The transmitter of a linguistic communication is not, as a rule, indifferent to its content, adopting this or that attitude. This attitude, intellective (e.g. of conviction or lack of conviction, curiosity or lack of curiosity, etc.), volitive (e.g. of determination or lack of determination, authority or lack of authority, etc.) and above all emotive or emotional (e.g. of pleasure or disgust, sympathy or hatred, approval or disapproval, etc.) either forms part of the accentuation means of communication or is subservient to them in view of achieving the ultimate aim of the message, that of informing or impressing the recipient in the sense desired by the transmitter.

Even such sentences which seem ‘neutral’ and ‘objective’ in the highest possible degree express, besides the information meant to be conveyed to the mind of the recipient, some peculiar attitude of the transmitter. Thus for example, when someone says –‘Squares have four sides’, he states a fact whose veracity he does not doubt (intellective attitude of belief in a fact). Depending on the context in which this sentence is placed, the speaker’s attitude may be modified in various senses. Supposing that his interlocutor may doubt the statement, the speaker will probably ‘intensify’ it, so that it will become synonymic with ‘I maintain that squares have four sides’, or ‘you must admit that squares have four sides (for it is matter of common knowledge)’, etc.

In written texts the transmitter’s attitude becomes more obvious when it is expressed by formal means- words, phrases, grammatical forms and structures, etc.

I cannot devise a better scheme (the speaker considers the action as impossible);

He is likely to return tonight (the speaker considers the action as probable);

It is a pity you didn’t join us (the speaker regrets that the action was not fulfilled);

She liked to read in the afternoon (the speaker says something that he considers to have been a real fact, and shows the attitude of the subject she-that of having liked to perform the action specified by the verb), etc.

In linguistics, the attitude of the transmitter (speaker) towards the content of the communication (in a more specific sense, his attitude towards the content of the sentence or of the principal verb of the sentence) is often called modality. Leon D. Levitchi states that”Modality is the soul of the sentence; like thinking, it is generally formed as a result of an active operation of the speaking subject. Consequently, we cannot say that an utterance is a sentence, unless modality, in some measure, finds its expression in it’’.

Rendered by various linguistic means -phonetic, lexical, grammatical, stylistic- modality differs from a language to another as to the use of these means, though in certain respects one may speak of obvious similarities.

English has its own modal system, and to know it in at least some detail is compulsory for a satisfactory understanding of the language by non-English speaking people.

So, from the semantic point of view, in making an assertion such as “It’s 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 assertion. For this reason, an utterance such as “It’s raining but I don’t 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 can’t be raining, It must be raining” they are not committing themselves wholeheartedly to the truth of the proposition. They are not making a categorical assertion, but are rather modifying their commitment to some degree by expressing a judgment 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’, ‘You ‘d 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.

From these considerations, modality is to be understood as a semantic category which covers such notions as possibility, probability, necessity, volition, obligation or permission. These a 535d39f re the basic modalities. The concept of modality has been extended recently 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 can be a categorical assertion or a modalised assertion.

“That man over there is the President’s bodyguard. (categorical assertion)

“That man over there may be/ can’t possibly be/ could perhaps be the President’s bodyguard.”(modalised assertion)

Angela Downing and Philip Locke point out that “These two main types of modal meaning are here called 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. By means of these two main kinds of modality speakers are enabled to carry out two important communicative functions:

a) to comment on and evaluate an interpretation of reality,

b) to intervene in, and bring about changes in events.

Certain other types of modality are recognised and will be mentioned in the following sections.

II The realisations of modal meanings

Since the semantic field of modality has, for some linguists, been widened to cover the attitudinal notions specified in the previous paragraph, so consequently have the number and type of forms which realise these concepts. They may be divided into two main groups: the verbal and the non-verbal exponents.

1 Verbs expressing modal meanings

These include the following:

a) Lexical verbs such as allow, beg, command, forbid, guarantee, guess, promise, suggest, and warn called performative verbs.

b) The verbs wonder and wish which express doubt and wish respectively.

c) The lexico-modal auxiliaries composed of be or have usually another element + infinitive (have got to, be bound to, etc.)

d) The modal auxiliaries can, could, will, would, must, shall, should, may, might, ought, and the semi-modals need and dare.

2 Other means of expressing modality

It is suggested that the following also express modalities:

a) Modal adjectives such as possible, probable, likely used in impersonal constructions such as It’s possible he may come or as part of a Nominal Group, as in a likely winner of this afternoon’s race or the most probable outcome of this trial.

b) Modal nouns such as possibility, probability, chance, likelihood as in There’s just a chance that he may come.

c) Certain uses of if-clause as in if you know what I mean, if you don’t mind my saying so, what if he’s had an accident?

d) The use of the remote past as in ‘I thought I’d go along with you, if you don’t mind.’

e) The use of non-assertive items such as any as in He’ll eat any kind of vegetable.

f) Certain types of intonation, such as fall-rise.

g) The use of hesitation phenomena in speech.

It is clear from the diversity of these categories that there is a danger that modality may become indistinguishable from tentativeness. According to Angela Downing and Philip Locke the most basic exponents of modality in English are the verbs and particularly the modal and lexico-modal auxiliaries. The other modal elements tend to reinforce the modal meaning expressed by the verb, modal auxiliary or lexico-modal, as in the example: Do you think it could by any chance be the winning number?

III Characteristics of modal-defective verbs

The main characteristics of English modal-defective verbs are

1. Morphologically, modal verbs have an incomplete predication- they must always be completed by an infinitive, either expressed or understood, e.g

He must have said it at breakfast one morning when she had gone out on to the terrace.

He could be intolerable; he could be impossible but adorable to walk with on a morning like this.

Most of them are followed by short infinitives, that is by infinitives without the particle to. To have (to), to be (to) and ought (to) are exceptions.

All of them are defective in the sense they cannot be conjugated in all the moods and tenses. Excepting to have (to) they have no infinitives. To be (to) is just a conventional dictionary form. Must, may, can, etc. are not infinitives, but forms of the present tense indicative mood and their translation as “ a putea” ,“a trebui” etc. is conventional. None of them has a past participle (the past participle had is not modal) so that the Romanian compound tenses in which the equivalent Romanian modal verbs can be conjugated are rendered in English either by substitutes (other verbs) or by various constructions, e.g.

Se poate ca ei sa fie despartiti de sute de ani They might be parted for hundreds of years .

N-ar fi trebuit sa uite niciodata toate acestea. Never should she forget all that.

Nu a putut intelege niciodata cum lui ii pasa. Never could she understand how he cared.

To have (to), to be (to), and to do have preterite forms as modal verbs, but these can not be used as conditional-present forms.

Must and ought (to) are only present forms.

With the exception of to have (to) and to be (to), the third person of modal verbs in the present tense gets no –s, thus he must, he can, she may, etc. (on the other hand has and is end in –s, but –s is not added to the infinitive.)

In interrogative, negative and mixed sentences, modal verbs are not accompanied by the auxiliary to do, excepting to have (to), e.g.

e.g. Can I, can I, ever?-no it is absurd, preposterous! (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 28)

That cannot be the key of her drawer-then she must have some strong box or safe. (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 52)

2. From the semantic point of view, in contrast with auxiliary verbs, modal verbs always have a meaning of their own.

3. From the syntactic point of view, they are part of compound verbal modal predicates, unlike auxiliary verbs which are part of simple verbal predicates and unlike link verbs which are part of the compound nominal predicates.

e.g. I think I can read trouble in your countenance. (compound modal verbal predicate).

Allow me, young man can you or dare you fix your eyes on me now and deny that I am a sot? (simple verbal predicate)

Such is my character. (compound nominal predicate)

4 Representing but one possibility by which modality is expressed modal verbs may be replaced in various contexts by other forms, e.g.

e.g. He must do it.-It is necessary that he should do it.-It is imperative that he should do it.-There is no doubt that he will do it.- He will do it, by all means.-He is expected to do it.

IV Modal verbs and their meanings .

MAY

Form

may for all persons in the present and future

might for all persons in the past and conditional

Negative: may not (mayn’t) might not (mightn‘t)

Interrogative: may I? & c. might I? & c.

Negative interrogative: may I not (mayn’t I)? mightn ‘t I? & c.

may is followed by the infinitive without to.

As A.J. Thompson and A.V Martinet point out may is chiefly used to express permission or possibility.

may used to express permission

may is chiefly used when we grant, refuse or request permission.

Except with the first person it is not normally used to express the idea of having permission:

I | we may go means I | we have permission to go

but He |you | they may go normally means I allow him | you | them to go (it expresses the speaker authority).

To make these sentences past we use allow (not might):

I may go today becomes I was allowed to go yesterday.

He may go today becomes I allowed him to go yesterday.

But might is of course used when the main verb is in the past:

He said “She may go today”= He said that she might go that day.

Formal permission is always expressed by may but may can also be used informally as an alternative to can. It is fairly common in polite requests:

“May I use your phone?” is more polite than “Can/could I use your phone?”

“May I ask you if you intend starting before long?” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 207)

might I ?(conditional) is more diffident than may I? and indicates greater uncertainty about the answer. Might (past) must of course be used when the main verb of the sentence is in the past tense:

He said: “May I read it? =he asked if he might read it.

may/might expressing possibility

a may/might +present infinitive expresses possibility in the present or future, i.e. at or after the time of speaking:

e.g. “You may imagine Dounia’ s distress.” (perhaps you will) (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 28)

“He seized his hat and went out, giving no thought this time as to whom he might meet on the stairs.” (perhaps he will meet someone or not), (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 34)

“…you may know what God has done for us.”(perhaps you do not know), (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 28)

might must be used when the main verb of the sentence is in a past tense:

e.g. “Neither have I nor Donia said so much as a word to him of our strong hopes that he might assist us to send you some money.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 32)

Either may or might may be used for expressing possibility but might makes the possibility seem a little more remote.

