Chapter I

The Syntax and Semantics of Modals Verbs

Introduction
This chapter gives a relevant presentation of the most important
contributions to the study of the modal verbs in English. It provides some
theoretical insights into the types of the modal verbs.
Among the

sources employed for the theoretical background, I have

relied on Biber, Conrad and Leech (2002), Quirk and Greenbaum (1985) and
Dixon (2005) to show the types, the functions and the use of the modal verbs.
The chapter is organized in 3 sections. In the first section I will discuss the
classification of the modal verbs (Central modals ,Peripheral modals and Semimodals).The second section will deal with the syntax of the modal verbs
(Unique properties, Negation, Interrogation
Coordination, Emphasis). I will continue with a short presentation of the
semantic groups of modals: ability, possibility, obligation, permission, giving
instructions and making requests, making an offer or an invitation, making
suggestions, stating an intention, indicating unwillingness or refusal, expressing
a wish, indicating importance, introducing what you are going to say.
1.1. The classification of modal verbs

According to Biber, Conrad and Leech (2002: 174) there are nine central modals
verbs in English: can, could, may, might, must, should, will, would, and shall.
They express stance meaning, related to possibility, necessity, obligation, etc.
in most dialects of English; only a single modal can be used in a verb phrase.
However, certain regional dialects (such as southern AmE) allow some
combinations of modals (e.g. might could or might should).

The nine central modal differ greatly in frequency. The modals will, would and
can are extremely common. Shall is rare. The other modals fall between. If you
consider the pairs of central modals, the tentative/past time member is usually
less frequent than its partner. For example, will is more common than would,
and can more common than could. The exception is shall/should, because
should is more common than shall.
Modals and semi-modals are most common in conversation and least common
in news and academic prose. Semi-modals are much more common in
conversation than they are in the written expository registers. It is more
surprising that the central modals are also more common in conversation, since
researchers have often assumed that modal verbs are especially characteristic
of writing. However, it turns out that the both modals and semi-modals are
extremely common in conversation, where they are one of several devices used
to express stance. May is extremely rare in conversation. Academic prose
shows a very different set of tendencies.

1.1.1. Central Modals

As Quirk and Greenbaum argue (1985: 135), it is useful to make a distinction
between central modal verbs and marginal peripheral modal verbs. The central
modal auxiliaries are in the next table. Rare forms are in parentheses:

Non-negative

Uncontracted forms Contracted forms

can /kn, kn/

could /kd, kd/

cannot,
can not
could not

cant /k:nt/ <BrE>

/knt/ <AmE>
couldnt /kdt/

may /mei/
might /mait/

may not
might not

(maynt /meint/)*
mightnt /maitt/

shall /l, ()l/

shall not

(shant**1/a:nt/ <BrE>)
6

should /d, ()d/

should not

shouldnt /dt/, /dt/

will /wil/
ll /()l/

will not
ll not

wont /wnt/

would /wd/
d /()d/

would not
d not

wouldnt /wdt/

must /mst, mst/

must not

mustnt /mst/

Can/Could are used to express possibility:

1)
Even experts drivers can make mistakes. [It is possible for even]
Her performance was the best that could be hoped for.
If its raining tomorrow, the sports can take place indoors.
[It will be possible for the sports to]
Ability:
2)
Can you remember where they live? [Are you able to remember]
Magda could speak three languages be the age of six.
They say Bill can cook better than his wife.
Permission:
3)
Can we borrow these books from the library? [Are we allowed to]
In those days only men could vote in elections.
In this sense, can/could is less formal than may, which has been favoured by
prescriptive tradition.
May/might can express:
Possibility:
4)
We may never succeed. [It is possible that well never succeed.]
You may be right. [It is possible that you are right.]
There might be some complaints.
1*;**: maynt and shant are virtually nonexistent in AmE, while in BrE shant is becoming rare
and maynt even more so.
7

Here may denotes the possibility of a given propositions being or becoming

true.
Permission:
5)
You may borrow my bicycle if you wish. [I permit you to borrow]
Visitors may reclaim necessary travel expenses up to a limit of 50.
Might I ask whether you are using the typewriter?
As a permission auxiliary, may is more formal and less common than can, which
(except in fixed phrases such as if I may) can be substituted for it.
In formal English, may/might is sometimes used in the same possibility sense as
can/could:
6)
During the autumn, many rare birds may be observed on the rocky
northern coasts of
the island.
May here is a more formal substitute for can, and the whole sentence could be
paraphrased It is possible to observe
Must can be used to express:
(Logical) necessity:
7)
There must be some mistake.
You must be feeling tired.
The Smiths must have a lot of money.
The logical necessity meaning of must is parallel to the possibility meaning of
may since it implies that the speaker judges the proposition expressed by the
clause to be necessarily true, or at least to have a high likelihood of being true.
Must in this sense means that the speaker has drawn a conclusion from things
already known or observed. Must [= logical necessity] cannot normally be used
in interrogative or negative.
8)
Can she be the one you mean?
She must be the one.
The negative of can [= possibility] fills the negative gap, synonymous with:
9)
You cant be serious [It is impossible that you are serious.]
She must be asleep = She cant be awake.

There is another necessity meaning of must in example like:

10)
To be healthy, a plant must receive a good supply of both sunshine and
moisture. [It is necessary for a plant to]
Obligation or Compulsion:
11)
You must be back by ten oclock. [You are obliged to be back; I require
you to be back]
We must all share our skills and knowledge.
Productivity must be improved, if the nation is to be prosperous.
In the examples (10) and (11), there is the implication, to a greater or lesser
extent, that the speaker is advocating a certain form of behaviour. Thus must,
unlike have (got) to, typically suggests that the speaker is exercising his
authority.
Have (got) to can also be substituted for must with little or no difference of
meaning. Compare the following:
(Logical) necessity:
12)
You have (got) to be some mistake. (esp AmE)
To be healthy, a plant has (got) to receive a good supply of both sunshine
and moisture.
You have (got) to be back by ten oclock.
We have all got to share our skills and knowledge.
Productivity will have to be improved, if the nation is to be prosperous.
Since must has no past tense form and no nonfinite forms, have to is used in
many contexts where must is impossible:
13)
Well have to be patient.
Ought to, should:
Tentative inference:
14)
The mountains should/ought to be visible from here.
These plants should/ought to reach maturity after five years.
The speaker does not know if his statement is true, but tentatively concludes
that it is true, on the basis of whether he knows.
Obligation:
15)

You should/ought to do as he says.

9

The floor should/ought to be washed at least once a week.

With the perfect aspect, should and ought to typically have the implication that
the recommendation has not been carried out:
16)
They should/ought to have met her at the station.
Ought to and synonymous uses of should express the same basic modalities of
necessity and obligation as do must and have (got) to. They contrast with
must and have (got) to in not expressing the speakers confidence in the
occurrence of the event or state described. Hence a) is nonsensical, but b) is
not:
17)
a) *Sarah must/has to be home by now, but she isnt.
b) Sarah should/ought to be home by now, but she isnt.
Will/would (ll/d)
Prediction: the present predictive sense of will, which is comparatively rare, is
similar in meaning to must in the logical necessity sense:
18)
She will have had her dinner by now.
Thatll be the postman. [on hearing the doorbell ring]
The habitual predictive meaning often occurs in conditional sentences or in
timeless statements of predictability as in the following example:
19)
a) If litmus paper is dipped in acid, it will turn red.
b) Oil will float on water.
In addition, it occurs in descriptions of personal habits of characteristics
behaviour:
20)
Hell talk for hours, if you let him. [said of a chatterbox]
Shell sit on the floor quietly all day. Shell just play with her toys, and you
wont hear a murmur from her. [of a good baby]
Every morning he would go for a walk. [ie it was his custom to go]
Volition: intention (often in combination with a sense of prediction):
21)
Ill write as soon as I can.
We wont stay longer than two hours.
The manager said he would phone me after lunch.

