English Grammar (Part 3) L1

A Descriptive Course of English Grammar (Part 3)

Lecture 1. Modality in English

An Outline of the present lecture

1. The gist of the present lecture

Familiarising the students with modality in English texts
An introductory note on referential and interpersonal meaning
Modality
The expression of modality by means of modal verbs
The meaning and use of modal verbs in English

7. A summary of the present lecture and the student's gain

1. The gist of the present lecture. The difference between referential (or naming) and interpersonal (or representational) meaning in language is explained. Modality as a major section of interpersonal meaning is analysed and its expression by modal verbs in English is described. The use of semi-modals and modal expressions is also included.

Familiarising the students with modality in English texts.

Exercise 1. Consider the two conversations below and point out differences between them.

`Hello!'

`What's the time?'

`Ten to nine.'

`When does the shop here open?'

`I don't know.'

`See you then. I'm off. The class begins at nine.' (BBC Learning English, 2009)

* * *

`Hello!'

`Hello! Could you tell me what the time is please?'

`Oh, it's ten to nine. Are you very much in a hurry?'

`Yes, quite a bit. Could you tell me when the shop here opens?'

`I'm sorry I don't know. Er, it must be at ten. It's usually open when I pass by after a class.'

`What a pity! There's another. I don't think I can make it. The class begins at nine. See you then!'

Exercise 2. Consider the two texts below and point out differences between them.

Scientistic ideology had to have provoked criticism from various different quarters which are not always sufficiently distinguished today. It is not uncommon still to hear it suggested that the only opposition to `science' seems to come either from ignorance or from religion. But in the last three centuries the forces which scientific troops have seen as opposing them have twice been entirely transformed. This change is easy to overlook because the rhetoric of those claiming to defend science has remained surprisingly unchanged.(Mary Midgley. Science and Poetry. Chapter 4- Routledge, 2006 , p.65) (82 words)

* * *

Scientistic ideology has provoked criticism from various different quarters which are not distinguished today. One can still hear that the only opposition to science comes either from ignorance or from religion. But in the last three centuries the forces which have opposed science have been transformed. This change is overlooked because the rhetoric of those who defend science has remained unchanged. (61 words)

An introductory note on referential and interpersonal meaning.

The grammar of reference and the grammar of representation. The integral unity of both in language.

It is assumed, in contemporary linguistic theory, that referential and interpersonal meaning together with textual meaning make up the system of language. This is a fundamental concept in the functional theory of language. (These three categories of meaning have arisen out of the respective functions of language - the ideational, the interpersonal and the textual.)

The three functional components of meaning feature in the acquisition of language by the child. (It is explained, in the book Learning How to Mean by M.A.K.Halliday, how these functions of language become the three components of meaning).

Reference has been defined as “the relation between a name and the person or object which it names” (Blackburn, 1996, 323; cf.: Matthews, 1997, 312: “Reference is the relation between a part of an utterance and an individual or a set of individuals that it identifies.”). In other words, reference in language means identifying a thing or a person by a name, describing states, processes and actions, as well as modifying things/persons, phenomena and processes. But language would be quite primitive if it only named and described. The founder of the functional theory of language, Michael A.K.Halliday, finds that “the image of language as merely the direct reflection of subject matter is simplistic and unsound.” (Halliday, 1978, 33). Language is, indeed, far more complex.

All language functions in a context of situation. The context of situation (which covers physical, geographical, social and cultural circumstances and includes the participants, as well as the language they use) determines what verbal expression we select from the system of language to satisfy the contextual conditions. The context of situation is reflected in the field of discourse or the setting in which language is used, in the relationship between the participants (in the formality of their speech, their more or less permanent involvement and in the emotional charge of the speech), and in the mode of discourse (spoken, written, a lecture, an academic discussion or an informal conversation). These factors determine the choice of particular words, structures and their arrangement by the speakers. These factors also indicate that the personal component, the emotive component and the mode of discourse qualify relationships or interpersonality in language.

Modality, which is the topic of today's lecture, is an aspect of interpersonal or representational meaning. Interpersonality covers such components of meaning as views and attitudes to the object of talk, to the participants and to oneself, probabilities related to the processes of reference, comments on, asides and evaluations of the object of talk. Interpersonal meaning is a broad compartment of meaning, very prominent in English and therefore important in learning this language. Modality is only a fragment of interpersonal meaning, although very important, in language. It is related to other aspects of interpersonal meaning, which are difficult to separate distinctly. Take, for instance, politeness.