“I might stop the blood, but that would be of no avail. In five minutes he will be dead.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 125)

May/ might is not used in the interrogative to express probability. Instead we use such phrases as do you think? + present/future tense or is he likely+ an infinitive:

e.g. “Perhaps friendship may grow between us.’

Do you think so?” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 207)

“It is not very likely that some coming Napoleon did for Alena Ivanovna last week? suddenly blustered Zametoff from his corner.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 185)

b may/might+ perfect infinitive is used in speculations about past actions:

e.g. “At first we thought him rather disagreeable, but this may have risen from his being an outspoken man, and that he is indeed.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 31)

might must be used, as shown above when the main verb is in a past tense:

e.g. “Much more he said, so that some might have called him vain, and fond of hearing himself talk, but this is hardly a vice.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 207)

might, not may, must be used when the uncertainty no longer exists:

“ I thought I might I have got that information from you without thinking any more about it.” page 187

might, not may, is also used when the matter was never put to the test, as in:

e.g. “You have just called to ask for me, and yet you don’t say a word-what is the meaning of that? continued Raskolnikoff in jerky strain, one might have fancied that the words experienced some difficulty in leaving his mouth.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 191)

Sentences of this kind are very similar to the third type of conditional sentences:

e.g. “ Had he been more observant, he might have seen that his friend was in a far different mood.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 154)

c may/might can be used in conditional sentences instead of will/would to indicate a possible instead of a certain result:

e.g. “ I may be base, only let me be.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 116)

may/might can also be used (in the affirmative only) in the following ways:

a In the expression may/might as well :

I may/might as well + infinitive is a very unemphatic way of expressing an intention. may/ might as well can be used with other persons to suggest or recommend an action:

e.g. “I was lying down- I may as well say- drunk.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 17)

e.g. “What dreadful lodgings you have, Rodia!-you might as well be in a sepulchre’, suddenly remarked Pulcheria Alexandrovna, to break the painful silence.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 158)

might just as well means “it would be equally good to” and is used to suggest an alternative action. It usually implies disapproval of a previous suggested action:

e.g. “ I’ll go on Monday by the slow train.”

“ You might just as well wait till Tuesday and go on the fast one.”

b You might can express a very casual command. It indicates that the speaker is quite certain that he will be obeyed and is roughly equivalent to an imperative + will you:

e.g. You might post these for me= Post these for me, will you.

This form should only be used between friends.

c might can also be used for persuasive requests, or requests which indicate that the speaker is annoyed that the action in question has not been performed already:

e.g. “You might tell me what he said” can mean I am annoyed that you haven’t told me already/ you should have told me.

might can also be used with other persons to express this sort of irritation:

e.g. “He might pay us” can mean “We are annoyed that he doesn’t pay us/ hasn’t paid us”

Similarly, might+ perfect infinitive can express irritation at, or reproach for the non-performance of an action in the past:

e.g. “I admit that you wished to assist the widow, but you might have given her fifteen, or even twenty, roubles, if necessary, and have kept something for yourself, whereas you gave everything you had –you spent in fact, your whole twenty-five roubles!” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 177)

d may + infinitive can be used in expressions of faith and hope:

e.g. “May God give peace to the dead, and let the living live! Is that right?” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 166)

“Heaven grant it may! cried Pulcheria Alexandrovna, much perturbed by these revelations about the character of her Rodia.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 147)

CAN

can used for permission, possibility and ability:

can used to express permission:

Form:

can for all persons in the present and future

could in the past and conditional

Negative: cannot (can’t), could not (couldn’t)

Interrogative: can I? &c. could I? &c.

can has no particles, so all other tenses have to be supplied by allow or permit:

e.g. “If I allowed myself to speak disparagingly of him yesterday, it was owing to my being abominably drunk and quite beside myself…” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 149)

“Permit me to introduce to you our deliverer, Dmitri Prokovitch Razoumikhin’, added she.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 210)

can is followed by the infinitive without to.

e.g. “When the time comes for darker autumn suits you can abandon this if it does not abandon you.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 94)

Use:

can used for permission is an informal alternative to may.

But it has a wider use than may for it can be used not only to grant, refuse or ask for permission, but also with all the persons to express the idea of having permission:

e.g. “Now you can go, but I shall keep my eye on you, so beware!” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 78) means I allow you to go.

Both can I? and could I? can be used for requests. Could is the more polite. Could must of course be used when the main verb is in the past tense.

could can mean “was/were allowed to”:

e.g. “Can you sympathize with me still, sir?” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 20)

“But he told himself he could not (was not allowed to) take back the money…”(Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 24)

But when a particular action was permitted and performed was allowed to is better:

e.g. Each child was allowed to take one book home. Mary chose “The Catcher in the Rye”

can used to express possibility

you/one can mean it is possible, i.e. circumstances permit (this is quite different from the kind of possibility expressed by may):

e.g. “How can you sleep so long?” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 53)

“At present we cannot talk with Peter Petrovitch about these ideas of yours” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 32)

“But where can the money be gone?” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 23)

can cannot be used in this way in a future sense. To express a future possibility of this type we have to use it will be possible or people/you/we &c. will be able:

e.g. ‘’You are called upon either to pay at once, together with all expenses, etc., or to give a written answer when you will be able to pay, and sign an agreement not to remove until payment is made, and not to sell or conceal any property you may be possessed of.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 76)

can expressing ability. can and be able

can here is used in conjunction with to be able( the verb be+ the adjective able) which supplies the missing parts of can and provides an alternative form for the present and past tenses. We have therefore the following forms:

Infinitive: to be able

Affirmative Negative Interrogative

Present: can cannot can I ?

or am able or am not able or am I able ?

Past: could could not could I ?

or was able or was not able or was I able ?

Future: I shall be able I shall not be able shall I be able ?

or he will be able or he will not be able or will he be able ?

There is only one future form, for can is not used in the future except to express permission .In the conditional, however, we have two forms: could and would be able.

All other tenses are formed with be able according to the rules for ordinary verbs:

e.g. present perfect: have been able

past perfect: had been able

Negative interrogatives are formed in the usual way:

couldn’t you able ? won’t you be able ? &c.

can be , will, shall not and have can be contracted in the usual way :

I wasn’t able to he won’t be able to I’d been able to

can is followed by the infinitive without to

be able is followed by the infinitive without to.

can/am able, could/was able

a can and be able

I shall/will be able is the only future form:

e.g. .“I shall not be able to sleep if I do not see how they fit, for I bought them on chance.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 93)

ii Either can or am able may be used in the present, can is the more usual:

“…she has much to say to you, but can not take up pen to write you a few lines without upsetting herself.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 33)

“…he is tolerably good-looking, and can make himself agreeable to woman.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 32)

For the present perfect, however, we must use the be able from:

“Since his accident he hasn’t been able to leave the house.”

b could

i could can be used with a present meaning when there is an idea of condition:

“How could I go to sleep again when nothing is done!” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 72)

ii could you? is a very good way of introducing a request. It is an alternative to would you and a little more polite:

e.g. “Could you send me an application form?”

c could and was able used for past ability:

i for ability only, either can be used:

e.g. “But he told himself that he could not take back the money and would not if he could”/was able’’ (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 24)

“the two lads behind the counter could scarcely refrain their laughter, and the master himself smiled.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 14)

ii For ability + a particular action we use was able:

e.g. “Pleased that she was at least able to go, Sophia withdrew with rapid stride and downcast look.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 167)

This rule, however is relaxed in the negative and with verbs of senses:

e.g. “The little boy who was standing in the corner could not/was not able to bear the sight” page 23

d had been able is the past perfect form:

e.g. He said he had lost the passport and hadn’t been able to leave the country.

could +perfect infinitive is used for past ability, when:

a the action was not performed:

e.g. “Nothing in the world could now have made him return to the trunk, nor even re-enter the room in which it lay.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 63)

b we don’t know whether it was performed or not

e.g. “He could have wished to forget everything and sleep all off, and commence afresh.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 41)

can’t and couldn’t used to express negative deduction

i Negative deduction about a present event can be expressed by can’t or couldn’t with the present infinitive of the verb be:

e.g. “That cannot be the key of her drawer-then she must have some strong box. (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 51)

ii Negative deduction about a past event is expressed by can’t/couldn’t+ the perfect infinitive of any verb:

e.g. “…I know that with your disposition and feelings you could not have endured the thought of your sister being insulted.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 28)

We can use the same construction with statements which are suppositions rather than true deductions, but here it is better to use can’t only, not couldn’t:

e.g. “Where can the old woman have gone? I want to speak with her” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 66)

couldn’t, however, must be used when the supposition or deduction forms part of a sentence whose main verb is in the past tense:

e.g. “Raskalnikoff thought he recognized Zametoff amongst them, but he could not be sure” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 110)

MUST, HAVE TO, and NEED

Positive obligation

must

The form must is used for all persons in the present and future tenses. The negative is must not (mustn’t) and the interrogative is must I? &c. must has no infinitive and no past tense. It is followed by the infinitive without to and it is used to express obligation or very emphatic advice:

e.g. “Hush, Simon Zakharitch has returned from his office tired, he must have his rest!” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 19) (imperative)

“Besides, to know a man thoroughly, one must deal with him gradually and with circumspection …“(Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 31) (advice)

must and have to

to have +infinitive with to (normally referred to as have to) also expresses obligation and is normally used in combination with must. have to supplies the deficiencies of must and also provides an alternative form for the present and the future tenses.

e.g. “He had to come to a decision about the thing itself, when he had done so it would be quite time enough to consider the accessory part of it.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 56)

The two verbs taken together provide the following forms:

Infinitive: to have to

Past participle: had to

Affirmative Interrogative

Present Tense: must must I? &c.

or have to/has to or have I (got) to?

Future Tense: must must I?

or shall/will have to or shall I have to?

will he have to? &c.

Past Tense: had to had I (got) to?

All other tenses are formed from have to according to the ordinary tense rules.

There is a slight difference between must and the various have to forms.