10

Willingness: (This meaning is common in requests and offers).

22)
Would you help me to address these letters?
Ill do it, if you like.
Insistence:
23)
If you will go out without your overcoat, what can you expect?
This somewhat rare use implies wilfulness on the part of the subject referent.
The auxiliary is always stressed, and cannot be contracted to ll or d. In this
case, the past form would expresses past time, rather that tentativeness or
politeness.
Shall is in present day English (especially AmE) a rather rare auxiliary and
only two uses, both with a 1st person subject, are generally current:
Prediction (with 1st person subjects). Shall is a substitute for the future use of
will in formal style:
24)
According to the opinion polls, I will/shall win quite easily.
When shall/will we know the results of the election?
Volition (with 1st person subjects). In the intentional sense, shall is again a
formal (and traditionally prescribed) alternative to will after I or we:
25)
We will/shall uphold the wishes of the people.
In questions containing Shall I /we, shall consults the wishes of the addressee,
and thus moves from a volitional towards an obligational meaning. It is suitable
for making offers as in (26 a) and for making suggestions about shared
activities as in (26 b):
26)
a. Shall I/we deliver the goods to your home address?
[= Do you want me/ us to?]
b. What shall we do this evening? Shall we go to the theatre?
It is only in such questions that shall cannot regularly be replaced by will.
1.1.2. Peripheral Modals
As
stated by Greenbaum and Quirk (1985: 138) the peripheral modals
auxiliaries are used to, ought to, dare and need.
Used to always takes the to infinitive and occurs only in the past tense:
27)

11

She used to attend regularly.

It is used both as an auxiliary and as a main verb with DO- support:
28)
He usednt (or: used not) to smoke. (BrE)
He didnt use (d) to smoke. (BrE and informal AmE)
The normal interrogative construction is with DO- support, even in BrE:
29)
Did he use to drink?
He used to drink, didnt he?
Used to must be the first in any chain of verbs.
Ought to normally has the to- infinitive, but the to is optional following ought
in ellipsis:
30)

You oughtnt to smoke so much.

A: Ought I stop smoking?
B: Yes. I think you ought (to).

Dare and need can be used either as modal auxiliaries (with bare infinitive and
without the inflected forms) or as main verbs (with to- infinitive and with
inflected s, -ing, and past forms). The modal construction is restricted to
nonassertive contexts, ie mainly negative and interrogative sentences, whereas
the main verb construction can always be used, and is in fact more common.
There is a semantic contrast between the two uses of need and dare.
Blends of the two constructions (modal auxiliary and main verb) are widely
acceptable for dare:
31)
They do not dare ask for me.
Do they dare ask for more?
John darent go.
Dare John go?
The two syntactic uses of dare carry semantic differences. The lexical- verb
sense tends to refer to an inner state of the subject, and the modal use to some
external circumstances.
Need is basically a Secondary- B verb but has a further sense as a modal and
then shows a different syntax. There is a semantic difference- the Secondary- B
sense relates to some inner state of the Principal (in subject relation), as in a),

12

whereas the modal sense relates to some external circumstances as in b)2:

32)
a) I dont need to go to the toilet (my bladder isnt full)
b) I neednt go to the toilet (no one is telling me to go)
When they are used as modals, they are used with no to, and fronting in
questions and taking the negative directly:
33)
Dare/Need he go?
He darent/neednt go.
Note that in their modal use dare and need do not take the 3sg present
inflection s (behaving like all the modals except be to) but they also lack a past
tense form (like must but unlike will, can, may).
1.1.3. Semi Modals
In this category we can also include some modal idioms. According to Dixon
(2005: 172) they express modal or aspectual meaning. The modal idioms are a
combination of auxiliary and infinitive or adverb. None of them have non-finite
forms and they are therefore always the first in the verb phrase. The most
common modal idioms are had better, would rather, have got to, and be to.
The semi-modals are a set of verb idioms which are introduced by one of
the primary verb HAVE and BE. They have non-finite forms and can therefore
occur in combination with preceding auxiliaries. Indeed, two or more semiauxiliaries can occur in sequence. Common semi-auxiliaries include: be able to,
be about to, be bound to, be due to, be going to, be likely to, de possible to, be
supposed to, and have to. They express the same attitudes and ideas as
modals.
Be able to and be possible to can be used instead of can and could to say
whether or not something is possible.
The subject of be able to and be unable to usually refers to a person or group of
people, but it can refer to any living thing. It can also refer to something
organized or operated by people, such as a company, a country, or a machine.
The subject of be possible to is always the impersonal pronoun it.
If you want to say that it is possible for someone or something to do nothing,
2 See also Leech 1971: 96
13

you can use be able to:

34)
All members are able to claim travelling expenses.
The goliath frog is able to jump three metres or so.
You use be able to with a negative to say that it is not possible for someone or
something to do something:
35)
They are not able to run fast or throw a ball.
You can use be unable to to say that it is not possible for someone or something
to do something:
36)
I am having medical treatment and Im unable to work.
Terry Woganis unable to be with us.
You can also use be possible to with it as the subject to say that something is
possible. You usually use this expression to say that something is possible for
people in general, rather than for an individual person:
37)
It is possible to reach Tunheim on foot.
Is it possible to programme a computer to speak?
If you use be possible to to say something is possible for a particular person or
group, you put for and a noun group after possible:
38)
It is possible for us to measure his progress.
Its possible for each department to support new members.
You use be possible to with a negative to say that something is not possible:
39)
It is not possible to quantify the effect.
You can use be impossible to to say something is not possible:
40)
It is impossible to fix the exact moment in time when it happened.
It is impossible for a European to understand Tewdros.
To change the tense of be able to, be unable to, be possible to, or be impossible
to, you simply change the form of be to an appropriate simple tense;
41)
The doctor will be able to spend more time with the patient.
Their parents were unable to send them any money.
It was not possible to dismiss crowd behaviour as a contributing factor.

