subjunctive, the imperative targets a specific subject and is typically found in administrative checklists or official notices, rather than legal acts.

4.2.1 Duhet

In official Albanian documents, the modal verb duhet is one of the most frequently used tools for expressing obligation and institutional necessity. According to the ALDOC corpus, duhet appears 4,137 times across 78 of 128 documents, underscoring its central role in administrative and legal discourse. It is most used in two syntactic constructions: duhet + subjunctive verb and duhet + participle, both of which serve to articulate formal requirements, rules, and responsibilities in a highly codified and impersonal tone.

The duhet + subjunctive construction is prevalent in contexts where institutional duties or expectations are directed toward specific actors, often implicitly. Frequent collocations include duhet të jenë (must be), duhet të përmbajë (must contain), duhet të paraqesë (must submit), duhet të përdoret (must be used), and duhet të dorëzohet (must be delivered). Figure 1 visualizes the institutional distribution of corpus texts containing the modal verb duhet.

Figure 1

GraphColl network for ‘duhet’ in ALDOC, showing its top collocates.

These forms appear in legal requirements, procurement procedures, and official guidelines. For example:

1. Procurement guidelines by the Public Procurement Agency require that,

   “Dokumentet duhet të jenë gjithmonë në dispozicion të çdo operatori ekonomik” (The documents must always be available to every economic operator) emphasizing continuous institutional obligation through a deontic construction.

2. In a tender regulation issued by the Public Procurement Agency of Albania,

   “Autoriteti kontraktor duhet të përdorë dokumentet standarde të tenderit” (The contracting authority must use the standard tender documents) expresses mandatory procedural compliance through a deontic modal structure.

   In contrast, the duhet + participle construction is used to create impersonal passive statements, ideal for legal and normative formulations where the focus is on the action, not the agent. This structure is particularly common in formulations such as duhet miratuar (must be approved), duhet dorëzuar (must be submitted), duhet respektuar (must be respected), and duhet zbatuar (must be implemented). These constructions allow institutions to impose obligations while maintaining an objective and non-personalized register. Examples:

3. As part of a local governance act from the Municipality of Tirana,

   “Vendimi duhet miratuar nga Këshilli Bashkiak” (The decision must be approved by the Municipal Council) encodes institutional obligation through an impersonal deontic passive construction.

4. Within a citizen service directive published by the National Agency for Information Society,

   “Kërkesa duhet dorëzuar brenda afatit të përcaktuar” (The request must be submitted within the defined deadline) establishes procedural obligation using an impersonal deontic construction.

5. According to a regulatory manual of the Energy Regulatory Authority,

   “Të gjitha rregullat duhet respektuar rreptësisht nga operatorët” (All rules must be strictly respected by the operators) conveys non-negotiable institutional compliance through a depersonalized modal expression.

In both constructions, the modality expressed by duhet is predominantly deontic, indicating that the action is mandatory, often under legal or procedural authority. Occasionally, duhet also conveys epistemic modality, when used to infer logical or expected outcomes, though this use is less common in administrative writing.

4.2.2 Mund

The modal verb mund plays a key role in expressing modality within Albanian institutional discourse, appearing 3,512 times across 82 of 128 documents in the ALDOC corpus. While less frequent than duhet, mund remains central to the formal and normative style of administrative texts. It typically occurs in the construction mund + subjunctive verb, a productive syntactic pattern used to express possibility, permission, and potential outcomes in a non-committal and impersonal tone. Collocational analysis reveals that mund often co-occurs with verbs such as kërkoj (request), ushtroj (exercise), akordoj (grant), përdoret (is used), and përcaktoj (determine), placing it firmly within a deontic framework for granting authorization and outlining procedural allowances. At the same time, mund is widely used in epistemic contexts, co-occurring with verbs like shërbejë (serve), bëhet (becomes), ekuivalentohet (is considered equivalent), and realizohen (are realized), to express institutional possibility, projected outcomes, or conditional developments – often in legal or policy documents. Less frequently, mund appears with verbs such as përfitojë (benefit) and vendosë (decide), signaling dynamic modality related to eligibility or capacity. These patterns demonstrate mund’s essential function in constructing nuanced, non-absolute statements that allow institutions to maintain procedural clarity while introducing measured flexibility. Figure 2 shows the frequency of modal verbs across the ALDOC corpus, specifically focusing on the use of the verb mund.