Politeness is a question in its own right in modern linguistics, primarily in pragmatics. Without delving into modern theories, one might bear in mind that the spirit of politeness had been defined as “one which will govern our behaviour, so that by our words and actions others may be pleased with us and with themselves” (Montesquieu // Lady Colin Campbell. Etiquette of Good Society, p.36). This definition alone indicates how many measurements of meaning enter interpersonal relations through politeness.

Consequently, interpersonal meaning in language spreads over all verbal expression when every detail matters both in words, structure and intonation. Therefore much attention will be paid to the use of concrete words in today's discussion of modality. Although modality does not literally identify with politeness, the intention to please and to be courteous in one's verbal expression relates to the sense of probability/possibility in one's words, which means modality in particular. Finally, to be polite means to be tender rather than blunt, and to be vague rather than precise in words. That is why authors of The Cambridge Grammar of English state that “modal items, especially the modal verbs, also play a very important part in the expression of politeness and formality in English” (CGE, 638: 377). That is why interpersonal meaning will not be strictly segmented in today's discussion of modality and delicate shades of meaning of concrete words will demand much attention.

(Textual meaning has not been defined here but it means the explicit and implicit ways of composing a text)

The interpersonal meaning is so prominent and important in English that it has been in the focus of language teachers and authors. This is how the presence of interpersonal meaning is taken into consideration in language teaching. The four skills (listening, speaking, reading and writing) approach in language teaching “frequently ignores representational (or interpersonal - MLD) language. This is language which is open to interpretation, contains plurality of meaning potential rather than one single denotational meaning, and requires negotiation and judgement by its receiver in order to be fully understood. /…/ English in use is hedged about with modality, with vague language, with hesitations and lack of commitment… It is this that leads to the necessity of a fifth skill to be incorporated into the currently widespread four skills communicative approach to language teaching and learning. The fifth skill is the skill of processing and thinking. Any text spoken, written or heard has to be processed and thought about in order that its implications be decoded, its frame of reference understood, its context and connotations assimilated, its ideological standpoints assessed, where it is coming from and who it is directed to, all being incorporated into the overall understanding.” (Approaching Literature in ELT_compilation.pdf. Summary of the fielded discussion conducted by Amos Paran and John McRae, 2009)

As the examples above have shown, genuine English incorporates both referential and representational meaning. The first dialogue above and the second instance of discursive prose, from which representational meaning has been removed, seem unnatural. This suggests that representational meaning is very important in English. It should not be therefore neglected in learning English as a foreign language. For one, it makes English tentative and polite, and for the other, it is expected that the speaker should not be blunt in English. Therefore appropriate integration of representational meaning in speech in English is a means of success in intercultural communication.

Modality is described in The Cambridge Grammar of English as the essential component of representational or interpersonal meaning in language. Modality “refers to a speaker's or writer's attitude towards, or point of view about, a state of the world” (CGE, 638:377). E.g.: They must have finished building by now and may have left already. Modality expresses the speaker's participation in the speech event, his intrusion in the statement and comment on it. Modality is part of the meaning of interpersonality in language “as expression of role” (Halliday, 198). Modality is related to what is known as `speaker's comment'. Speaker's comment may be expressed not only by verbs but also by adverbs such as frankly, generally, wisely, fortunately, personally, doubtfully, etc. and enter the interpersonal component of language. When modality is expressed by must and other modal verbs, “it replaces the primary tense and the tense system with which it combines is the non-finite one, in which the absence of primary tense leads to some neutralization.” In the expression of modality, “one non-finite tense corresponds to up to three finite ones. For example, must have built corresponds to 1)surely…built, 2)surely…has built, and 3)surely…had built. (Halliday, 1976, 199). Modality has no tense but “it may combine with any of the tenses of the verb” Halliday, 1976, 200). There is no negative modality because modality is an assessment of probability and there can be no negative probability. All modalities are positive. (Halliday, 1976, 196)

Modality has to do with the expression of social relations and “with the participation of the individual in all kinds of personal interaction”. Modality represents a small but an important part of language's resources - “of the semantics of personal participation”. Modality is additional to the expression of referential content in a clause but is woven into a uniform structure “with other elements expressing different functions. This is why there is grammar in language; grammar is the weaving together of strands from the various components of meaning into a single fabric that we call linguistic structure. “(Halliday, 1976, 198).