14

It was impossible for the husband to obey this order:

All modals except can and could can be used with these expressions:
42)
A machine ought to be able to do this.
The United States would be unable to produce any wood.
It may be impossible to predict which way things will develop.
Used to can be used with be able to and be possible to:
43)
You used to be able to go to the doctor for that.
It used to be possible to buy second- hand wings.
You can use have to or have got to instead of must to say that something is
certain to happen or be the case in the future:
44)
That looks about right. It has to be.
Money has got to be the reason.
You can use be going to instead of will to say that something is certain to
happen or be the case in the future:
45)
The children are going to be fishermen or farmers.
Life is going to be e a bit easier from now on.
You can use be bound to to say emphatically that something is certain to
happen in the future:
46)
Marions bound to be back soon.
It was bound to happen sooner or later.
Theyd be bound to know if it was all right.
You can use be going to instead of will to state an intention:
47)
I am going to talk to Boris.
Im going to show you our little school.
You use be determined to or be resolved to to indicate that it is important to do
something. Be resolved to is rather formal:
48)
Im determined to try.
She was resolved to marry a rich American.
You can use have to or have got to instead of must to indicate that it is
important that you do something:
15

49)
I have to get home now.
Its something I have got to overcome.
You can use have to or have got to instead of must to say that something is
necessary or extremely important:
50)
The pine tree has to produce pollen in gigantic quantities.
We have to look more closely at the record of their work together.
This has got to be put right.
Youve got to be able to communicate.
You can use had better instead of should or ought to to say that something is
the right or correct thing to do. You use had better with I or we to indicate an
intention. You use it with you when you are giving advice or a warning.
51)
I think I had better show this to my brother.
He decided that we had better meet.
Youd better go.
All modals, in all their uses, express some degree of vagueness or uncertainty.
They also
tend to fall along a continuum from more to less probable, possible, realistic,
necessary, or polite.
Semi-modals are multi-word constructions that function like modal verbs.

1. 2. The syntax of modal verbs

According to Downing and Locke, (1992:318) primary and modal
auxiliaries verbs are limited in number, as the above list shows, and constitute
closed sets. Lexical verbs, the v or main element, constitute an open set; new
ones can be coined and added to the lexicon.
The term lexical auxiliary is used to cover a set of verbs of modal or aspectual
meaning which form concatenated or chain-like structures with the main verb of
the VG. The majority are followed by a V-to-inf form, but a few take the infinite
without to. The primary and modal auxiliaries carry grammatical meaning
(tense, aspect, modality, person, number) rather than lexical meaning. On the
other hand, the main verbal element of the VG expresses both lexical and
16

grammatical meaning.
Any of the primary or modal auxiliary can stand in initial position and so
function as operator in a VG. The operator element has a number of syntactic
features which distinguish it from the other elements of a complex VG.
1.2.1. Unique properties
According to Collins COBUILD (1990: 227), certain characteristics apply
specifically to modal auxiliaries. They are followed by the bare infinitive (i.e.
the base form of the verb alone without preceding to):
52)
I must leave fairly soon.
I think it will be rather nice.
The rich ought* to pay the tuition fees of their sons and daughters2.
Sometimes a modal is followed by the base form of the one of the auxiliary
verbs have or be, followed by a participle. When a modal is followed by be and
a present participle, this indicates that you are talking about the present or the
future:
53)
People may be watching.
You ought to be doing this.
The play will be starting soon.
When a modal is followed by have and a past participle, this indicates that you
are talking about the past.
54)
You must have heard of him.
She may have gone already.
I ought to have sent the money.
In passive structures, a modal is followed by the auxiliary verb do, or by
another modal.
They cannot occur in non-finite functions, ie as infinitives or participles: may ~
*to may, *maying, *mayed. In consequence they can occur only as the first verb
in the verb phrase.
Modal do not inflect. This means there is no -s form in the third person
singular, and there are no -ing or -ed forms:
55)
Theres nothing I can do about it.
I am sure he can do it.

17

Their past forms can be used to refer to present and future time (often with a
tentative meaning):
56)
I think he may/might be outside.
Will/Would you phone him tomorrow?
1.2.2. Negation
Negatives are formed by putting a negative word such as not immediately after
the modal. In the case of ought to, you put the negative word after ought. Can
not is usually written as one word, cannot:
57)
You must not worry.
He ought not to have done so.
I cannot go pack.
After could, might, must, ought, should, and would not is often shortened to nt
and is added to the modal:
58)
You mustnt talk about the Ron like this.
Perhaps I oughtnt to confess this.
Shall not, will not, and cannot are shortened to shant, wont, and cant. May
not is not shortened at all:
59)
I shant get much work done tonight.
He wont be finished for at least another half an hour.
I cant go with you.
The scope of negation may or may not include the meaning of the modal
auxiliaries. We therefore distinguish between auxiliary negation and main verb
negation. The contrast is shown in the following sentences with may not, where
the paraphrases indicate the scope of negation:
60)
You may not smoke in here. [You are not allowed to smoke in here]
- main verb negation
They may not like the party. [It is possible that they do not like the
party]
Here we give some example of modal auxiliaries in their various senses,
according to weather the scope of negation usually includes the auxiliary or
excludes it.

18

Auxiliary negation
61)
may not [ = permission]:
You may not go swimming.
[You are not allowed]
cannot, cant [in all senses]:
You cant be serious.
[It is not possible that]
You cant go swimming.
[You are not allowed to]
He cant ride a bicycle.
[He is not able to.]
Need not, neednt (both esp. BrE):
62)
You neednt pay that fine.
[You are not obliged to]
It neednt always be my fault.
[It is not necessary that]
Dare not, darent:
63)
I darent quarrel with them.
[I havent got the courage to quarrel with them]
Main verb negation
64)
may not [ = possibility]:
They may not bother to come if its wet.
[It is possible that they will not bother to come]
shall not, shant (all senses; esp BrE; shant rare):
65)
Dont worry. You shant lose your reward.
[Ill make sure that you dont lose your reward.]
I shant know when you return. [I predict that I will not know ]
must, mustnt [obligation]:
66)
You mustnt keep us waiting. [It is essential that you dont keep us
waiting.]
ought not, oughtnt (both senses):
67)
You oughtnt to keep us waiting.
[obligation]
He oughtnt to be long.
[tentative inference]
The distinction between auxiliary and main negation is neutralized for will
in all senses, as the paraphrases below indicate:
68)
Dont worry. I wont interfere.
[I dont intend to interfere; I intend not to interfere.]

19

He wont do what hes told.

[He refuses to do what hes told; He insists on not doing what hes
told.]
They wont have arrived yet.
[Its not probable that theyve arrived yet; I predict that they havent
arrived yet.]
In the necessity sense, the auxiliary negation of must is usually achieved
through cant hence, the negation of They must be telling lies is usually They
cant be telling lies. Neednt and dont have to are used for auxiliary negation in
both senses of must:
69)
We dont have to/neednt pack till tomorrow.
The past tense negative auxiliaries (mightnt, couldnt, wouldnt, shouldnt)
follow the same negative pattern as their present tense equivalents.
Because of the diametric opposition of meaning between permission and
obligation, an odd- seeming equivalence exists between may not [not
permitted to] and mustnt [obliged not to]:
70)
You mustnt go swimming today.

[= You may not go swimming

today.]
Very rarely, PREDICTION NEGATION occurs in the context of denials and
permission. The scope of negation if different from that normal with the
particular modal auxiliary:
71)
They may not go swimming. [They are not allowed to go swimming.]
I can, of course, not obey her. [Its possible, of course, not to obey her.]
In such instances of the main verb negation, the clause is not negated and it is
possible to have double negation- auxiliary negation and predication negation:
72)
I cannot, of course, not to obey her.
1.2.3. Interrogation
Questions are formed by putting the modal in front of the subject. In the case of
ought to, you put ought in front of the subject and to after it:
73)
Could you give me an example?
Ought you to make some notes about it?
20

Mightnt it surprise people?