Figure 2

GraphColl network for ‘mund’ in ALDOC, showing its top collocates.

Examples from the corpus illustrate these uses:

1. Under the tender documentation issued by the Public Procurement Agency,

   “Autoriteti kontraktor mund të kërkojë dëshmi shtesë” (The contracting authority may request additional evidence) illustrates institutional discretion through epistemic possibility.

2. In a model agreement template approved by the Ministry of Infrastructure and Energy,

   “Kontrata mund të lidhet ndërmjet disa autoriteteve” (The contract may be concluded between several authorities) presents optional procedural flexibility using modal possibility.

3. According to financial assessment criteria set by the Ministry of Finance,

   “Bilanci negativ mund të shërbejë si tregues për paaftësinë” (The negative balance may serve as an indicator of incapacity) introduces evidential evaluation via an epistemic modal construction.

4. In a funding eligibility notice issued by the Ministry of Education and Sports,

   “Studenti mund të përfitojë nga këto burime financimi” (The student may benefit from these funding sources) expresses conditional access through epistemic possibility.

4.2.3 Do

Unlike other modal verbs that overtly signal obligation or possibility, the verb do in Albanian official documents often functions more subtly, conveying institutional intention, procedural certainty, and a sense of formal commitment. Although its most common grammatical role is to form the future tense (do + të + verb), many instances in administrative and legal texts go beyond simple futurity. In these contexts, do acquires a quasi-modal value, not merely forecasting events, but asserting what must or will inevitably occur as part of a rule-governed institutional process. Based on the ALDOC corpus, do appears 2,235 times across 76 documents. While a large portion of these reflect standard future constructions, a significant number clearly express anticipated obligations, procedural requirements, or institutional expectations, particularly in legislative acts, contracts, reports, and administrative guidelines.

When excluded from cases where do serves purely to form the future tense, the remaining modal uses often appear in contexts where an institutional actor signals a pre-defined course of action or a planned obligation, framed in an assertive but not directly prescriptive manner. This gives do a nuanced modal role – positioned between epistemic certainty (what will happen) and deontic commitment (what must happen institutionally). Typical collocations include do të zbatohet (will be applied), do të përfshihet (will be included), do të përcaktohet (will be defined), do të paguhet (will be paid), and do të kërkohet (will be required). These expressions are frequent in laws, decisions, and contractual clauses, where they express the formalization of institutional procedures.

These structures are particularly common in laws, decisions, guidelines, and contracts, where they signal procedures, actions, or definitions that the institution is committed to enforce.

Examples from the ALDOC corpus:

1. A procedural clause in the standard contract framework of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Energy specifies:

   “Kjo procedurë do të zbatohet edhe për kontratat sektoriale” (This procedure will be applied also to sectoral contracts), outlining institutional applicability through predictive indicative mood.

2. According to a reimbursement provision issued by the National Tourism Agency,

   “Çdo shumë e mbledhur do të jetë e kthyeshme në rast anulimi” (Any collected amount will be refundable in case of cancellation) introduces conditional restitution through a future-tense indicative construction.

3. A contractual draft template approved by the Ministry of Finance states:

   “Afati i njoftimit do të përcaktohet në kontratë” (The notification deadline will be determined in the contract) signaling forward-planned procedural determination through a passive future construction.

4. In a payment obligation clause regulated by the Tax Administration,

   “Shuma do të paguhet brenda 30 ditëve nga data e faturimit” (The amount will be paid within 30 days from the invoicing date) expresses standardized financial obligation via a passive predictive structure.

In these cases, do functions not merely as a future auxiliary but as a marker of planned, regulated action, contributing to the normative modality of institutional language. It conveys that the stated action is not only expected in the future but is institutionally established, often implying non-negotiable outcomes governed by rules or agreements.