Linguistic structure includes the representation of experience, the expression of role and personality and that of discourse which provides the texture (Halliday, 1976, 198). These components of meaning derive from the different functions of language. When we studied the tenses as time expression in grammar, the noun phrase and its extension and the verb phrase and its complementation, we focused on the referential component of meaning in language. With modality, we have turned to the study of the interpersonal component of meaning in language. We have also touched upon the textual component of meaning when we studied discourse and discourse units. These functional aspects of meaning, however, are not separate in language. As has just been said, they are interwoven, and one single utterance expresses all functional components of meaning, as a rule, by its different units. “A word may express one type of meaning, its morphology another and its position in sequence another”, and, as Michael Halliday concludes figuratively, “any element may have more than one structural role, like a chord in a fugue which participates simultaneously in more than one melodic line” (Halliday, 1976, 24). E.g.: The sun was shining on the sea. The sun as the active element (=the affected), its participation in the process of shining (=process) and its placement on the sea (=locative) make up the referential component of meaning in the quoted sentence. The impersonal aspect of modality expressed in the plain progressive tense of the verb and the propositional content of the statement make up the interpersonal component of meaning of this sentence, while its theme (the sun) and rheme (was shining on the sea) as the given and the new components make up its textuality. The past progressive was shining also suggests textuality by an implication of the presence of some other unmentioned state with respect to which the process was shining was assessed. This is how the different functional components of meaning appear in a composite unity and how a simple and short sentence contains the meaning of the different compartments of language system in a complete structure. (The analytical treatment and explanation of meaning in the sentence as in any verbal unit lie in the province of grammar and the philosophy of language. This is the field of the professional knowledge of the educated. It takes sensitive speakers to react consciously to the function of the different components of meaning in speech, while a majority of ordinary speakers use language as a tool and never treat it analytically.)

Modality is contrasted with modulation which expresses conditions of the process denoted by the verb and “forms part of the content of the clause”. Cf.: `You must build a gazebo.' - `I can't build gazebos. If I could I would.' - `Well you ought to be able to.' (Halliday, 1976, 199). The meaning of the modal verbs in this exchange “have nothing to do with the speaker's assessment of probabilities. In these examples the auxiliaries must, can, etc. express various types of modulation of the process expressed in the clause; modulation in terms of permission, obligation and the like.” They make part of the referential meaning of the clause. (Halliday, 1976, 199).

It might be useful to have a sense of how degrees of certainty and probability as well as different attitudes combine in speech before we turn to consider how concrete words express modality in English. One of the clear and frequent turns in speech is a question. It is relevant to see how direct or indirect one may be in one's questions in English (Handout 1: Indirect questions. Incl. Asking a favour). It is also important how direct or indirect one can be in one's responses and refusals (Handout 2: Disagreeing). Finally, these aspects of meaning combine when we consider how one can express uncertainty in English (Handout 3: Expressing uncertainty). This brings us directly to the expression of modality by modal verbs.

The expression of modality by means of modal verbs.

Modal verbs include the core modal verbs (can, could, may, might, will, shall, would, should, must) and semi-modal verbs (dare, need, ought to, used to). Modality can also be expressed by other verbs which have modal meanings (hope, manage, suppose, seem, wish, want) and by modal phrases which have become grammaticalised (had better, be meant to, be obliged to, be supposed to, etc.). A few adjectives, adverbs and nouns can also be used in the expression of modality.

Types of modal meaning described in The Cambridge Grammar of English are equivalent to the meaning of modality and modulation as described above under (3). The authors of CGE find certainty, probability and possibility as one type of modal meaning: I might see you later. (= it is possible, not certain) I'll see you tomorrow. (=speaker is certain). The other type of modal meaning is found to involve the sense of “getting things done or trying to control the course of events. Modals used in this way express degrees of obligation”, necessity, permission or volition: You may go now. (=speaker grants permission) I must be careful what I say. (=speaker expresses necessity/obligation) Liz can work right through the night without getting tired. (=speaker refers to ability). The authors of CGE also note that, depending on the context, the same modal forms can be used with different meanings: 1) I don't know. You may be right. (=possibility) 2) You may start now. (=permission) 3) Could it be the other one that's causing the problem? (=possibility) 4) Could we come and see it on Saturday? (=permission). (CGE, 638-639:379) As the quoted examples have shown, the meaning of possibility here identifies with modality and is an aspect of interpersonal meaning, which is the question of the present lecture. The meaning of permission, necessity and obligation here identifies with modulation as described above under (3) and is part of the referential content of the clause. Consequently, it is outside of the question of the present lecture.