Modals are used in question tags:
74)
They cant all be right, can they?
With a negative tag, the shortened form of the negative is used:
75)
It would be handy, wouldnt it?
The formation of yes- no questions with modal auxiliaries is subject to certain
limitations and shifts of meaning. The modals of permission (may<esp. BrE>,
and can) and of obligation (must<esp. BrE>; and have to) generally involve the
speakers authority in statements and the hearers authority in questions:
76)
A: May/ Can I leave now?
[Will you permit me...]
B: Yes, I may/can
[I will permit you]
A: Must I/Do I have to leave now? [Are you telling me]
B: Yes, you must/ have to.
[I am telling you to]
The question from anticipates the form appropriate for the answer. In the
possibility sense, can or (more commonly in AmE) could are used rather than
may:
77)
A: Can/ Could they have missed the bus?
B: Yes, they may have/ might have.
The past forms might [permission], would [volition], and could [volition] are
regularly used for politeness in place of the present forms, for example:
78)
Might I call you by your first name?
Would you stand at the back, please?
Could I see you for a moment?
We have to add that shall [volition] is used (esp. BrE) to involve the hearers will
in questions:
79)
Shall I switch off the television?
As common alternatives we have:
80)
Should I? or Do you want me to?
Need (esp. in BrE) is used as a nonassertive modal auxiliary with negative
21

orientation:
81)
Need they leave now?
Common substitutes (esp. in AmE) bare the main verb need to and have to:
82)
Do they need/ have to leave now?
On the other hand, must in the necessity sense has positive orientation:
83)
Why must it always rain when we want to have a picnic?
Dare is occasionally used as a nonassertive modal auxiliary, especially in BrE:
84)
Dare we complain?
Common substitutes are the main verb dare and (esp. in AmE) the blend
construction with DO and the bare infinitives:
85)
Do we dare to complain?
Do we dare complain?
1.2.4. Modals in reported speech
Modals have special uses in three kinds of complex sentences:
a) They are used in reported clauses:
86)
Wilson dropped a hint that he might come.
I felt that I would like to wake her up.
If there is a change in time- reference, a modal auxiliary is back- shifted from
present tense forms, to past tense forms even if these do not normally indicate
past time in indirect speech:
87)
You may be able to answer this question, he told her.
~ He told her that she might be able to answer that question.
I wont pay any other penny, I said.
~ I said that I wouldnt pay any other penny.
If a modal auxiliary in the direct speech is already a past tense form, then the
same form remains in the indirect speech:
88)
You shouldnt smoke in the bedroom, he told them.

22

~ He told them that they shouldnt smoke in the bedroom.

Several modal auxiliaries or marginal modals have only one form: must, ought
to, need and had better. That form remains in indirect speech:
89)
You must be hungry, he said.
~ He said that they must be hungry.
You had better not say anything about this, he warned me.
~ He warned me that I had better not say anything about that.
In its obligation sense, however, the past of must may be replaced by had to in
indirect speech:
90)
You must be in by ten tonight, his parents told him.
~ His parents told him that he must/had to be in by ten that night.

23

Now we have to analyse some of the semantic changes that occur when backshifting. It is usually said, following what was an accurate analysis in older
stages of the language, that four of the modals inflect for tense, as follows:
Present
Past

will
would

shall

can
should

may
could

might

A main justification for retaining this analysis from back shifting in indirect
speech. Recall that a sentence uttered with present tense is placed in past
tense when it becomes indirect speech to a speaking verb in past tense:
91)
Im sweating, John said.
~ John said that he was sweating.
We do get would, could and might functioning as the back-shift equivalents, in
indirect speech, of will, can and may:
92)
I will/can/may go, he said.
~ He said that he would/could/might go.
Shall and should now have quite different meanings and the backshift version of
shall, referring to prediction, is normally would (as it is of will and would) while
the back-shift version of should, referring to obligation, is again should.
As Dixon argues (2005: 224, 225), it is instructive now to examine how backshifting applies to modals and semi-modals. Semi-modals show present and
past tense, and behave like other verbs under back- shifting:
93)
John isnt able to tie his shoelaces, Mary remarked.
~ Mary remarked that John wasnt able to tie his shoelaces.
However, in modern English modals have no past tense forms. Here are some
examples:
94)
It will rain this afternoon, she said.
~ She said that it would rain that afternoon.
I shant go, I said.
~ I said that I wouldnt go.
Examining each of the modals we find:

24

Form in
direct speech

will
would
shall

Back-shifted in
indirect speech

Would

Form in
direct speech

Back-shifted
in indirect speech

can
could

could

should
ought to

Should

may
might

might

must

had to

is to

was to

25

Nowadays, would, should, could, and might function as modals in their own
right. But the historical tense connection is echoed in back shifting. Would is
the back- shifted version of will (as it should be, were it the past form of will)
and also of would: similarly for the other three.
Should now indicates obligation, quite different from the prediction of shall, and
the back- shift for shall as for will and would is would. Should can be used as
the back- shift equivalent of should and also ought to (although it is also
possible for ought to to function as its own backshift). Had to functions as backshifted version of must and have to, demonstrating the close semantic link
between

modals

and

semi-modals,

despite

their

differing

grammatical

proprieties. Finally, is to, being the only modal to mark tense, has a regular
back-shifted form was to.
Would, could, and might nowadays have semantic functions that go far beyond
past tense of will, can, and may. Whereas will, can, and may tend to be used
for unqualified prediction, ability and possibility, would, could and might are
employed when there is some condition or other qualifications. For example:
95)
You will find it pleasant here when you come.
If you come, you would find it pleasant here.
You can borrow the car when you come.
If you come, you could borrow the car.
I may bake a cake.
I might bake a cake if you show me how.
In addition, would can mark a likely hypothesis:
96)
I saw John embrace a strange woman.
Oh, that would be my sister.
Could is often a softer, more polite alternative to can compare:
97)
Could you pass me the salt? and Can you pass me the salt?
(in both cases what is literally a question about ability is being used as a
request). And only may (not might) can substitute for can in a statement of
possibility.

26

The past tense modals can be used in the hypothetical sense of the past tense
in both main and subordinate clauses. Compare:
98)
a) If United can win this game, they may become league champions.
b) If United could win this game, they might become league champions.
Sentence b) unlike a), expresses a hypothetical conditional; ie it conveys the
speakers expectation that United will not win the game, and therefore will not
become league champions. For past hypothetical meaning (which normally has
a contrary to fact interpretation), we have to add the perfect aspect:
99)
If United could have won that game, they might have become league
champions.
The usual implication of this is that United did not win the game.
Would/Should as a marker of hypothetical meaning.
Would (and sometimes, with a 1st person subject, should) may express
hypothetical meaning in main clauses:
100)
If you pressed that button, the engine would stop.
If there were an accident, we would/should have to report it.
Although the conditional sentence, as in example 105 a), b), it is the most
typical context in which hypothetical would/should occurs, there are many other
contexts in which hypothetical would/should is appropriately used:
101)
a) Id hate to lose this pen.
b) Should as a marker of putative meaning:
In this use should + infinitive is often equivalent to the man dative subjunctive.
In using should, the speaker entertains, as it were, some putative world,
recognized that it may well exist or come into existence:
102)
She insisted that we should stay.
Its unfair that so may people should lose their jobs.
Let me know if you should hear some more news.
Putative should is more common in BrE than in AmE.
There is a clear semantic difference between the necessity forms must/ has
to/has got to and the obligation forms should/ought to:
103)
I should/ought to finish this essay tonight. (but I dont think I will).