4.2.4 JAM and KAM

In the analysis of Albanian administrative and legal documents, modal constructions involving the verbs jam and kam followed by non-finite verb forms – such as është për t’u parë or ka për të bërë – were not attested in the official texts examined. Although these structures are recognized in the Albanian language for expressing mild obligation, intention, or expectation, they appear to be excluded from the standardized repertoire of institutional discourse. The absence of these forms underscores the formal preference for more codified and depersonalized modal constructions. Among these, only the KA + PËR structure was consistently observed across the corpus, functioning as a key modal strategy in the expression of institutional purpose, duties, and legal mandates. This construction will be analyzed in detail in the following section.

4.2.5 The use of the construction KA + PËR

In Albanian administrative and legal discourse, the construction KA + PËR, when followed by a noun or a non-finite verb form, operates as a distinct modal mechanism. It is predominantly employed to articulate institutional purpose, designated responsibilities, official mandates, or procedural functions. This structure plays an essential role in encoding duties, goals, and expectations within a depersonalized and formally regulated linguistic register, emblematic of bureaucratic communication.

Functioning as a conventionalized modal device, the KA + PËR construction merges declarative precision with normative authority. It facilitates the formalization of institutional objectives and obligations in a clear, impersonal, and non-negotiable manner. As such, it exemplifies how modality, in the context of legal and administrative texts, reinforces legal responsibility, procedural transparency, and the neutral tone characteristic of official language.

4.3.1 Po

The particle po appears in several functions, but when we exclude its role as a progressive marker (po + verb), it retains an important and recognizable affirmative use, expressing confirmation, agreement, or emphasis in both declarative and interactive institutional contexts. According to the ALDOC corpus, po occurs 249 times across 33 documents, and a significant subset of these occurrences represents its use as an affirmative modal particle, rather than a grammatical aspect marker.

As an affirmative, po is used in a range of institutional documents – particularly in laws, reports, administrative forms, and correspondence – to explicitly confirm a statement, acknowledge information, or respond affirmatively to a procedural or declarative context. It often precedes or echoes elements from the previous clause or context, contributing to the textual cohesion and logical structure of official discourse.

Some of the most frequent structures include Po, në këtë rast… (Indeed, in this case…), Po ashtu… (Likewise/Additionally), Po kështu… (Similarly), and Po në atë vit… (In that year as well…)

These uses can be found in administrative letters and reports, such as:

1. A summary report issued by the Ministry of Education and Sports notes:

   “Po ashtu, janë shfrytëzuar të dhëna statistikore nga vlerësimet ndërkombëtare” (Likewise, statistical data from international assessments have been used), reinforcing evidence-based policy references through a passive indicative structure.

2. A national teacher training strategy highlights the requirement:

   “Po kështu, mësuesit duhet të aftësohen të punojnë me fëmijë me nevoja të veçanta” (Similarly, teachers must be trained to work with children with special needs), expressing institutional obligation through a modal construction aimed at inclusive education.

In these cases, po serves a modal-discursive function, rather than a grammatical one. It expresses a form of discourse-level modality – affirming facts, aligning statements with institutional knowledge, or reinforcing procedural actions. The extended uses of po ashtu, po kështu, and po në këtë rast are especially common in formal reports and legal narratives, where they introduce additional arguments or parallel facts, often to support conclusions or policy implications.

4.3.2 Jo

The particle jo plays a critical role in expressing negation, restriction, and formal exclusion, serving as a central marker of negative modality. According to the ALDOC corpus, jo appears 1,520 times across 79 documents, underscoring its widespread use in institutional discourse. Unlike other modal verbs that encode obligation or permission, jo functions as a negative particle with both syntactic and pragmatic roles, especially in legal, administrative, and regulatory texts where clarity of exclusion or limitation is crucial.

The most common and structurally consistent use of jo is found in comparative and restrictive expressions, such as jo më vonë se… (no later than…), jo më pak se… (no less than…), jo më shumë se… (no more than…), jo më herët se… (not earlier than…), and jo vetëm… por edhe… (not only. but also…).

These constructions are pervasive in legal timelines, procedural definitions, eligibility criteria, and quantitative thresholds. For example:

1. According to an application guideline issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development,

   “Kërkesa duhet të dorëzohet jo më vonë se 10 ditë nga data e shpalljes” (The request must be submitted no later than 10 days from the date of the announcement) specifies a strict procedural deadline through a negative temporal constraint combined with a deontic modal.