General formal properties of modal verbs, which are the main means of the expression of modality, make the elementary information. Modal verbs do not have infinitive forms and do not inflect for person and number. Modal verbs lack progressive and perfect forms and, consequently, have only one form. In the verb phrase, modal verbs are placed first and are followed by a verb in the base form. “The next verb may be a lexical verb or an auxiliary verb (be, do, have) or the substitute verb do, but cannot be another modal verb: We might stay an extra night. We should be leaving soon. It might have got lost in the post.” (CGE, 639-640: 380a)

Modal verbs cannot be used as lexical verbs (I must go to bed. But not “I must to bed”). Like auxiliary verbs, modal verbs can stand alone when the lexical verb is understood (`Karen might have his number.' - `Yes, she might.')

Although modal verbs cannot indicate the voice or aspect of the verb, they may precede constructions with passive voice and progressive or perfect aspect, and contribute to the respective meaning. E.g.: 5) I think Jim could have been offended. 6) I don't know when we'll be arriving yet. 7) We should have thought of that earlier. 8) He might have been expecting it.

The existing historical tense forms of modal verbs have rather restricted meaning. The historical present tense forms are used to refer either to present or future time. The historical past tense forms are generally used “to express greater tentativeness, distance and politeness”. (CGE, 640: 380b) E.g.: (9) You should stop worrying about it. Should I call him and apologize? (used for giving or asking for advice) (10) (BrE, formal) If I were asked to work on Sundays, I should resign. (used after I or we instead of would to describe what one would do if something else happened first) (11) (formal) (used to refer to a possible event or situation) If you should change your mind, do let me know. In case you should need any help, here's my number. Should anyone call (=if anyone calls), please tell them I'm busy. (12) (BrE, formal) (used with I and we in polite requests) I should like to call my lawyer . We should be grateful for your help. (13) (used with I and we to give opinions that one is not certain about) a) I should imagine it will take about three hours. b) `Is this enough food for everyone?' - `I should think so.' c) `Will it matter?' - `I shouldn't think so.' (14) (used for expressing strong agreement) a) `I know it's expensive but it will last for years.' - `I should hope so too!' b) `Nobody will oppose it.' - `I should think not!' (15) (used to ask somebody politely to do something) Would you mind leaving us alone for a few minutes? Would you open the door for me please? (16) (used in polite offers or invitations) Would you like a sandwich? Would you have dinner with me on Friday? (17) would like/love/hate/prefer, etc. (used to say what you like, love, hate, etc.) I'd love a coffee. I'd be only too glad to help. I'd hate you to think I was criticizing you. I'd rather come with you. I'd rather you came with us. (18) would imagine/say/think, etc. (that) (used to give opinions that you are not certain about) I'd imagine the job will take about two days. I'd say he was about fifty. (19) I would (used to give advice) I wouldn't have any more to drink, if I were you. (20) (usually disapproving) (used for talking about behaviour that you think is typical) “She said it was your fault.' - `Well, she would say that, wouldn't she? She never liked me.' (The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. Seventh Edition, 1409, 1766). Politeness as an aspect of the meaning of modal verbs belongs to the compartment of interpersonality in language and has a vague bearing on modality.

As is obvious from some of the examples above, the interrogative and the negative forms of modal verbs are formed by means of the modal verbs themselves. The auxiliary do is not used. The interrogative is formed by inverting the subject and modal verb. The negative is formed by adding not/'nt after the modal verb.

Modal verbs are used in full and contracted forms. Some instances of the use of these forms have been illustrated in the examples above. In spoken English, the contracted forms are generally used. The contracted form is a convenient form when the speaker wants to conceal whether he prefers (or knows the difference between) should or would. But the contracted forms is a mark of informality. Therefore in writing, the full forms are used.

6. The meaning and use of modal verbs in English

Can is frequently used to express the meaning of ability (Can you see the post office on the corner? She can work right through the night.), permission (You can borrow the car but be careful. `Can I smoke in here?' - `No, I'm sorry you can't.) and state general truths (Steel can resist very high temperatures. Thai can be a very difficult language for Westerners to pronounce. It can rain quite a lot in Ireland in August.)(CGE, 642: 381)

Can and could may be used to express different aspects of possibility: a) logical possibilities (That can't be right. `How can they be there already? They only left ten minutes ago.'); b) probability (I think that could be the answer to the problem. We could all be having holidays on the moon within thirty years.) (CGE, 643: 381-382); c) probabilities which are believed to be a fact (It can be very cold in Stockholm (= this is a known fact), so take a big coat. It could be very cold in Stockholm (= it is possible that it will be cold in S. when you are there), so take a big coat.); d) possibility which invites speculation: could rather than can is used to speculate about whether something is true or possible (`Where's Julia?' - `She could / may be in the garden.' It could rain this afternoon.) (CGE, 645: 384).