Differences between the must and have to forms in the affirmative

Both express obligation but must expresses an obligation imposed by the speaker while have to expresses an external obligation, i.e. one imposed by external authority or circumstances:

e.g. “Of course we must go back again”.”(these are my orders) (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 66)

“Nastasia, who had to cook and clean for the whole house, was not sorry to see the lodger in this state of mind.” (she was obliged to cook and clean for all the people in the house) (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 25)

If the speaker adds his support or approval to the existing external authority he may use must:

e.g. “Hunting man is like hunting game- you must run your chance of coming home empty-handed.”(the speaker approves) (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 24)

“I must trust to myself, not to prayers.” (the speaker merely states a fact” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 74)

In the first person the difference is less important and very often either form is possible, though have to should be used for habits and must for an important or urgent obligation:

e.g. “I must hasten to make you acquainted with the happy change in our fortune…” (urgent obligation) (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 74)

Differences between the must and have to forms in the interrogative

It is always safe to use a have to form here.

have to must be used for external obligation in the future:

e.g. Shall I have to obey the teachers when I go to school? Yes, they will be very angry if you do not obey them.

It should also be used in the third person for external obligations in the present:

e.g. Has that man got to carry all those parcels by himself?

Otherwise either form can be used, though have to is better for habits (see below):

e.g. Must you go now or can you wait a little longer ?

Have you got to go now?

have to has alternative interrogative forms, i.e. in the present we can say: ‘Have I got to?’ or ‘Do I have to?’. There is no difference in meaning but ‘Do I have to? &c., is better for habits:

e.g. “Do you have to wind your watch every day?

In the past we have: ‘Had I got to?’ and ‘Did I have to?’ &c. There is no difference but ‘Did I have to?’ &c, is more usual:

e.g. Did you have to pay customs duty on that ?

NEGATIVE OBLIGATION

Must not

Must not expresses negative obligation in the present or future .Like must it implies the speaker’s authority or very strong advice.

e.g. “We must not irritate him” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 107)

Need

When this verb is used as an auxiliary, the same form, need, is used for all persons in the present or future. need is chiefly used in the interrogative and negative .In the negative it expresses absence of obligation.

“You need not, he said,’ I am here that’s all.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 84)

Negative and interrogative forms

The negative and interrogative forms of the past tense are: did not (didn’t) need and did I & c., need?

In the present and the future tenses the negative and interrogative can be formed in either of two ways:

Negative Interrogative

Present Tense need to (needn’t) need I? &c.

or don’t / doesn’t need or do I need ? does he need ? &c.

Future Tense need not need I?

or shan’t / won’t need or shall I need ? will he need

There are slight differences between these two forms.

Need not is used when the speaker gives authority for the non-performance of some action.

e.g. “There remains twenty-five roubles, and you need not mind the rent. I have arranged with Pashenka about that.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 94)

Don’t/won’t need is when external authorities or external circumstances do not require the action to be performed.

need can be used in the affirmative in expressions of doubt and after a negative verb.

e.g. I wonder if I need to bring my first-aid kit. I don’t think I need go just yet.

Need and need not are followed by the infinitive without to. All other forms of need are followed by the infinitive with to.

We must not confuse need not and must not

e.g. “She must not waste a single minute.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 17), implies that it would be wrong or stupid of her to waste time. ’’She need not waste a single minute” , means merely that it is not necessary for her to waste time .If she wasted any time it would not be wrong or stupid , but probably a waste of time ..

The negative forms of have to.

Have to in the negative also expresses absence of obligation.

Have to has two negative forms in the present tense : haven’t (got) to and don’t have to .The future negative form is shan’t/ won’t have to .The past tense has two negative forms: hadn’t to and didn’t have to .

From this and the preceding paragraph it will be clear that there are several ways of expressing absence of obligation.

Present forms: needn’t, don’t need to, haven’t (got) to, don’t have to

Needn’t is used when the speakers gives authority for the non-performance of some action.

needn’t can be used when an external authority is involved ,i.e.

or haven’t (got) to when external authority or external circumstances do not

or don’t need to require the performance of the action .

e.g. “He tried to feel his pulse, but Raskolnikoff drew back his hand.

‘You need not,’ he said, ‘I am here, that’s all.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 84)

don’t have to is used when an external authority is involved and a habitual action is referred to.

From the above the following simplified rule may be evolved:

Absence of obligation in the present can be expressed by don’t have to when an external authority is involved and a habitual action is referred to, and needn’t in every other case.

Future forms: needn’t, won’t have to, won’t need to

Needn’t is used to when the speaker authority is involved

Won’t have to

are used when an external authority is involved.

Won’t need to

e.g. Boy to friend: You won’t have to work hard when you come to my school, the lessons are very easy.

Doctor to patient: You needn’t take any more pills after next Monday.

Past forms: didn’t have to, didn’t need to, and hadn’t (got) to.

There is no difference in meaning between these forms. Didn’t have to is perhaps the most usual.

e.g. When I last crossed the frontier I didn’t need to show my passport.

We didn’t have to wait long. A bus came along at once.

I didn’t have to pay the telephone bill last year. My brother was here then and he paid it.

Must, have to and need in the interrogative

need I ? & c., can be used instead of must I? &c., except when must follows an interrogative word (i.e. When? Where? Who? What? &.) because need ? cannot be used after interrogatives: in the sentence ,”Where must I put it ? need could not be used .

Both need? and must? imply that the person addressed is the authority concerned need? also implies that the speaker is hoping for a negative answer : Must I go mother ?and ‘Need I go mother ?’ mean the same but in the second question the speaker is hoping that his mother will say ‘No ‘ .The other interrogative form of need , Do I need ?&c., can be used similarly .

Must, have to and need in tabular form

Obligation No obligation Negative obligation

Present Tense: must needn’t must not

Have (got) to haven’t (got) to

don’t have to

don’t need to

Future tense: must needn’t must not

shall/will have to shan’t / won’t have to

Past Tense: had to hadn’t (got ) to

didn’t have to

didn’t need to

‘Needn’t ‘+ Perfect Infinitive

Needn’t + perfect infinitive is used to express an unnecessary action which was nevertheless performed.

e.g. “I needn’t have written to him because he phoned me shortly afterwards (but I did write, thus wasting my time)

Needn’t have (done) compared with didn’t have to (do)

Needn’t have done – no obligation but action performed (unnecessarily), i.e. waste of time

Didn’t have to do – no obligation and no action.

e.g. You needn’t have watered the flowers, for it is going to rain (you wasted your time)

I didn’t have to cut the grass myself. The gardener did it (no obligation and no action)

Need as ordinary verb

Need ,which we have seen as an auxiliary ,can also be used as an ordinary verb ,meaning ‘require ‘ .As such it is perfectly regular ,and has the following forms:

Infinitive: to need

Present: I need you need he needs (note the s in the regular verb)

we need you need they need

Past: I needed you needed .

Negative and interrogative are formed in the usual way with do and does for the present and did for the past.

e.g. I didn’t need the money. Did he need help?

Auxiliaries used to express deduction

Must

Must + infinitive (without to) can express a deduction

e.g. “Consequently, not only all great men, but all those who, by hook or by crook, have raised themselves above the common herd, men who are capable of evolving something new, must, in virtue of their innate power, be undoubtedly criminals, more or less, be it said.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 181)

The past form of this construction is must + perfect infinitive .This expresses a present deduction about a past action.

e.g. “Judging by his wrinkled and wan face, he must have been over fifty.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 191)

Can’t /couldn’t

Negative deductions, however, are normally made with can’t or couldn’t + the present infinitive of to be or the perfect infinitive of any verb.

e.g. “I purpose reading your article, whilst talking, people are sometimes carried away! You cannot really have such opinions.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 184)

“It is impossible that such things can be!” stammered Razoumikhin, confused.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 180)

Either can’t or couldn’t can be used when the deduction is made in the present.

“What do you mean Rodia? You could not surely?-it is not possible!’ began the terrified mother.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 134)

“They recollect that the door was open, but could not recollect whether any workmen were about or not.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 100)

couldn’t, however, must be used when the deduction is made in the past.

“She has requested me to thank you for the help you gave us yesterday. Without you, we could not have met the various expenses.” page 164

THE AUXILIARIES ‘OUGHT’ AND ’DARE’

Ought

ought has no infinitive and no inflexions (i.e. the same form is used for all persons). ought can be used as a present, past or future tense, and it is followed by the infinitive with to. The negative is ought not (oughtn’t) and the interrogative ought I, ought he? &c.

e.g. “You ought to decide yourself, Elizabeth Ivanovna,’ said the man. (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 49)

e.g. “I ought to tell you that I manage to make the most of every opportunity.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 186)

“He saw, of course, that Sonia’s position was an exceptional social phenomenon, but was not that all the more reason that shame had not killed her at the outset of such a life, a life against which her former state, as well as her relatively high mental culture, ought to have nauseated her?” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 230)

In conversation either ought or ought to can often be used alone, the infinitive being understood but not mentioned:

e.g. ‘You ought to paint your hall door.’ Yes, I know I ought (or ought to).’

ought compared to must, have to, and should

a ought expresses the subject’ obligations or duty. But here there is neither the speaker’s authority (as with must), nor an outside authority (as with have to). The speaker is only reminding the subject of his duty, or giving advice or indicating a correct or sensible action. It is usually said without much emphasis.

should can be used in exactly the same way and questions and remarks with ought can be answered with should:

e.g. “I ought to tell you that I manage to make the most of every opportunity.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 186) equals ” I should tell you that I manage to make the most of every opportunity.”

Compare with have to and must:

e.g. “You must not go to the police at all, but to porphyries!’ cried Razoumikhin.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 166) (the speaker insists on it).