27

I must/ have to/ have got to finish this essay tonight. (and I will, come
what may).
They are used in conditional clauses. You always use a modal in the main clause
when you are talking about a situation which does not exist:
104)
If the bosses had known that he voted liberal, he would have got the
sack.
If only the things had been different, she would have been far happier
with George.
They are used in purpose clauses.
Finite purpose clauses usually begin with in order that, so that, or so. They
usually contain a modal. If the verb in the main clause is in a present tense or in
the present perfect tense, you usually use one of the modals can, may, will,
or shall in the purpose clause:
105)
Its best to be as short, clear and factual as possible, in order that there
may be no misunderstanding.
If the verb in the main clause is in the past tense, you usually use could, might,
should, or would in the purpose clause:
106)
He stole under the very noses of the store detectives in order that he
might be
arrested and punished.
In clauses beginning with lest, you use either the subjunctive mood or a
modal.
1.2.5. The modal verb as a constituent of the VP
According to (Dixon 2005: 173) a clause may contain a chain of verbs, each in
syntactic relation with its neighbours:
107)
She will soon be able to begin telling John to think about starting to build
the house.
A modal verb must occur initially in such a chain- that is, it cannot be preceded
by any other verb. Semi- modals behave like other Secondary verbs in that they
28

can occur at the beginning or in the middle of a chain, but not at the end. A VP
can contain only one modal, but it may involve a sequence of semi- modals:
108)
He has to be going to start writing soon.
A semi- modal can occur in initial position; it does not then have exactly the
same

import

as

the

corresponding

modal.

Semi-

modals

often

carry

unconditional sense, while modals may indicate prediction, ability, necessity,

etc. subject to specifiable circumstances. Compare:
109)
a) My sister will get married on Tuesday if I go home on that day.
b) My sister is going to get married on Tuesday, so Im going home on that
day.
a) John can do mathematics, when he puts his mind to it.
b) John is able to do mathematics, without even having to try.
a) The boat must call tomorrow, if there arent high seas.
b) The boat has to call tomorrow, even if there are high seas.
However, this is very much a tendency; there is a great deal of semantic
overlap between the two sets of verbs. A semi- modal may substitute a
corresponding modal in a syntactic context where a modal is not permitted- for
example:
110)
I assume John to be able to climb the tree.
I assume that John can climb the tree.
The first word of the auxiliary component of a VP plays a crucial syntactic role in
that it takes negator not ~ nt, and is moved before the subject in a question.
Modals (the ought and be elements in the case of ought to and be to) fulfil this
role:
111)
Will he sing?
He shouldnt run today.
Are we to go tomorrow?
When a semi-modal begins a VP then the be of be going to, be able to, be about
to, and be bound to and the have of have got to will take the negator and front
in a question:
112)
Is he going to sing?
You havent got to go.
29

The have of have to behaves in the same way in some dialects:

113)
Has he to go?
He hasnt to go.
but other dialects include do (effectively treating have to as a lexical verb in
this respect, and not as an auxiliary):
114)
Does he have to go?
He hasnt have to go.
The get of the get to never takes the negator or fronts in a question one must
say:
I didnt get to see the Queen,
not* I getnt to see the Queen.
A modal cannot be followed by another modal, although a semi-modal can be
followed by a semi- modal, as in is bound to be about to. Generally any modal
may be followed by any semi- modal; for example, will be able to and could be
about to a notable exception is the modal can, which may not be followed by a
semi- modal, could being used instead as in:
115)
He could be about to win.
She could be going to lose.
Have to and have got to are stylistic variants, but after a modal only have to is
possible, as in example (120 a), while example (120 b) is ungrammatical:
116)
a) He will have to go.
b) He will have got to go.
And, because of their meaning, the sequence be to followed by be bound to is
unacceptable.
Parallel modals and semi- modals from the two columns can be combined will
be going to could refer to future in future:
117)
He will be going to build the house when he gets planning permission.
(but even then I doubt if hell do in a hurry), while could be able to combines
the possibility sense of could as in (126a) with the ability meaning of be able
to in (126b):
118)
a. That restaurant could be closed on a Sunday.
30

b. John could be able to solve this puzzle (lets ask him).

The semi- modals have to and be going to can occur in series following another
modal or semi- modal:
119)
The researchers warn that they will have to treat many more patients before
they can repost a cure.
Sequences of modal + have to are relatively common in all four registers,
especially in combination with volition/prediction modals:
120)
He would have to wait a whole year again to taste it.
These complex verb phrases are generally less common in conversation than in
the written registers, even though semi- modals are more common in
conversation overall. The only complex modal combination that occurs
commonly in conversation is the one that combines the two most common
semi- modals, be going to +have to:
121)
Because youre going to have to say something.

This enables speakers to express two modal meanings in one clause: future
time + obligation.

1.3. The semantics of the Modal Verbs

According to Downing and Locke (1992: 379) from a semantic point of

view, in making an assertion such as Its raining, speakers express a proposition

and at the same time commit themselves to the truth of that proposition. In
ordinary subjective terms, we should say that speakers know the truth of their
own assertion. For this reason, an utterance such as Its raining but I dont
believe it is semantically unacceptable since the second part contradicts the
categorical assertion expressed in the first.
If, on the other hand, speakers say It may be raining, It cant be raining, It

31

must be raining they are committing themselves wholeheartedly to the rather

modifying their commitment to some degree by expressing a judgement or
assessment of the truth of the situation. This is an important choice which faces
speakers every time they formulate a declarative clause: to make a categorical
statement or to express less than total commitment by modalising.
A different kind of modification is made when the speaker intervenes
directly in the speech event itself, by saying, for example, I must leave now,
Youd better come too, The rest of you can stay. Here the speaker makes use of
modal expressions to impose an obligation, to prohibit, to express permission or
consent to the action in question.

32

Hofmann (1993: 106) underlines that adding an epistemic modal is a common

way for the speaker to relieve himself of responsibility for the truth of a
proposition. Hofmann also gives an example in order to be more explicative:
122)
She must be sleeping.
cannot be used if the speaker has direct information as to what she is doing.
Rather, it indicates that the speaker does not know by direct experience that
she is sleeping, but is inferring it from some other facts, perhaps the time and
the fact that she does not answer her telephone. He is responsible only for the
logic and perhaps for a good selection of facts.
From these considerations, according to Hofmann, (1993: 114)3, the modality is
to be understood as a semantic category which covers such notions as
possibility, probability, necessity, volition, obligation and permission. These are
the basic modalities: recently the concept of modality has been extended to
cover other notions such as doubt, wish, regret and desire, and temporal
notions such as usuality. The projection of any of these notions onto the content
of the proposition indicates that the speaker is presenting this content not as a
simple assertion of fact, but coloured rather by personal attitude or
intervention. In very general terms, modality may be taken to express a relation
with reality, whereas a non-modal utterance treats the process as reality.
Contrast:
123)
That man over there is the Presidents bodyguard. (categorical assertion)
That man over there may be/ cant possibly be/ could perhaps be the
Presidents bodyguard. (modalised assertion)

Hofmann, Thomas Ronald. 1993. Realms of meaning: an introduction to

semantics. Learning about Language. London: Longman
3

33

These two main types of modal meaning are called according to Downing and
Locke (1992: 383), respectively, epistemic, in which the speaker comments on
the content of the clause, and non-epistemic, in which the speaker intervenes in
the speech event. Other terms are extrinsic and intrinsic. Epistemic refers to
knowledge; it is, however, the lack of knowledge that is characteristic of this
kind of modality. Within non-epistemic modality the term deontic is used to
refer to obligation and permission. Be means of these two main kinds of
modality speakers are enabled to carry out two important communicative
functions:
- to comment on and evaluate an interpretation of reality;
- to intervene in, and bring about the changes in events.