2. A higher education accreditation document states:

   “Studimet zgjasin jo më pak se tri vite akademike” (Studies last no less than three academic years), establishing a normative minimum duration through a negatively quantified temporal construction.

3. A civil service regulation issued by the Department of Public Administration notes:

   “Leja e zakonshme nuk mund të zgjasë jo më shumë se 30 ditë” (Ordinary leave cannot exceed more than 30 days), expressing a maximum entitlement restriction through double negation and epistemic modality.

   In more complex constructions, jo is used in logical oppositions and clarificatory contexts, such as:

4. In a bilateral cooperation agreement between the Ministry of Education and an international donor,

   “Jo vetëm studentët, por edhe mësuesit do të përfitojnë nga kjo marrëveshje” (Not only students, but also teachers will benefit from this agreement) expands the scope of institutional beneficiaries using an inclusive predictive construction that emphasizes shared entitlement.

   Occasionally, jo is used for emphatic negation, where it marks categorical rejection or exclusion, particularly in declarative statements:

5. In a disciplinary report drafted by the Human Resources Department of a public institution,

   “Punonjësi jo vetëm që nuk ka përmbushur detyrën, por ka shkelur dhe rregullat e brendshme” (The employee not only failed to fulfill the duty but also violated internal rules) intensifies institutional disapproval through a contrastive construction combining negation and cumulative infraction.

The modality expressed by jo is predominantly prohibitive and restrictive, contributing to the formalization of boundaries, exclusions, and legal obligations. Its high frequency and structural regularity show that negation in institutional language is not simply a matter of opposing statements, but a way to specify limits, define scope, and prevent misinterpretation in high-stakes documents.

4.3.3 Nuk

In Albanian institutional documents, the particle nuk is the most frequent means of expressing negation, with a dominant role in shaping the prohibitive and deontic modality of administrative, legal, and procedural language. According to the ALDOC corpus, nuk appears 3,607 times across 80 out of 128 documents, making it one of the most frequently occurring particles in official discourse.

The use of nuk is primarily tied to its function as a syntactic negator, preceding verbs in the indicative or subjunctive mood, and is especially common in prohibitive constructions, exclusion clauses, and legal limitations. Typical and recurring structures include nuk mund të… (cannot/may not), nuk duhet të… (must not/should not), nuk lejohet të… (it is not allowed to), nuk është e mundur… (it is not possible), and nuk zbatohet… (is not applied).

These forms serve to prohibit actions, reject obligations, or limit rights, thus functioning within a deontic framework that enforces rules and institutional boundaries.

Examples from the corpus:

1. According to a public procurement directive issued by the Public Procurement Agency,

   “Asnjë kontratë publike nuk mund të ndahet për shmangien e kufirit” (No public contract may be split to avoid the threshold) imposes an explicit institutional prohibition through a negative epistemic-deontic modal construction.

2. In a procedural instruction from the Ministry of Infrastructure,

   “Kjo procedurë nuk duhet të përdoret për punë, mallra apo shërbime që nuk janë planifikuar” (This procedure must not be used for work, goods, or services that are not planned) conveys a strong restriction via a deontic negation targeting unplanned expenditures.

3. A regulatory framework by the Ministry of Finance states:

   “Nuk lejohet përcaktimi i kufijve monetarë që tejkalojnë vlerat e lejuara” (The definition of monetary thresholds exceeding allowed values is not permitted), enforcing institutional limits through a passive construction of prohibition.

4. In a notification timetable regulation issued by a contracting authority,

   “Afati i njoftimit nuk duhet të jetë më shumë se 20 ditë” (The notification deadline must not exceed 20 days) communicates maximum temporal boundaries through a negative modal clause.

5. According to a legal compliance guideline published by the Ministry of Justice,

   “Nuk është e mundur të ndryshohet kontrata pa dakordësim paraprak” (It is not possible to change the contract without prior agreement) formalizes procedural inflexibility through an epistemic impersonal construction.

These examples illustrate how nuk structures non-negotiable legal or procedural restrictions, and how it interacts with other modal verbs (like duhet, mund, lejohet) to shape formalized institutional norms. In doing so, nuk becomes a crucial grammatical and discursive element for expressing prohibition, impossibility, and formal constraints in the Albanian administrative-legal register.