“The best thing, mamma, will be to go to him, and then we shall soon see what we ought to do.”(the speaker authority is not involved here, the speaker thinks of what is advisable to do) (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 151)

“He ought to be at ten o’clock.”( the speaker considers it advisable) (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 118)

“You must sew that hole up, see to it at once and darn it, as I taught you.”( the speaker insists on it) (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 122)

b Like must, ought can also be used in giving advice, but it is much less forceful than must:

e.g. ‘You ought to be more attentive!’ grumbled Razoumikhin.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 187) is much less emphatic than “You must be more attentive.”

ought and the perfect infinitive

This construction is used to express an unfulfilled duty or a sensible action that was neglected

e.g. ‘Yes’, replied Raskolnikoff, and he immediately regretted an answer he ought to have avoided.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 186)

“Yes, I did indeed. I ought not to have spoken to her like that.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 227)

should with the perfect infinitive is used in exactly the same way.

DARE

In the affirmative dare is conjugated like an ordinary verb, i.e. dares/dare in the present, dared in the past. But in the negative and interrogative it can be conjugated either like an ordinary verb or like an auxiliary

Negative Present do/does not dare dare not

Past did not dare dared not

Interrogative Present do you/does he dare dare you/he?

Past did you/did he dare dared you/he?

Infinitives after dare

Negative and interrogative forms with do/did are in theory followed by the infinitive with to, but in practice the to is often omitted:

e.g. He doesn’t dare (to) say anything.

Negative and interrogative forms without do/did are followed by the infinitive without to

e.g. “I only said it because I am so outspoken, and not because-well it would be ignoble, in a word, it is not because-I dare not finish my sentence!” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 138)

“If you are obliged to go out –commenced Sonia, whom this introduction had more and more confused, and who did not dare raise her eyes to Razoumikhin.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 167)

In the affirmative he/she/it dares is followed by the infinitive with to.

e.g.“…-the thing that none of them dared to say aloud ,that story did not last long, and, when they brought the painter, all became clear and it vanished away.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 130)

With other persons either form of the infinitive can be used. dare however is not much used in the affirmative except in the expression I daresay. I daresay (or I dare say) has two idiomatic meanings

i I suppose

“Well, in going upstairs, between seven and eight, did you not see on the second floor, in the second floor, in one of rooms where the door was wide open –do you remember, I dare say?-did you not see two painters, or, at all events one of two? …you must have seen them!” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 187)

ii I accept what you say (but it doesn’t make any difference)

e.g. English tourist: But I drive on the left in England!

Swiss policeman: I daresay you do, but you must drive on the right here.

dare say is used in this way with the first person singular only.

how dare(d) you? how dare(d) he/they? can express indignation

“See her! Never! cried Pulcheria Alexandrovna .’And how dare he offer her money?” page 219

dare is also an ordinary transitive verb meaning challenge (but only to deeds requiring courage).It is followed by object+ infinitive with to:

e.g. Mother: Why did you throw that stone through the window?

Son: Another boy dared me to (throw it).

SHALL

Today it is mainly used as an auxiliary ( “I shall go”, “we shall read”)or as a semi-auxiliary (“You shall go”, “they shall read”). Sometimes, it may be still used as a modal verb implying the idea of volition on the part of the speaker –both in affirmative and negative statements (“a trebui”).

e.g. “Strange to say, up to the present time he had not once thought of asking himself “What will Razoumikhin say when he shall know that I am guilty?” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 209)

“You shall know later on.’ After having made this answer, Raskolnikoff began to drink his tea.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 213)

shall is also used with a modal force in the first person singular and plural in the interrogative sentences, particularly to ask about the will or wish of the person addressed to.

e.g. “H’m!-yes,. What shall I say about it? I seem to have forgotten it all now.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 158)

“What shall I do now? How am I to bury him?” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 127)

shall was frequently used in Renaissance Age to express obligation, physical or moral constraint, as in Shakespeare’s:

“Sicinius It is a mind

That shall remain a poison where it is,

Not poison any further.

Coriolanus Shall remain!

Hear you this Triton of the minnows? mark you

His absolute ‘shall’?

Comminius ‘Twas from the canon.

Coriolanus. ‘Shall !’

(Coriolanus,III,1,85-89)

When used as a modal verb, shall usually echoes the Bible (as in ‘Thou shall not steal’)

e.g. ”Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. Martha said unto Him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 233)

SHOULD

When employed with an indefinite infinitive, modal should refers to the future or to no particular time,

e.g.” I admit that you asked that my brother should not be present at our interview, and, if your request has not been accede to, it was solely at my entreaty’, replied Dounia.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 214)

With a perfect infinitive it refers to a past action or situation, e.g.

e.g. “ I am sorry, very sorry, that I find you in this condition, and if I had known of your illness I should have called sooner.” page 103

“It was very unfortunate that Mr. Tchebaroff should have turned up.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 90)

should is used in all persons, chiefly:

1 To express the idea of obligation, particularly the idea of social or modal obligation, advisability (not the idea of external force of circumstances) being implied (“a trebui”, “a se cuveni”, “a se cadea”, „a fi cazul”)

e.g.”Mamma said nothing, but we knew ,and papa knew, she was pleased .She wished met o learn French,as a lady should.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 128)

‚One should forgive in the hour of death.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 126)

2 To show that something (an occurence, an action, a state) is probable

e.g „ And if in the execution of their idea, they should be obliged to shed blood, step over corpses, they can conscientiouly do both in the interest of their idea, not otherwise –pray mark this.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 181)

3 In rhetorical questions and exclamations, to express surprise, expectation, disapproval, strong emphasis, etc.

e.g. “He is most anxious to get to know you!’

Why should he be?” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 170)

“Why should I? Such a thing is out of question.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 186)

“What could I be, should I be without God? cried she in a low-toned voice.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 230)

WILL, WOULD

Leon Levitchi says that will originally expressed volition . At present its main uses as a modal verb are:

1 In interrogative sentences it is often used in the second person to ask about the will or intention of the person addressed to (vrei”, doresti”,vreti”, doriti”),e.g

Will you have another cup of tea?

It may also express request,

e.g. Will you kindly answer the bell?

Will you? is often used after an imperative, connoting request or insistence,

e.g. ”That will do! You have caused me great amusement by your way of entering. I see he won’t even say “How do you do?” added Porphyrius pointing to Razoumikhin with a nod.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and Punishment”, page 172)

2 It may express desire,

e.g. .“If I can, I will return. Farewell!” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and Punishment”, page 222)

“ I won’t quite allow that yet! I’ll Make a stand and tell you some plain truths to your faces, and then you shall find my real opinion about you!” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and punishment”, ed. Wordsworth classics, page 177)

In conditional clauses (after if, will is generally stressed (vrei,vrea, etc.) e.g

e.g. “I know what an idiot I have been. Strike me, if you will! (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and Punishment”, page 145)

3 In the sense of “wanting” or “willingness”, will may be used of things (vrea”,etc), e.g.

“This window won’t open.” “Oh, yes, it will – I mended it yesterday”

4 It may imply the idea of insistence,

e.g. “I will and have a right to be, enlightened as to your feelings towards me. I shall know either I have a brother in Rodia, or if in you a husband who loves and appreciates me.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and Punishment”, page 214 )

5 It is also used to express probability or likelihood, e.g.

e.g. “You will be all right there, all the more so as you may live together and have Rodia with you.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and Punishment”, page 220)

“He will have changed his mind to-morrow.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and Punishment”, page 187)

would

1 Would is used in all persons to express will or intention, e.g.

e.g. “And do you mean to tell me that you would not hesitate to introduce her into the society of your mother and sister?” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and Punishment”, page 216)

e.g. “Supposing I were to die, and were to bequeath this sum to your sister: would she still persist in her refusal?

“Probably she would.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and Punishment”, page 206)

2 It is used as a preterite in the sense of “wanted to”,

e.g. “ He also told me that he himself was not rich, and that the whole of the fortune would pass to his children, who are now staying with their aunt.” (Dostoevsky Fyodor “Crime and Punishment”, page 213)

To be to

Used in the present and preterite plus an infinitive, it expresses:

a) an obligation, a necessity, part of a fixed programme.

e.g. You are not to do that.

At what time am I to come?

b) necessity arising because of something determined by someone else or by circumstances

e.g. The physician had given the patient a medicine which the later was to take regularly.

was (to), were (to) may be used with the perfect infinitive, in which case they refer to a past action.

e.g. We were to have gone on a trip the day before yesterday if the weather had been fine.

To do, did

As a modal verb (also defective, because it can not be conjugated in all the tenses), to do underlines the necessity to perform some action specified in an affirmative sentence. The idea of request, entreaty, etc may be also implied. Frequently enough, we do not translate it into Romanian, resorting to stress only, but sometimes we use supplementary (modal words),

e.g. Do speak to him! Vorbeste cu el! (negreesit, neaparat,te rog)

He does not speak English fluently. Oh, yes, he does!

He does speak quite fluently!(Ba da, vorbeste foarte curgator)

Hypothetical uses of modals

According to Angela Downing and Philip Locke apart from their meanings, the past tense modals could, might, would can be used in a ‘remote’ or hypothetical sense in both main and subordinate clauses.

To refer to a past event have+-en is used. The event is understood to be contrary to fact:

I would have helped you if I had been able.

She would/might have passed if she had tried.

If anyone had seen you, you might have got into trouble.

Should is used by some speakers with a first person Subject:

I should have thought he might have written before now.

Should is also used, especially in British English, as the replacement of a subjunctive in referring to states of affairs that may exist or come into existence:

It is only natural that they should want a holiday.

I am amazed that he should think it’s worth trying.

Modals and the Perfect Marker ‘Have –en’

Elena Bara points out that “From the data available one is led to the following conclusions:

a) when simple epistemic modals combine with the perfect marker on the complement verb (perfect infinitive) , the letter signals ‘past’.

e.g. may

Don must have heard the news (by now).

will

b) ‘ have –en’ does not generally co-occur with simple deontic or ability modals,

e.g. He can have smoked = he was able to smoke.

allowed

He will have smoked=he was willing to smoke.