34

The epistemic modals mark application of logic at the time of speaking, so like
the deontic modals they independent of tense and use the different aspects
to show an event happens:
124)
-past time: He must have liked singing a lot in those days.
-future time: He must be going to sing tomorrow.
tefnescu (1978: 80), makes the following chart that attempts a rough
classification of the modals according to the distinction made between deontic
and epistemic modals:

35

DEONTIC MODALS

EPISTEMIC MODALS

May =permission

May =possibility

May I trouble you?

It may happen.

You may go now.

He may or he may not come.

Can=(a) ability, (b) permission

Can =possibility

a) He can read Russian.

He can write with the left hand.

Can it be true?
Linguistics can be made attractive.

b) Can I take that chair?

You can go now.
Must =obligation

Must =certainty

They must take it away, I wont have He must be a fool to do that.

it here.
They must put a lot of questions to

He must be the man we are looking

clarify it.

for.

Will =volition

Will =prediction, high

probability

I will complete this narrative.

Theres my brother! He will know!

He wont go.
Should =obligation

Should =probability

You should ask my permission first.

He should be there by now.

You should learn what youve been

given.

36

Hofmann, (1998: 98) adds to the classification of modal verb values into
deontic and epistemic, that is capacity or dynamic modals. For physical or
neutral capacity we normally use can, cant, have to or need to. These describe
the physical or neutral capacities of the subject of the sentence (they are
subject-oriented) and so we can label them as ability modals. Can is used for
action that is possible, while cant, cannot are used for something that is
impossible. If however, some action is necessary for the subject, we use need
to or have to.
125)
I can lift a car.
I cant get there by five.
I need to breathe.
I could solve the problem yesterday.
(could does not suggest that the action was carried out, but only that the
possibility was there).
The types of modality that are recognized will be mentioned in the following
sections. (cf. Collins 1990:229- 236; Alexander 2005: 212- 40; Leech 2002: 110140)
1.3.1. Ability
Can is used to say that someone has a particular skill or ability:
126)
You can all read and write.
He cannot dance.
Can is also used to say that someone is aware of something through their
senses:
127)
I can see you.
Could is used to say that someone had a skill or ability in the past:
128)
He could kick penalty goals from anywhere.
Could is used to say that someone is aware of something through one of their
senses on a particular occasion in the past:
129)

37

I could feel my heart bumping.

Can and could are also used to say that something or someone is capable of
having a particular effect, or behaving in a particular way:
130)
It can be very unpleasant.
He could be very stiff, could Haggerty.
You cannot use can or could to say that someone or something will have a
particular ability in the future. Instead you use be able to or be possible to.
Be able to and be possible to can also be used to talk about someones ability
to do something in the present or past.
1.3.2. Possibility
You use will when you are assuming that something is the case and you do not
think there is any reason to doubt it:
131)
He will be a little out of touch, although hes a rapid learner.
Similarly, you use will not or wont when you are assuming that something is
not the case:
132)
The audience will not be aware of such details.
After you, you can use would instead of will, if you want to be more polite:
133)
You would agree that the United States should be involved in assisting
these countries.
You also use would to say that something is certain to happen in particular
circumstances:
134)
Even an illiterate person would understand that.
After I, you can use should instead of would:
135)
I should be very unhappy on the continent.
You use must to indicate that you believe that something is the case, because
of particular facts or circumstances:
136)
Oh, you must be Sylvias husband.
When you are indicating that something is not the case, you use cannot. You do
not use must not:
38

137)
You cant have forgotten me.
You use could, might, or may to say that there is a possibility of something or
being the case. May is slightly more formal that could or might; otherwise there
is very little difference in meaning:
138)
In rare cases the jaw may be broken during extractions.
If you put well after could, would, might, or may, you are indicating that it is
fairly likely that something is the case:
139)
You might well be right.
You use might not or may not to say that it is possible that something is not the
case:
140)
He might not be in England at all.
You use could not or cannot to say that it is impossible that something is the
case:
141)
You cant talk to the dead.
Could is sometimes used in negative constructions with the comparative form
of an adjective. You use could like this to say that it is not possible for someone
or something to have more of a particular quality:
142)
I couldnt be happier.
You use will to say that something is certain to happen or be the case in the
future:
143)
They will see everything.
Be going to can also be used to say that something is certain to happen in the
future.
Shall is also used to say that something is certain to happen. You usually use
shall when you are talking about events and situations over which you have
some control. For example, you can use shall when you are making a resolution
or a promise:

39

144)
I shall be leaving as soon as Im ready.
Youll make a lot of money. I shall one day.
You use must to say that something is certain to happen because of particular
facts or circumstances:
145)
Computer interviewing and rudimentary computer diagnosis must eventually
lead to computer decision- making.
You use cannot to say that something is certain not to happen because of
particular facts or circumstances. You do not use must not:
146)
The repression cant last.
You use should or ought to to say that you expect something to happen:
147)
We should at Briceland by dinner time.
It ought to get better as it goes along.
You use could, might, or may to say that it is possible that a particular thing will
happen:
148)
The river could easily overflow.
They might be able to remember what he said.
If you put well after could, might, or may, you are indicating that it is fairly that
something will happen or be the case:
149)
We might well get injured.
If you put possibly or conceivably after could, might, or may, you are indicating
that it is possible, but fairly unlikely, that something will happen or be the case:
150)
These conditions could possibly be accepted.
You use should or ought to with have to say that you expect something to have
happened already:
151)
Dear Mom, you should have heard by now that Im O.K.
You also use should or ought to with have to say that something was expected
to happen, although it has not in fact happened:

40

152)
She ought to have been home by now.
Would with have can be used to talk about actions and events that were
possible in the past, although they did not in fact happen:
153)
Denial would have been useless.
You use could or might with have to say that there was a possibility of
something happening in the past, although it did not in fact happen:
154)
It could have been awful.
You also use could, might, or may with have to say that it is possible that
something was the case, but you do not know whether it was the case or not:
155)
I may have seemed to be overreacting.
You use might not or may not with have to say that it is possible that something
did not happen or was not the case:
156)
They might not have considered me as a friend.
You use could with negative and have to say that it is impossible that
something happened or was the case:
157)
It couldnt have been wrong.
1.3.3. Permission
Can is used to say that someone is allowed to do something:
158)
You can drive a van up to 3 ton capacity using an ordinary driving
licence.
If you are giving permission for something, you use can:
159)
You can borrow that pen if you want.
In more formal situations, may is used to give permission:
160)
You may speak.
Could is used to say that someone was allowed to do something in the past:

41

161)
We could go to any part of the island we wanted.
You cannot use can or could to say that someone will be allowed to do
something in the future. Instead you use be able to:
1.3.4. Prohibition
Modals are often used in negative structures to say that an action is forbidden
or unacceptable.
Cannot is used to say that something is forbidden, for example because of a
rule or law:
162)
Children cannot bathe except in the presence of two lifesavers.
May not is used in a similar way to cannot, but it is more formal:
163)
Communion may not, on principle, be celebrated by one who is not
ordained.
Will not is used to tell someone very firmly that they are not allowed to do a
particular thing. Usually, the speaker has the power to prevent the hearer from
doing this.
164)
Until we have cured you, you wont be leaving here.
Shall not is used to say formally that a particular thing is not allowed. Shall not
is often used in written rules, laws, and agreements:
165)
Persons under 18 shall not be employed in night work.
Shant is used in a similar way to will not and wont:
166)
You shant leave without my permission.
Should not is used to tell someone that an action is unacceptable or
undesirable:
167)
You shouldnt do that.
Must not is used to say much more firmly that something is unacceptable or
undesirable:
168)
You must not accept it.