While the Albanian language also uses the shortened variant s’ (a contracted form) to express negation, this form is almost entirely absent from administrative texts. The particle s’ is characteristic of informal, narrative, or spoken registers, and its elliptical tone is deemed inappropriate for the precision, neutrality, and formality required in official writing. In legal and bureaucratic discourse, where clarity and unambiguous interpretation are critical, nuk remains the exclusive negator, fully aligned with the stylistic and normative expectations of institutional language.

4.3.4 Mos

The particle mos is a key marker of prohibitive and negative deontic modality, used to express what must not or should not be done according to legal, institutional, or procedural norms. Based on the ALDOC corpus, mos appears 259 times across 47 documents, demonstrating its consistent presence in formal writing, especially in regulatory texts, labor codes, statutes, and administrative guidelines.

The typical construction involves mos + verb in subjunctive or infinitive form, and often follows or is governed by modal or auxiliary verbs like duhet (must), mund (may), or appears independently in imperative contexts or passive constructions. Common patterns include duhet të mos… (must not), mund të mos… (may not), për të mos… (in order not to), and në rast të mos… (in case of non…)

These structures are used to set conditions, limit permissions, and define obligations in a negative frame, forming a key part of the modality system in legal and institutional discourse.

Examples from the ALDOC corpus:

1. In a financial compliance instruction issued by the Public Procurement Agency,

   “Lëshuesi i sigurimit të ofertës duhet të mos vendosë asnjë kusht për pagimin” (The issuer of the bid security must not impose any condition for payment) prohibits conditionality using a modal negation that reinforces unconditional institutional obligation.

2. A legal opinion by the Ministry of Justice concerning contractual validity notes:

   “Kontrata në fjalë duhet të mos jetë objekt shqyrtimi administrativ apo gjyqësor” (The contract in question must not be subject to administrative or judicial review) expresses procedural closure through deontic modality and institutional restriction.

3. In a labor regulation issued by the State Labor Inspectorate,

   “Për të mos dëmtuar të ardhmen ekonomike të punëmarrësit, duhet të përshkruhet qartë lloji i veprimtarisë” (In order not to harm the employee’s economic future, the type of activity must be clearly described) encodes precautionary institutional obligation through an infinitival construction of preventive intent.

These examples show how mos functions to regulate behavior and prevent prohibited actions, embedding the logic of institutional control in clearly defined linguistic forms. The modality it expresses is predominantly deontic, centered on what is forbidden, not acceptable, or not permitted under formal regulations.

While Albanian features a wide range of modal particles – including affirmative, negative, interrogative, doubt, and softening particles – not all of them are commonly used in official documents. As shown in the analyses above, institutional discourse primarily employs a limited subset of these particles to maintain clarity, formality, and neutrality. For example, particles like nuk, jo, mos, and po (in its affirmative use) appear frequently and serve essential modal and discursive functions in expressing prohibition, negation, confirmation, or procedural affirmation. This is summarized in Table 2, which presents the frequency and function of the four most common modal particles in the ALDOC corpus. However, more conversational or subjective particles such as vallë, as, që, s’, ndoshta, le are almost entirely absent from administrative texts, as they introduce elements of doubt, emotion, or informality that are incompatible with the precise and impersonal style of legal and bureaucratic language. Therefore, although Albanian modality is grammatically rich, official documents rely selectively on a restricted set of modal particles – those that reinforce certainty, regulate permission, or enforce obligation – while excluding those that reflect personal stance, supposition, or rhetorical nuance.

4.4.1 VERB + adjective I PAMUNDUR

In Albanian official documents, the adjective i pamundur (impossible) is used as part of specific constructions to express the modality of impossibility, typically within procedural, legal, and administrative frameworks. According to the ALDOC corpus, pamundur occurs 41 times across 18 documents, and it appears consistently in contexts where institutional actors or legal provisions must acknowledge that a particular action, obligation, or process cannot be carried out due to objective constraints.

The most common structure is the phrase është e pamundur (it is impossible), often modified with adverbs like objektivisht (objectively) or followed by të + subjunctive verb, forming constructions such as është e pamundur të kryhet… (it is impossible to carry out…), është objektivisht e pamundur të përcaktohet… (it is objectively impossible to determine…), e ka të pamundur pjesëmarrjen (he/she is unable to participate), and e bën të pamundur… (makes it impossible…).