One possible exception is deontic ‘must’ which has no corresponding ‘past’ or ‘oblique’ form (should, ought to or needn’t are sometimes used as corresponding oblique forms).

e.g. candidates for the job must have graduated with honours from the University.

We should notice that the construction expresses a present requirement (must) concerning a past process (have graduated).

c) when ‘have –en’ co-occurs with the past (oblique) forms of the modals, it indicates past time thus permitting the modals to signal ‘tentativeness’ or ‘unreality’ (non-fulfilment).

d) needn’t may combine with ‘have –en’ as in:

e.g. ‘You needn’t have bought him this book, he already has a copy’ which indicates absence of necessity + past+ fulfilment.

e) this construction does not occur with dare, neither does it occur with used to”.

Modals and the Progressive marker ‘BE -ING

Elena Bara also states the fact that „Another restricitve restriction to be considered is the combination of modals with the progressive marker ‘be –ing’.

The syntactic modals do not exhibit progressive forms themselves but they may combine with the progressive morpheme on the complement verb. But the progressive aspect is very sensitive to the semantics of the verb it occurs with; there are semantic classes of verbs which will never or very seldom occur with the ‚be –ing’ element. Thus if the complement of the modal is a verb like ,for example, ‚know ‚ or ‚resemble’ then there will be no combination with the ‚be –ing’ marker. The sentences

‚He may be knowing the answer.’

‚She must be resembling her mother’ are very unlikely.”

It is often claimed that with some of their meanings the modals cannot combine with the progressive marker, irrespective of the nature of the complement verb; also, that a progressive infinitive of the complement verb signals epistemic modality, the progressive marker thus acting as disambiguitor between the epistemic and deontic uses of modals. For example, the ‘be –ing’ morpheme may distinguish between ’possible’ and ‘permissive’ ‘may’ as in the following sentences:

e.g. Dad says Vern may be playing with the other kids= possibility

Dad say Vern may play with the other kids= permission

We can also notice that sentences like:

I/ You must be dreaming.

will normally be interpreted epistemically, in view of the unusual nature of the demand that one be dreaming.

There are however contexts which allow deontic uses of modals to occur with the be –ing marker . For example:

You/ He must be doing your/his homework when I got home or else…

You mustn’t be watching T.V. at this time of the night.

You should be studying for your exams not playing cards.

You shouldn’t/ ought not to be making a fool of yourself in front of everybody.

Elena Bara adds:” A more accurate description, according to the data available, would perhaps be to say that the ‘preffered’ or ‘dominant’ interpretation of the modals used in combination with the progressive infinitive is the epistemic reading, but it is by no means the only possible one. In cases of potential ambiguity certain other signals within the sentence or the larger context will indicate the adequate interpretation”.

Remarks concerning modals:

a) The general problem of modality in contemporary English has not yet been solved satisfactorily. As B.A. Ilyish[12] points out:”…There are instances when the significance of a modal verb is emphasized by a modal word, which as a matter of fact, expresses the same modal shade: ‘he must necessarily do it’; how can he possibly have done it?’. In these cases the significance of the modal word is weakened- the word partly assumes the character of an emphatic particle which supports the modal verb.

As D.B. Graver notes: “At this point, we meet one of the features of modal verbs that often causes difficulty: many modal verbs have more than one meaning or use, and in some cases two different modal verbs have the same some meanings or uses in common, but are not completely interchangeable. This situation may be compared to that of two countries with a common frontier: at the meeting point of the two countries, two different languages may be equally acceptable or valid; but as one travels away from the frontier in one direction or the other, only one language or another will be usable”.

b) Modal-defective verbs are particularly frequent in conversational English (in contrast with conversational Romanian, where their equivalents are understood rather than expressed. Here is an illustration from Dostoevsky’s “Crime and punishment”

“Ah!”

“So they’re not at home? That’s strange. I might almost say it’s ridiculous. Where can the old woman have gone? I want to speak with her.’

‘And I too, batuchka, I want to speak with her.’

‘Well, what’s to be done? I suppose we must go back to whence we came” page 66

c) Modal-defective verbs are frequently met with in English phraseology, e. g.

Needs must or Must needs (‚neaparat, fara doar si poate’’) as chance would have it (parca dinadins, parca a fost un facut’’ ) , the devil may get in by the keyhole, but the door won’t let him go (approx. ‘lasa-te ispitit, ca pe urma nu mai scapi’’),you may depend upon it ( ‘te asigur, crede-ma’’)

d) The translation of the foregoing examples points to the ‘differences’ in the expression of modality in English and in Romanian. These differences affect not only phraseology, but also the system of the two languages as a whole, so that between them relations of bilingual synonymy are established. Let’s consider the following example:

Can you speak English?( ‚Vorbesti englezeste?’’ Stii sa vorbesti englezeste?’’ seldom ‚Poti vorbi englezeste?)

A house could be seen in the distance.(In departare se vedea o casa’’ seldom ‘In departare se putea vedea o casa)

Whom should I see? (Pe cine crezi ca vad am vazut?’’)

I am willing to own…(Trebuie sa recunosc’’…)

Being the soul of the sentence, modality must be given utmost importance in translations, where every mechanical transposition is apt to distort the connotations of the original text and the translator should use contextual or connotational translations.

V Expressions used instead of modals

In Collins Cobuild English Grammar it is stated that several ordinary verbs and fixed expressions are used to express the same attitudes and ideas as modals. These verbs and expressions are:

1 ‘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 a 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 the speaker wants to say that it is possible for someone or something to do something, he/she can use ‘be able to’.

e.g. All members are able to claim traveling expenses.

The giant frog is able to jump three metres or so.

We can use ‘be able to’ with a negative to say that it is not possible for someone or something to do something.

e.g. They are not able to run fast or throw a ball.

We can also use ‘be possible to’ with ‘it’ as the subject to say something is possible. We usually use this expression to say that something is possible for people in general, rather than an individual person.

e.g. It is possible to reach Tunheim on foot.

Is it possible to programme a computer to speak?

If we use ‘be possible to’ to say something is possible for a particular person or group, we put ‘for’ and a noun group after ‘possible’.

e.g. It is possible for us to measure his progress.

It is possible for each department to support new members.

We use ‘be possible to’ with a negative to say that something is not possible.

e.g. It is not possible to quantify the effect.

We can also use ‘be impossible to’ to say that something is impossible.

e.g. It is impossible to fix the exact moment in time when it happened.

All modals except ‘can’ or ‘could’ can be used with these expressions.

e.g. A machine ought to be able to do this.

It may be impossible to predict which way things will develop.

‘Used to’ can be used with ‘be able to’ and ‘be possible to’.

You used to be able to go to the doctor for that.

It used to be possible to buy second-hand wigs.

2 We can use ‘have to’ or ‘have got to’ instead of ‘must’ to indicate that we think something is the case, because of particular facts or circumstances

e.g. That looks about right.’- It has to be.

Money has got to be the reason.

3 We can use ‘be going to’ and to be bound to’ instead of ‘will’ to say that something certain to happen or be the case in the future.

e.g. The children are going to be fishermen or farmers.

It was bound to happen sooner or later.

4 When giving instructions and making requests, instead of beginning a question with ‘can’ or ‘could’, we can begin it with ‘is’ and the impersonal pronoun ‘it’. After ‘it’, we can use an expression such as ‘all right’ and either a ‘to’-infinitive clause or an ‘if’-clause.

e.g. Is it all right for him to come in and sit and read his paper?

Is it okay if we have lunch here?

We can use ‘want’ instead of ‘would like’ to give an instruction or make a request. ’want’ is more direct and less polite than ‘would like’.

e.g. I want you to turn to the front of the atlas.

I want to know what you think about this.

‘Wanted’ is also sometimes used. It is more polite than ‘want’.

e.g. Good morning, I wanted to book a holiday in the South of England.

5 In order to state an intention we can use ‘be going to’ instead of ‘will’ to state an intention.

e.g. I am going to talk to Teddy.

We use ‘intend to’ to state a fairly strong intention.

e.g. I intend to go to Cannes for a month in August.

We use ‘be determined to’ or ‘be resolved to’ to indicate a very strong intention to do something. ‘Be resolved to’ is rather formal.

e.g. I’m determine to try.

She was resolved to marry a rich American.

We can use ‘have to’ or ‘have got to’ instead of ‘must’ to indicate that it is important that you do something.

e.g. I have to get home now.

It’s something I have got to overcome.

6 In order to express unwillingness we can use ‘I am not’ instead of ‘I will not’ to say firmly that we are unwilling to do or accept something. ‘I am not’ is followed by a present participle.

e.g. I am not staying in this hospital.

We can use ‘refuse’ instead of will not’ when we are refusing to do something. ‘Refuse’ is followed by a ‘to’-infinitive clause.

e.g. I refuse to list possible reasons.

We can use several adjectives with ‘not’ to say that someone is unwilling to do or accept something.

e.g. Exporters are not willing to supply goods on credit.

I am not prepared to teach him anything.

Thompson is not keen to see history repeat itself too exactly.

7 In order to indicate importance we can use ‘have to’ or ‘have got to’ instead of ‘must’ to say that something is necessary or extremely important.

e.g. 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.

‘Need to’ can also be used instead of ‘must’.

e.g. We need to change the balance of power.

You do not need to worry.

We can also say that something is important or necessary by using a sentence beginning with the impersonal pronoun ‘it’, followed by ‘is’, and an adjective such as ‘important’ or ‘necessary’, and a ‘that’-clause.

e.g. It is important that you should know precisely what is going on.

It is essential that immediate action should be taken.

It is vital that babies travel in government-approved carriers.

‘Important’ and ‘necessary’ can also be followed by a ‘to’-infinitive clause.

e.g. It is important to recognize what industry needs at this moment.

It is necessary to examine this claim before we proceed any further.

We can use ‘had better’ instead of ‘should’ or ‘ought to’ to say that something is the right or correct thing to do. We use ‘had better’ with ‘I’ or ‘we’ to indicate an intention. We use it with ‘you’ when we are giving advice or a warning.

e.g. I think I had better show this to my brother.