42

1.3.5. Giving instructions and making requests.

When you give an instruction or make a request, you usually use a modal in an
interrogative sentence. Will, would, can, or could can be used with you to tell
someone to do something, or to ask someone to do something. You use can,
could, may, or might with I or we or with other personal pronouns or noun
groups to ask someones permission to do something.
Instructions and request are more polite by adding please, as it is stated by
Leech (2002: 130).
Will, would, and could are used with you in two ways:
- to give an instruction or an order
- to ask for hep or assistance.
Will is used to give an instruction or order in a fairly direct way. It is slightly less
forceful than using an imperative:
169)
Will you please take her to her cubicle?
Will is used to ask for help in fairly informal situations:
170)
Mummy, will you help me?
When would is used to give an instruction or order, it is more polite than will:
171)
Would you tell her that Adrian phoned?
When would is used to ask for help, it is less informal, and more polite that will:
172)
Would you do me a favour?
When could is used to give an instruction or order, it is more polite than would:
173)
Could you make out her bill, please?
When could is used to ask for help, it is more polite than would:
174)
Could you show me how to do this?
Can be used with you to ask for help. You usually use can when you are not sure
whether someone will be able to help you or not:
175)
Oh, hell. Can you help me? Ive been trying to get a London number for
ten minutes
and I cant get through.

43

Can, could, may, and might are used with I or we when you are asking for
something, or asking permission to do something.
These modals can be used with he, she or they, or with other noun groups,
when you are asking for something on behalf of someone else. For example,
you can say Can she borrow your car? or Could my mother use your
telephone?
Can is used to make a request in a simple and direct way:
176)
Can I ask you a question?
Could is more polite that can:
177)
Could I have a bottle of Vermouth, please?
You can make a request sound more persuasive by using cant or couldnt
instead of can or could. For example, you can say Cant I come with you?
instead of Can I come with you?
178)
Cant we have some music?
May and might are more formal than can and could. People used to taught that,
when asking for something, it was correct to say may rather than can, and
might rather than could.

However can and could are now generally used.

Requests beginning with might are unusual, and are considered be most people
to be old-fashioned:
179)
May I have a cigarette?
Might I ask what your name is?
Would like can be used with I or we in a declarative sentence to give an
instruction or order. It is followed by you and a to-infinitive clause:
180)
Penelope, I would like you to get us the files.
An instruction or order can also be given using will in a declarative sentence.
This form is used when the speaker is angry or impatient:
181)
You will give me those now.

44

Shall is sometimes used in a declarative sentence to give an instruction or

order. This is a very formal use:
182)
After ten o clock at night there shall be quietness on the upper corridor.
You can use would like or should like in a declarative sentence to make a
request. Would like and should like are followed by a to- infinitive clause or a
noun group:
183)
I would like to ask you a question.
I should like a large cutlet, please.
All the ways of giving instructions or making requests can be more polite by
using please:
184)
Can I speak to Nicola, please?
You can also make a request more polite by adding the name of the person you
are addressing at the beginning or the end of your question:
185)
Martin, could you make us a drink?
Another way of making a request more polite is to add an adverb such as
perhaps or possibly after the subject of the verb:
186)
Could I perhaps bring a friend with me?
May I possibly have a word with you, please?
1.3.6. Making an offer or an invitation
According to Collins (1990: 230) modals are often used to make an offer
or an invitation. You use will or would with you to ask someone to accept
something, or to make an invitation. You can use can, may, shall, or should with
I or we when you are offering to help someone.
Will is used with you in an interrogative sentence to offer something to
someone, or to make an invitation in a fairly informal way. You use will when
you know the person you are talking to quite well:
187)
Will you stay for lunch?

45

A more polite way of offering something or making an invitation is to use would

with a verb which means to like:
188)
Would you care to stay with us?
If you sound more persuasive without seeming impolite or insistent, you can
use wouldnt instead of would:
189)
Wouldnt you like to come with me?
When you are offering for someone, you usually use can followed by I or we:
190)
Can I help you with the dishes?
May is also used when you are offering to do something for someone. It is less
common than can, and is rather formal and old- fashioned:
191)
May I help you?
You can use shall or should when you are offering to do something. If you are
certain that your offer will be accepted, you use shall:
192)
Shall I shut the door?
If you are uncertain whether your offer will be accepted, you use should:
193)
Should I give her a lift?
If you want to emphasize your ability to help, you can make an offer using can
in a declarative sentence:
194)
I have a car. I can drop Daisy off on my way home.
If you want to make an invitation in a very persuasive way, you can use a
declarative sentence beginning with you and must:
195)
You must lunch with me tomorrow.
You only use must like this with people who you know well.
1.3.7. Making suggestions

46

Alexander (2005: 222) argues that suggestions can be made by using a

modal in a declarative or interrogative sentence. The subject of the sentence is
usually we or you. You can make a suggestion by using could in a declarative
sentence or couldnt in an interrogative sentence:
196)
You could have a nursery here.
Couldnt you just build more factories?
If you are making a suggestion and you want to indicate that you feel strongly
that is a good idea, you can use should or ought to:
197)
You should ask Norry about this.
We ought to celebrate. Lets get a bottle of champagne.
A more polite way of making a suggestion that you feel strongly about is to use
shouldnt or oughtnt to in an interrogative sentence:
198)
Shouldnt we at least give her a chance?
Oughtnt we to phone the police?
If you are suggesting an action and you are trying to persuade someone that it
should be done, you use must. You only use must like this when you are talking
to someone you know well:
199)
You must say hello to your daughter.
If you want to make a suggestion in a very polite way, you can use might with
you in a declarative sentence. Might is followed by a verb meaning to like or to
want:
200)
You might like to comment on his latest proposal.
You can also make a polite suggestion by using a sentence beginning with It
might be, followed by a noun group or adjective and a to- infinitive clause:
201)
I think it might be a good idea to stop the recording now.
You use might as well when what you are suggesting seems to be the only
sensible course of action, although you are not enthusiastic about it:
202)
He might as well take the car.