These expressions are used to justify exceptions, terminate procedures, or acknowledge constraints, often in official decisions, procurement guidelines, legal exemptions, or internal regulations. They convey a clear sense of epistemic modality, stating that the action in question lies outside the scope of institutional feasibility, and occasionally serve deontic functions by suspending obligations when impossibility is demonstrated.

Examples from ALDOC:

Kur është e pamundur të ndiqet procedura standarde, prokurimet mund të kryhen me procedura të veçanta (When it is impossible to follow the standard procedure, procurement may proceed through special procedures.)

Në rast se kjo është e pamundur, nëpunësit regjistrohen në një listë pritjeje. (If this is impossible, the civil servants are placed on a waiting list.)

Në kushtet aktuale të buxhetimit është e pamundur të implementohet kjo gjë. (Under current budget conditions, it is impossible to implement this.)

Autori ka të pamundur të sigurojë kopje të krijimit nëpërmjet kanaleve të zakonshme. (The author is unable to obtain copies of the work through regular channels.)

These constructions help formalize exceptions to rules or procedures in a controlled and documentable manner, often accompanied by justifications or conditional clauses. They maintain the formal, impersonal tone characteristic of institutional discourse while signaling clearly that constraints have overridden obligations.

4.4.2 The verb TO BE + adjective I NEVOJSHËM

In official Albanian documents, the adjective i nevojshëm (necessary) is a highly recurrent lexical item used to express deontic modality, particularly in the context of institutional necessity, procedural requirements, and conditional actions. According to the ALDOC corpus, the word nevojshme appears 86 times across 26 documents, typically in constructions where an action or condition is described as required, either absolutely or under certain circumstances.

The most frequent and productive structure is është e nevojshme (subjunctive verb). This construction is used to mandate or justify institutional actions, to define conditions under which actions may be taken, or to signal procedural flexibility depending on contextual needs. Variants like nëse është e nevojshme (if necessary) and kur është e nevojshme (when necessary) are commonly used to introduce conditional clauses, allowing legal and administrative texts to remain both precise and adaptable.

Examples from the corpus:

Nëse është e nevojshme, komisioni i vlerësimit kërkon sqarime nga ofertuesit. (If necessary, the evaluation commission requests clarifications from the bidders.)

Kur është e nevojshme, departamenti ngre grupe me karakter kërkimor-mësimor. (When necessary, the department establishes research-teaching groups.)

Paga konsiderohet e paprekshme në masën që është e nevojshme për të siguruar jetesën e punëmarrësit. (The salary is considered untouchable to the extent necessary to ensure the employee’s livelihood.)

The modality expressed by these structures containing the adjective i nevojshëm is primarily deontic, as it indicates what must be done, either as a mandatory requirement or conditionally, depending on the specific context or institutional evaluation.

While the Albanian language offers a rich variety of modal expressions – used to convey possibility, certainty, obligation, advice, impossibility, preference, and doubt – not all of these expressions are typically found in official documents. As highlighted in the analysis above, institutional and administrative texts tend to favor a restricted and highly formal set of modal structures, often relying on expressions such as është e nevojshme, nuk është e mundur, është e pamundur, or duhet të, which clearly reflect deontic and epistemic modality in a neutral and objective tone. On the other hand, more subjective or informal expressions like “Ka të ngjarë që…” (It is likely that…), “Pa dyshim që…” (Without a doubt…), “Është e sigurt që…” (It is certain that…), “Do të ishte më e udhës të…” (It would be wiser to…), “S’ka shans që…” (There is no chance that…), “Do të më pëlqente të…” (I would love to…), and “Ka mundësi që…” (There is a possibility that…) are generally absent from the language of laws, contracts, decisions, and public administration. These expressions, while common in spoken or literary contexts, introduce personal stance, uncertainty, or emotional coloring – features that are typically avoided in the precise, impersonal, and norm-driven style of official discourse. Thus, although the Albanian language provides a wide modal repertoire, official documents selectively employ only those expressions that align with institutional formality, procedural clarity, and legal authority.