V Modality and moods

The expression of modality in natural languages involves an array of surface categories one of which is ‘mood’. Many accounts of moods still hold that the expression of the semantic properties called modalities was co-extensive with the mood of the verbal form of the verb to show the various ways in which the state of affairs described is thought of by the speaker.

Elena Bara says that “Unlike Lyons, we think that not only the so-called imperative or interrogative moods, but any act of saying conveys a certain degree of modality, which expresses some attitude, belief, feeling with respect to the propositional content of the sentence. A sentence can only carry one obligatory “modalite’ d’enonciation’, which can be declarative, interrogative, imperative or exclamatory and which specifies the type of communication between speaker and hearer(s).”

The mood of the verb is, it is claimed, one of the major means of expressing the nature of the utterance. Depending on how the speaker regards the content of the utterance, it may be real, realizable, unreal etc. Thus, most traditional grammarians have pointed out that the indicative is the mood of reality, as it expresses a state of affairs regarded as real; the imperative, conditional/ optative/ potential and subjunctive would describe a state of affairs as realizable or unreal.

Certain traditional moods exhibit a marked asymmetry and inconsistency between form and semantic content. It should be first pointed out that many English modals are constituents of verbal constructions traditionally classified as moods and tenses. For example:

will/shall Indicative mood –Future Tense

would/should Indicative mood –Future-in-the-past

would/ should Conditional mood

could/might Conditional mood

should Subjunctive

Will and shall are traditionally viewed as markers of the future tense in English. However, this is not quite exact: on the one hand all English modals may actually refer to the future and, on the other, there are sentences where will/shall do not express futurity but have epistemic or deontic interpretations.

For example we can consider the following will- sentences:

My son will be twenty (next month)

This will be the milkman; it is about the time he comes every morning.

We can notice that the verbs form in 1) and 2) are identical and described as future tense, but what distinguishes between 1) and 2) is the understood time reference of the state of affairs, future in 1) and present in 2). This, however, is not specified by will, which is neutral with respect to time distinction, but by some other element in the sentence or context. There are, therefore, will- expressions which are ambiguous between at least two readings: the hearer interprets them as assessments of probability (about the present) as in 3) or predictions (about the future) as in 4), according to the time location assigned to the state-of affairs, e.g.

Go ask the candidate, he’ll know the result of the elections (present)

The candidate will know the result of the elections when they finish counting the votes. (future).

The will-expressions I the following examples:

Everybody’s talking about the accident, so she’ll have heard the news by now.

I won’t have to tell her myself; by the time I get there she’ll have heard the news.

are identical and both are referred to as ‘future perfect tense’. We can notice however that while in 6) the inference refers to a state of affairs that will be completed at or before a future time, 5) is an instance of a present inference concerning a past circumstance.

Therefore will-constructions are in many cases characterized as temporal categories belonging to the indicative mood, while in reality they indicate various modal values (probability, near certainty etc.) which can hardly be described as real. The same holds good not only for will but for all expressions containing modal verbs.

It is also possible to say that other tenses of the indicative mood may be used with values normally expressed by other moods. The present indicative for example, is occasionally used to perform speech acts with imperative force: orders, commands, requests, as in the following sentence:

Nobody moves until I give a word.

The preterite of the indicative is quite often used to express hypothetical, closed or unreal state of affairs as, for example in:

I wish he loved his wife better.

If only she knew how much I care for her.

Even if I met her, I should/would not recognize her.

In the sentences 9) and 10) the preterite has other function than to express real past circumstances. Because of the different semantic content, the use of the preterite in these contexts (wish, if only, conditional, etc) is occasionally referred to in the literature as the Modal Past Tense and more often as Past Subjunctive.

The Past Perfect Indicative too is quite common in wish, if only, I’d rather, comparative, conditional and other contexts to express a wish, preference, etc, about unreal (unfulfilled) past activities, circumstances or conditions, e.g.

I wished he had told me the truth .(but he didn’t)

If only she hadn’t married him! (but she did)

I’d rather you hadn’t lied to me. (but you did)

He looked as if he had seen a ghost.

We should notice that with past reference the unreal meaning is more absolute than in the present and amounts to an implicit rejection of the condition: but in fact you didn’t…

The verb forms in 11) through 14), therefore, do not indicate real past activities that occurred before other past states of affairs; because of their special functions, they are frequently viewed as belonging to the (perfect) subjunctive mood whose forms are homophonous with the past perfect indicative.

Sentences that lack an overt subject, but whose logical subject refers to the addressee, and that contain a verb form homophonous with the infinitive are traditionally called ‘imperatives’.

The imperative is the mood used most frequently in utterances with impositive force: orders, commands, urge, requests, suggestions, invitations, etc., e.g.

15) Stop that nonsense!

16) Bring me a towel, please.

17) Move to California, why don’t you?

But imperative-form sentences aren’t always used to perform the speech acts which their form makes them best fit for. There are many linguistically and pragmatically speech acts that this mode encodes. For example, many imperative-forms sentences function as instructions such as those found on labels, directions of use, recipes, manuals, etc., e.g.

18) Shake well before using.

19) Remove the lid carefully.

The conditional/optative mood is undoubtedly ‘modal’ both in form and meaning (would, should, could, might) as one of its constituents and expresses all kinds of unreal circumstances: tentative, optional, hypothetical, counterfactual etc.

Its occurrences would perhaps be better described as special uses of the respective modals.

The English subjunctive, although not very much used, is still present to a larger degree in some dialects and probably to a slight degree in most (for example the ‘were’ forms). It is commonly used in complement that-clauses after predicates of imperative force (order, command, demand, urge, imperative, necessary, essential, vital, etc.) or reactive force (remind, inform, warn, show, assume, tell, convince, indicate, imply, prove, suggest, etc.) as well as emotive predicates (all verbs that allow the use of the subjunctive appear to form a semantic class: the class of predicates which express the subjective value of a sentence rather than knowledge about its truth) e.g.

20) They demanded that their wages (should) be raised.

21) He urged that the conference (should) be convened sooner.

22) Sue told/convinced/ persuaded Bill that he should leave at once.

23) It is unthinkable that he (should) drive in this condition.

To conclude, it seems obvious that not only the so-called ‘imperative mood’ or ‘interrogative mood’ but any act of saying (therefore any sentence) even those performed by ‘verbs dicendi’ in indicative sentences, conveys a certain degree of modality, which can range from near zero (in neutral reporting) to the extremes of volition and absolute certainty. Just as the propositional content is necessarily present in a sentence, so is modality: every sentence expresses some belief, attitude, or feeling with respect to the propositional content, as well as to the interpersonal relations of the participants in the discourse.

Chapter II: Grammar and Modal Verbs Presentation Tool Kit

I believe that there is no doubt that teaching modals implies the teacher’s knowledge concerning teaching grammar. Most popular approaches to English modals teaching divide the grammar connected with these into manageable chunks, bite-sized grammar rules, which the teacher must somehow convey to the learners. Not everyone agrees that the best way to teach English modals is to cut it up into discrete items in this way, and some people even question the usefulness of teaching ‘grammar’ at all.

But, with few exceptions, teachers have little choice in the matter. End-of-secondary school examination when students have to pass an English examination in order to enter a bilingual class in a high-school are often orientated towards an evaluation of students’ grammatical knowledge. Many students embark on a language learning course expecting to be taught the rules of grammar- similar to the rules of grammar that they studied in their own language. Many, if not most, coursebooks follow a clear grammar syllabus. Most teachers are trained to structure their teaching around these same rules of grammar.

Like it or hate it, grammar is a big part of most language teacher’s jobs. The way the teacher presents this grammar – the way they get it across to their students – will reflect their presenting grammar and a good teacher has to select an approach that is right for a particular group of students on a particular course on a particular day. No single method and no single course book can provide all the answers all the time.

Penny Ur points out “It is surprisingly difficult to present and explain a foreign-language grammatical structure to a class of learners. The problem is first to understand yourself what is involved in ‘knowing’ the structure (its written and spoken forms, its nuances of meaning), and in particular what is likely to cause difficulties to the learners; and second, how to present examples and formulate explanations that will clearly convey the necessary information. This is a place where clear thinking and speaking are of paramount importance: although you may elicit suggestions from the learners and encourage their participation in the presentation, it is essential for you to know how to present the structure’s form and meaning yourself in a way that is clear, simple, accurate and helpful. Note that there is often a conflict between ‘simple’ and ‘accurate’; if you give a completely accurate account of a structure, it may be far from simple; if you simplify, you may not be accurate. One of the problems of grammar presentations is to find the appropriate balance between the two.”

Teaching modals isn’t just about practicing modals either. This isn’t to say that practice isn’t important. On the contrary, as any good teacher knows, simply showing students how something works won’t guarantee that they learn it or how to do it. But extended practice opportunities won’t compensate for a presentation that doesn’t do the job. The difference between a lively, clear, enjoyable presentation and one that has misfired can be the difference between a memorable learning experience and a gentle snooze.

What makes a good presentation of the modals?

The point of any presentation of modals is to help students develop their understanding of, and ability to use, a particular meaning of the modals. The teacher can assess his/her presentation by asking:

Is the presentation going to be:

a memorable

b clear

c effective

for students?

A good presentation of the modals must meet all three of the above criteria.

The big choice

Before looking at the wide range of classroom techniques, the teacher needs to make an early decision about the basic approach. The grammar presentations can be classified, broadly speaking, into two main types:

Teacher-centred Student-centred

Deductive Inductive

In fact, many grammar presentations combine teacher-centred and student-centred elements and there may also be a combination of deductive and inductive tasks.

In a teacher-centred approach, the focus of attention will be on the teacher most of the time. In a more student-centred approach, students’ attention will be focused more on the tasks that they themselves are involved in. There is nothing inherently good or bad about either of these approaches, but one or the other may be more memorable, clear, effective and appropriate for a particular class.