47

You use may as well to show that it is not important to you whether your
suggestions is accepted or not:
203)
You may as well open them all.
You can make a suggestion about what you and someone else could do by using
an interrogative sentence beginning with shall and we:
204)
Shall we go and see a film?
1.3.8. Stating an intention
Intentions are usually stated by using will, shall, or must in declarative
sentence. The subject is I or we. The usual way to state an intention is to use I
or we with will. The shortened forms Ill and well are very common, as Collins
states (1990: 233):
205)
I will call you when I am ready.
Well discuss that later.
You state your intention not to do something using will not or wont:
206)
I will not follow her.
You can indicate that you are very determined to do something by using the full
form I will and stressing wont, or by using I will not or we will not and stressing
not.
Another way of stating an intention is to use I or we with shall. This use is
slightly old fashioned and rather formal:
207)
I shall be leaving soon.
You can indicate that you are very determined not to do something by using
shall not or shant. This is more emphatic than using will not or wont:
208)
I shall not return unless paid to do so.
If you want to indicate that it is important that you do something, you can use
must with I:
209)
I must leave fairly soon.
1.3.9. Indicating unwillingness or refusal.

48

Collins (1990: 233) states that unwillingness or a refusal can be expressed

by using a modal in a negative declarative sentence. The subject is usually I or
we, but other personal pronouns or nouns groups can be used.
If you want to say firmly that you are unwilling to do something, you use will not
or wont:
210)
I will not hear a word said against the National Health Service.
If you are refusing to do something, you can just say I wont:
211)
Tell me your secret. I wont. It wouldnt be a secret if I told you.
You can use wont to say that someone else is unwilling to do something:
212)
He wont give her a divorce.
If you want to say that you are unwilling to do something in the past, you use
wouldnt or would not:
213)
He thought I was a freak because I wouldnt carry a weapon.
If you want to say to indicate that you have strong feelings which prevent you
from doing something, you use cannot or cant:
214)
I cannot leave everything for him.
Couldnt is used in two ways to express unwillingness to do something.
You use it to indicate that you are unwilling to do something because you are
afraid, embarrassed, or disgusted.
215)
I couldnt possibly go out now.
You use it to indicate that you are unwilling to do something because you think
it would be unfair or morally wrong:
216)
I couldnt leave Hilary behind to cope on her own.
1.3.10. Expressing a wish
As Alexander (2005: 224) says wishes can be expressed by using a modal
in a declarative sentence. You can say what someone wants by using would
followed by a verb meaning to like. After the verb meaning to like; you put a to
infinitive clause or a noun group:

49

217)
I would prefer to say nothing about this problem.
You can say what someone does not want by using would not:
218)
I would not like to see it.
Normally, when you are using would with like to say what someone does not
want, you put not after would. If you put not after like, you change the meaning
slightly. For example, if you say I would not like to be a student, you mean you
are not a student and do not want to be one. But if you say I would like not to
be a student, you mean you are a student and do not want to be one:
219)
All of us would not like to have nuclear weapons.
You can also say what someone does not want by using would with a verb
meaning to dislike:
220)
I would hate to move to another house now.
You can also say what someone wants or does not want by using should. Should
is less common than would, and is slightly more formal:
221)
I should like to live in the country.
You can say that someone prefers one situation to another by using would
rather or would sooner:
222)
He would rather have left it.
If you want to say that someone wanted something to happen, although it did
not happen, you use would have and a past participle:
223)
I would have liked to hear more from the patient.
Another way of saying that you want something is to use wouldnt with a verb
or expression such as mind or object to which is normally used to refuse
something:
224)
I wouldnt mind being a manager of a store.

50

In a very old- fashioned English, would is used without a subject to express a

wish that a situation might be different, or to express regret that something did
not happen in the past. Would is followed by a that clause:
225)
Would that the developments had been so easy.
When I, he, she, or it is the subject of the that clause, the verb is usually
were, not was:
226)
Would that I were young again, and she were in my arms.
In very formal English, may is used in interrogative sentences to express a hope
or wish:
227)
Long may they continue to do it.
1.3.11. Indicating importance
According to Collins (1990: 236) modals can be used in declarative
sentences to say that it is important that something is done. Different modals
indicate different degrees of importance.
Must is used in three common ways to talk to do something, because you feel it
is important. Must not is used to urge someone not to do something:
228)
You must come at once.
You mustnt let her suffer for it.
You use must to say that something is required by a rule or law:
229)
People who qualify must apply within six months.
You use must to say that it is necessary that something happens or is done, in
order that something else can happen:
230)
Meadows must have rain.
Have to, have got to, and need to can be used instead of must to talk about the
importance of doing something. If you want to say that an action will be
necessary in the future, you use will have to or will need to:
231)
They will have to pay for the repairs.
Shall have to is sometimes used instead of will have to after I or we. This is
slightly formal use:
51

232)
I shall have to speak about that to Peter.
Should and ought to are used in three different ways when you are talking
about the importance of doing something. You use should or ought to when you
are trying to help someone by advising them to do something:
233)
Carbon steel knives should be wiped clean after use.
You use should or ought to when you are saying that something is the right or
correct thing to do:
234)
You should send her a postcard from Eastbourne.
You use should or ought to with have and a past participle to say that
something was desirable in the past, although it did not in fact happen:
235)
One sailor should have been asleep and one on watch.
You also use should and ought to to say that you expect something to happen.
1.3.12. Introducing what you are going to say
Leech (2002: 115) argues that sometimes you introduce what you are going to
say by using a modal followed by a verb such as say or ask which refers to the
fact of saying something. You can also combine a modal with a verb such as
think or believe which refers to the holding of an opinion. You use a modal in
order to sound more polite, or to indicate your feelings about what you are
going to say. In structures like these, the subject is usually I. Sometimes you
use an impersonal structure beginning with it or you.
For example, instead of saying I ought to mention that he had never been
there, you can say It ought to be mentioned that he had never been there. If
you feel strongly that what you are saying is important, you use must:
236)
I must apologise to you.
If you feel that it is important or appropriate that something is said, you
indicate that you are going to say it by using should or ought to.
If you want to say something during a discussion, you can indicate politely that
you are going to say it by using can:
237)

52

Perhaps I can mention another possibility.

If you want to be even more polite, you use could:
238)
Perhaps I could just ask you this.......
You also use can and could when you are mentioning an opinion or a way of
describing something.
Can suggests that you approve of the opinion or description:
239)
English can be seen as an expressive discipline.
Could is more neutral.
240)
You could argue that this is irrelevant.
May and might can also be used to mention an opinion or a way of describing
something.
May suggests that you approve of the opinion or description. It is more formal
that can.
241)
This, it may be added, greatly strengthened him in his resolve.
Might also suggests that you approve of the opinion or description. You use
might when you think there is a possibility that the person you are talking to
will disagree with you.
242)
You must say shes entitled to get angry.
If you are stating an opinion of your own, you can indicate politely that you are
going to state it by using should.
243)
I should think it would last quite a long time.
Would is used in a similar way, but it is less common.
244)
I would guess it may well come down to cost.

Conclusion
The theme of this chapter has been the investigation of the modal verbs
in detail. First I have outlined the fact that modals

can be either central,

peripheral or semi-modals. Further on I have presented the syntactic aspects of

53

using modals : interrogation, negation, auxiliary forms, types of clauses with

modals. In the third section I have described the semantic groups of modals
classified according to the type of modality they express: ability, possibility,
obligation, permission.
Modals are also used in conversation in various situational contexts, such as:
giving

instructions,

orders,

making

suggestions

and

commands,

giving

instructions and making requests, making an offer or an invitation, making

suggestions, stating an intention, indicating unwillingness or refusal, expressing
a wish, indicating importance, introducing what you are going to say.
Throughout the first chapter theory and examples intertwine in order to give an
easy-to-grasp view over the concepts.

54