The terms ‘deductive’ and ‘inductive can be confusing. Basically, a deductive approach involves the teacher telling the students the information and rules they need. An inductive approach involves the students working out for themselves- with guidance, of course- the information and rules that they need. In order to decide which approach to select, a good teacher will need to take a variety of factors into consideration.

Students Language Context

level degree of complexity time and

age new or revisited resources

learning styles and preferences similarities to L1 available

expectations

Levels of students

Low level students may be less confident and prefer to be told a rule explicitly, while higher level students stand a better chance of figuring it out on their own.

Age of students

Younger students may not have the level of abstract thinking required for some grammar explanations and will be better off with simple exposure and practice.

Younger students may also be unable to sustain attention and concentration for long periods of time, so the teacher has to think about variety and involvement.

Learning styles and preferences

Much has been written about learner styles and it has been suggested, for example, that some learners are primarily visual-seeing things help them learn- whilst others may benefit more from hearing or doing things.

Expectations

The teacher should think about the kind of approach students are used to. In some educational contexts, the students expect the teacher to explain everything explicitly like a sign of a good teacher. In others, students are expected to take more control of their own learning.

Degree of complexity of the grammar point connected to modals

Some grammar points are so clear and easy to understand that they need little or no presentation. Other grammar points are more complex and not so obvious at first glance.

New or revised modals

If the modals are familiar to the students then the teacher will need less (or no) time to present them.

Similarities to students’ L1

If the grammar point concerning modals is the same in the students’ language (or very similar to it), it might be best presented with this in mind. If the grammar point is something that doesn’t exist in the students’ language the teacher might need to work more carefully on getting the concept across.

Time available

Grammar isn’t the only thing that students have to learn- in the school syllabus, it’s competing with vocabulary, pronunciation and skills work. The teacher has to take into consideration which approach to grammar will be more economical considering the time.

Modal verbs explanation

A straightforward oral explanation of a modal verb is a classic technique. It's also the first thing many students expect in a teaching-learning scenario. And, paradoxically, it's one of the hardest things to do really well. Making an explanation memorable isn't easy.

Here are some different ways which I think a teacher should use to make an oral explanation more memorable:

- try to avoid starting off the lesson with an explanation of grammar. Instead, the teacher should prepare his/her explanation in advance-an improvised explanation is generally less successful.

- try to anticipate what students will find easy or difficult in the explanation.

- break it into a small number of stages - e.g. There are two important things to remember about was/were able to and could for expressing ability in the past. One, that was/were able to expresses a momentary ability in the past and could a prolonged ability. Two, to emphasize the spelling of could because young students misspell it for cold (concerning weather).

- keep explanations brief and ensure that there is enough time for plenty of opportunities for practice.

- calculate how much time the explanation needs. Too slow and the students get bored, too fast and the students don't follow.

- support the explanation with visual aids and diagrams to make it more memorable.

- support the explanation with examples in context - either from the written text, or the students' one, a teacher’s story or a generative situation.

- ask questions to check that students have understood what the teacher is saying (use concept questions).

- look for opportunities to take the focus away from the teacher from time to time.

- look for opportunities to include humour and imagination.

- use mnemonic devices or rhymes - e.g. the saying “I know that I should but I can’t”.

The teacher’s aim will be to move towards explanations in English. In order to help the teacher and the students get used to using only English the teacher should:

- use concise and accurate phrases to explain language.

- be tolerant of L1. Even though the teacher may choose to speak only in English, he/she should consider accepting questions in L1 from students who are not sure they've understood. He/she can, after all, reply in English.

An approach to explanation is to use students' L1, whenever this is possible. There is nothing wrong with his, but the teacher should remember:

- there is a danger of encouraging the students to rely on explanations in their mother tongue.

- at some stage in their learning careers, it will help the students to know grammatical metalanguage - words like noun, participle, infinitive in English. Even at lower levels, the teacher should begin to introduce some of these words in English.

- the teacher needs to be sure that the language of the explanations is not more difficult than the language he/she is trying to explain.

Using diagrams

Diagrams to present modals are especially helpful to visual learners and help them to understand the different uses of the modals better. I think it's a good idea to prepare the diagram clearly before on a piece of paper if it's the first time the teacher is using it.

Here are some examples of diagrams to illustrate different grammar points concerning modals:

Clines

modal verbs with indicate future reference

won't may, might will

Arrows can be used to indicate a change of word order

You can play tennis.

Can you play tennis?

Written texts

Francoise Grellet says that understanding a written text means extracting the required information from it as efficiently as possible. There are three ways of obtaining a written text to teach a particular grammar point concerning one of the modals which a teacher can use:

3. the teacher himself/herself can write a text with examples of the grammar point he/she wishes to teach

To focus on the language in the text, here are some techniques a teacher can use, with sample grammar points.

Task Good for

Find examples of X and underline them - e.g. past/present/future tense of

Find examples of X and circle the -collocations

word they refer to

Find examples of X and change them -modal verbs - e.g. change the word

to similar words probable to must

Find examples and think about why -modal verbs

the writer/speaker used that word or phrase

Using flashcards

Flashcards are cards with pictures or words on them to help present a certain grammar point in our case modals. Using flashcards is called by Wendy A. Scott and Lisbeth H. Ytreberg a look and say approach to teaching, based mostly on words and phrases. Flashcards are most commonly associated with vocabulary teaching but can equally serve for presentations of modals.

When teaching modals flashcards can be used:

-to elicit/drill a sentence- e.g. He can play tennis.

-to set up a generative situation - e.g. When we were children we lived in the countryside. What were we able to do and a boy living now in Paris can’t do?

Yes/No cards can be used:

-to provide a prompt for short answers.

Can you play tennis? Yes.

Can you swim? No

-to provide prompts for a substitution drill.

Time reference

Time reference can be realised with three cards with the words Present, Past and Future on them. They can be used:

-to provide prompts for sentence transformation exercise.

-to indicate if an error has occurred.

Questions/negatives

To provide prompts for sentence transformation exercises.

For example the teacher says: “I can cook very well. One student picks the card with the question mark on it and he/she has to ask another student “Can you cook?” and the student who has the card with X on it has to give a negative answer like “No I can not.”

Grammar Boxes

In many coursebooks there are grammar reference pages. These usually include the information about a grammar point in a table or written explanation of some kind. Grammar boxes concerning modals can be used in different ways and the teacher can:

-ask students to read quietly through the information for themselves;

-ask one or two students to read the information aloud to the rest of the class;

-ask students to work in pairs and read the information aloud to each other;

-read the information aloud himself /herself to the class;

-allow quiet reading time and then ask questions based on the information in the box;

-books closed, before students look at the grammar box, read it aloud to them. At various key points, the teacher should pause and elicit what the next word or words might be and clearly confirm right answers. When the teacher has finished, he/she should allow students to open the books and read the information through quietly;

-books closed, write the information from the grammar box on the board, trying to keep the same layout as the book. The teacher can leave gaps at key places and ask students to either copy the diagram and fill it in, or come to the board and fill in the information there. The teacher should allow students time to discuss the suggested answers before they check with the book;

-books closed, elicit the information item by item, example by example, from the students and note it on the board. When the information is complete, the teacher should allow students to open their books and find the same content printed there.

Substitution tables

In “A Guide to Presenting Grammar” by L. Clandfield, P. Kerr, C. Jones, J. Scrivener, R. Norris it is stated that “substitution tables (STs) are arrangements of grammatical items containing a number of example sentences, so that learners can create complete correct sentences by substituting one word or phrase with another. They give a helpful visual insight into the way that the grammatical item is structured.” They can be used successfully for teaching modals.

For some students, information presented in this way may be easier to understand and use than similar data given as explanations or using grammatical terminology.

The teacher can use substitution tables:

-as an aid to introducing a new modal,

While the teacher is introducing the new modal, he/she can start to build a partial ST on one part of the board. The teacher can add to it as students meet new example sentences and variations.

-as a written record of new grammar

The teacher can write a ST on the board and ask students to copy it.

-as a cue for drilling

The teacher can write a ST on the board and ask students to find and say true sentences from it.

-as a puzzle for students

The teacher can write a partial ST on the board and ask students to copy and then work out the missing words or add their own ideas.

-as a cue for writing

The teacher can give students a copy of a ST and ask them to write a paragraph (or story) using at least five (or ten) sentences from the table.

The teacher can also ask students to read quietly through the information for themselves.

Sample substitution table for was/ were you able to ?

Was	he	able to	swim?
Was	she		play tennis?
Were	you		drive?
Were	they	able to	run?

Translation

Translation, although frowned upon in certain language teaching courses, can be at times the clearest and most direct way of explaining a grammar point concerning modals:

-using translation to reduce anxiety.

If the grammar point in question is the same in English as in Romanian the teacher could use translation to back up his/her explanation and reduce particular language point (by showing that it is the same in both languages)

-using word-for-word translation.

Translation can also be effectively used to show how something in English is not possible in the learners' L1 (or vice versa) e.g. the difference between must and have to(used for expressing external obligation) is not relevant in Romanian:

I must brush my teeth every morning.(Trebuie sa imi perii dintii dimineata)

I have to wear a uniform at school.(Trebuie sa port uniforma la scoala)

-getting students to translate contrasting structures.

The teacher can also use translation to contrast structures which may be similar in the students L1 like choose a pair of sentences to contrast, for example:

I could swim last year.

I was able to swim to the shore when the ship was on fire.

The teacher then must put students into groups of four. The teacher gives one person in each group a sheet of paper with the two sentences written at the top. The student must write a translation for the two sentences underneath them. The student then folds the paper so that only the translated sentences are visible and passes it to the next person in the group. This person must write the sentences in English again. The teacher must repeat stages 1 and 2 for the other people in the group. At the end, the group unfolds the paper and compares the original and the final version.

A story from the teacher

Like using a written text, an oral text told by the teacher is another effective way to present a grammar point concerning modals. If it's a true story, and told well, it has the added effect of providing some intrinsic motivation for the learners to listen because the little aphorism used by Frank Smith namely ‘what the brain tells the eyes is much more important than what the eyes tell the brain’ applies very well in a class for teaching modals, too.

When writing a grammar explanation or examples on the board the teacher should bear in mind that students may be copying it down. Using colours, circles or lines can make things clearer.

The teacher should prepare his/her story first. It is best to write it out. The teacher should also make sure that he/she includes examples of the grammar concerning modals he/she'd like to highlight, but not so many as to make the story sound strained or awkward.

For example, in class, the teacher tells the students that he/she is going to share a (true) story about something that happened to him/her. The teacher should tell, not read, the story.

Then the teacher asks the students to work in pairs and recount as much of the story as they can remember to each other. After that the teacher asks one pair to feedback to the rest of the class.

Next the teacher asks specific comprehension questions about his/her story. These should relate to parts of the story which included the target modals. The teacher can ask questions like:

What did I say about What could I do next?

The teacher tries then to elicit the sentences in his/her story that contains the modal he/she wishes to present. As the teacher elicits them he/she should also write them on the board.

Once the teacher has elicited all the examples he/she wants from the story and has them on the board so that the teacher can underline the important features (or mark them in another colour- see boardwork) the teacher can then proceed with an explanation or use a guided discovery to explain a certain modal verb. In this way, a modal verb is presented in context.

Opal Dunn says that while reading rhymes and stories to children, the teacher can hold up the book and point to the text, word by word. As children become more familiar with the rhyme, they can do this themselves, using their own copies, as the teacher reads. Thus, I think, the teacher can point out a certain modal verb or its meaning or usage.

Boardwork

When writing a explanation concerning a modal verb or examples on the board the teacher should bear in mind that the students may be copying it down. Using colours, circles or lines can make things clearer.

The teacher should use a a different colour to indicate a typical error or wrong form.

Never you play football.

We was able to play in class.

The teacher should use a different colour, underline or circle to indicate a part of the sentence(s) he/she wishes the students to focus on.

They could swim last year.

He can play tennis very well.

Dividing the board into 'sections' can also help make things clearer.

Can/can’t

FORM

can/can't + verb

Affirmative

I can sing.

She can play piano.

Negative

They can't hear the music.

He can't speak English.

Can you open the door?

(remember in questions can + subject + verb?)

USE

To talk about ability

I can speak English and French.

To ask permission

Can I go to the toilet please?

To make a request

Can I have a pen please?

Can you repeat please?

PRONUNCIATON

I can swim ./kan/

Can you speak Spanish? Yes, I can.

I can't understand. /ka:nt/

The teacher can also use the board to copy grammar reference boxes or substitution tables.

Concordance lines

A concordance line is a piece of data taken from a corpus- a random sample of uses of a particular word or words-used to highlight a piece of language. Here are some concordance data for the word can:

1 the machine can translate data into different languages.

2 even minor head injuries can be serious

3 anyone aged 18 or over can vote.

4 can I have another piece of cake, please

5 the hotel can’t be far away from here.

Using this information, the teacher can ask students questions about this modal verb. For example:

What part of speech is can?

What follows this verb?

Does this verb take an object?

Guided discovery

In a guided discovery approach, the learners work out grammar rules using examples. This can be done entirely by students or with more or less teacher intervention - the guided part. The section on concordance lines in this chapter uses a guided discovery approach.

By generative situation, it can be understood a situation that can generate a lot of the kind of language the teacher wishes to focus on in a certain class. For example, the situation of two men from different places (one living in a city and one living in a village) discussing the differences between their way of life could generate several examples abilities - e.g. What can you do in the evening? Can you walk in a park? Can you milk a cow?

First, the teacher needs examples containing the modal verb he/she wishes to focus on. These may come from a text - written text - a story by the teacher - story from the students. It can be from a series of concordance lines.

Once the teacher has the examples, the discovery can proceed in different ways, from less guided to more guided. The teacher should:

1. provide the examples and ask students to formulate a rule.

2. provide the examples with contrasting examples and ask students to explain what is different, and why.

3. ask questions about the form - e.g. What part of speech is? How do we make the? What comes after the verb?

4. ask questions about the function and meaning-which are called concept check questions-e.g. Do the speakers know each other? Is this statement true? What does the writer thinks?

5. make the examples into a puzzle and challenge students to solve it- e.g. rewrite the sentences using this word, fill in the gaps from these sentences, put the words in the correct order.

6. ask students to analyze the examples, by finding specific things (e.g. the past tense of a modal in a written text)

Generative situations

When choosing a situation, it's worth making sure:

1.that it is conceptually clear and easy for the students to understand. The teacher should keep in mind that he/she doesn't want to spend time explaining an extremely complex situation in order to get simple language.

2.that it produces plenty of examples of the modal the teacher wants to explain, and more importantly, that these examples sound natural.

Once the teacher has the situation, he/she can present it to the students either by using a story or flashcards. The teacher could include a more guided discovery approach to the presentation, by setting up the situation little by little and eliciting the examples from the students themselves.

For instance a typical situation for teaching should for giving advice is this: Larry is very lazy and he has poor marks at school. Give him 5 pieces of advice to improve his marks as in the example:

He should do his homework every day.

Reformulations / story from the students

A rich source of language for grammar work concerning modals is language from the students themselves. The teacher should be on the lookout for interesting examples of student language that could be exploited for future use. These could be errors, but also good attempts at using a particular grammar point when teaching modals. The teacher can find such examples:

-in the students' written work

-during communicative activities, when the focus isn't on grammatical accuracy

-during casual conversation with the students in English, at the beginning or end of class

The teacher should keep a record of these in a notebook. Once the teacher has sufficient examples, there are different ways he/she could use them. One approach is to give the errors to the students and ask them to correct them. Another approach is the teacher to correct them, and then use the errors to support an explanation or to conduct a guided discovery. This means that the students are revising their own examples of language use, but reformulated so as to be correct and useful for further study.

A variation on the generative situation presentation technique is to ask the students to complete a task which will generate plenty of examples of the modal the teacher wishes to highlight. This could be, for example, telling an anecdote or story. When using this technique, I think the teacher should:

3. get students to tell each other their story in pairs first.

4. monitor and give feedback at the end of the task.

5. listen and write down examples of the modal verb the teacher wishes to focus on (correct or incorrect).

After the presentation of the modal verb, the teacher can ask students to repeat the same task but with a different partner.

As a conclusion I can say that a teacher must be a creative one because only a creative teacher can teach the motivating classes. He/she must adapt each moment of the lesson to the needs as his students. Ross Malcom says that the creative person is endowed with what most of us would regard as the usual attributes of a lively mind: sensitivity to problems, fluency of ideas, flexibility of mental strategy, originality, the capacity to redefine situations and sustain penetrative mental processes. What seems to distinguish the creative from the merely effective or competent individual is not so much special intellectual ability as the certain traits of personality.

Levitchi, D. Leon “Morphology”, Ed.Didactica si Pedagogica”, Bucuresti 1970, page 137

Angela Downing and Philip Locke “A University Course in English Grammar Tense”, ed. Prentice Hall International English Language Teaching, 1996, page 383

Angela Downing and Philip Locke “A University Course in English Grammar Tense”, ed. Prentice Hall International English Language Teaching, 1996, page 384

, example from Dostoevsky’s book “Crime and Punishment”, ed. Wordsworth Classics, page 15

example from Dostoevsky’s book “Crime and Punishment”, ed. Wordsworth Classics, page 14

example from Dostoevsky’s book “Crime and Punishment”, ed. Wordsworth Classics, page 13

A. J. Thompson and A. V Martinet “A Practical English Grammar”, Ed. Oxford,1985, page 128

Levitchi, D. Leon, Morphology, Ed. Didactica si Pedagogica, Bucuresti, 1970, page 145

Angela Downing and Philip Locke “A University Course in English Grammar Tense”, ed. Prentice Hall International English Language Teaching, 1996, page 392

Bara Elena, “Aspects of Modality in English”, Universitatea din Bucuresti, Bucuresti, 1979, page 100

Bara Elena, “Aspects of Modality in English”, Universitatea din Bucuresti, Bucuresti, 1979, page 102

B.A. Ilysh,”Sovremennyj anglijskij jazyk, Moskva, 1948, page 190-191

Graver D.B., “Advanced English Practice”, Third Edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1994, page13

Collins Cobuild, Collins Birmingham University International Language Database, “English Grammar”, Harper Collins Publishers, London, 1992, page 238

Bara Elena, “Aspects of Modality in English”, Universitatea din Bucuresti, Bucuresti, 1979, page 241

Penny Ur, “A Course in Language Teaching, Practice and Theory, Cambridge Teacher Training and Development, 2006, page 81

Grellet, Francoise, Developing Reading Skills, Cambridge University Press, 1981

Scott, A, Wendy and Ytreberg, Lisbeth, “Teaching English to Children”, Longman Group UK Limited, 1990

Lindsay Clandfield, Philip Kerr, Ceri Jones, Jim Scrivener, Roy Norris, “A Guide to Presenting Grammar, ed. Macmillan Publishers, 2008, page 15

Smith, Frank, Comprehension and Learning, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York, 1975

Dunn, Opal, “Developing English with Young Learners”, Macmillian, London, 1984

Ross Malcom, “The Creative Arts”, Heinemann Educational Books, London, 1978

Document Info

Accesari: 3235
Apreciat:

Comenteaza documentul:

Nu esti inregistrat
Trebuie sa fii utilizator inregistrat pentru a putea comenta

Creaza cont nou

A fost util?

Daca documentul a fost util si crezi ca merita
sa adaugi un link catre el la tine in site

Copiaza codul:
in pagina web a site-ului tau.

eCoduri.com - coduri postale, contabile, CAEN sau bancare

Politica de confidentialitate | Termenii si conditii de utilizare