Can and could may be used to make more or less tentative assertions. Can has a stronger sense as it expresses “fairly confident but not absolute assertions” (These new insights into the multiple meanings of family can help us understand the experience of transnational migration.). Could is weaker in this sense and expresses more tentative assertions (… the area could have become infected.) (CGE, 280: 146b)

The senses of can and could just reviewed express different degrees of possibility and make an aspect of modality in English.

May has a number of meanings but permission (`May I see that?' - `Yes, you may. / No, you may not.') and a statement of general truths (Frog spawn may be found in river beds at that time of year. (= is typically/normally found)) are most common. Strictly speaking, only the second of these senses of may is related to modality. (CGE, 644-645: 383)

May is often used to express the meaning of weak probability, which is an aspect of modality (There's a bank holiday in between, so it may or may not get to you by the end of that week.) (CGE, 644: 383)

May may be used to express the likelihood of events, especially in academic texts (The anger experience may culminate in a variety of behavioural reactions…). In the same kind of texts, may is widely used to make a proposition more tentative (This change may also have been in progress in other counties.), but may “is less tentative than could or might”. (CGE, 280-281: 146b). These senses of may are aspects of modality in English, too.

Of the three modals - could, may and might, all of which express degrees of certainty, may is the strongest in this meaning. “May expresses a slightly greater degree of certainty than could, and tends to be used in more formal contexts”. Might is the weakest: “might is more tentative than may or could:

He may also find some graduate school course that he can do. (= slightly greater likelihood than could)

[referring to the single European currency, the Euro] Staying outside the single currency could

be detrimental to the UK.

I might take us months to find the right person. (CGE, 647: 386)

It may take us months to use the first names. (A public lecture, 1969)

Might has a number of senses but “its most frequent uses are for expressing probability”:

A.: So I'm going to buy a digital camera.

B.: Yeah.

A.: And I might buy a video camera as well.

Might is also frequently used to express “advice or suggestions politely and indirectly, especially when used together with like or want”: [a university tutor recommending a book to a student] I won't go any further with it now but you might like to take a copy of it out with you. (CGE, 647: 385)

In everyday conversation, may as well and might (just) as well are commonly used for making suggestions: You might as well fill all the details you've got down on that front page. (CGE,691: 414e).

The elementary meaning of might includes permission: Might I speak to Mrs Lutterworth? You may borrow my car if you like. (Quirk et al, 53). When might is used as the past form of may in indirect reports, it retains the meaning of the verb in the present tense, and that meaning is often probability: …she said to him, `Mother may be expecting you .' “The probable indirect report of this sentence would be: She said that mother might be expecting him. (CGE, 647:385)

Some grammarians remark that “may and might are among the modal auxiliaries which involve differences of meaning in passing from declarative to interrogative or negative. Cf.: Might I smoke in here? We might go to the concert. What you say might be true. (Quirk et al, 53: 3.41)

Will has a number of uses. The elementary sense of will is reference to the future: The referendum will take place on June 23^rd. Cars will be banned, … , pedestrians will be catered for, drivers will not be welcome. I'll be sixty-five in a few years' time and I'll be retiring. (CGE, 647-8: 387). Although the contracted form in the last example conceals which modal (will or shall) is used, in present-day English, will tends to be used for first, second and third person subjects to refer to future time. The use of shall to refer to future time is becoming less frequent; it is more frequently used to express intentions and is assigned to more formal contexts. (CGE, 647-8: 387; 649: 388).

Will approximates the meaning of modality (= possibility/probability of sth) in its sense “to make predictions about the future or deductions about a present situation from the available evidence”. E.g:

I think we'll do it but it won't be easy.

If she gets the right grades, she'll go to university.

That'll be Jim at the door.

Will is also used “to make general predictions about things that always happen” (and, in this sense, occurs in academic and scientific English). E.g.:

Dry twigs will burn easily.

A dog will growl when it's angry or frightened. (CGE, 648: 387)

Similarly, will can be used to refer to general truths (I suppose most people will prefer their own home. In the evening he'll sit all night watching TV.) or to soften directives for politeness sake (I'm sorry but I'll have to ask you to sit in the Waiting Room for a few minutes…) (CGE, 606: 344)

Will may be used to refer to habitual events (On a Friday night we'll get a take-away and we'll just relax.). In this sense the usage is somewhat analogous to that of the present simple. But only will can be used to express intentions and decisions while the present simple form is not used in such situations. E.g.:

A: I'm afraid they won't be ready till three o'clock.

B: Okay. Er, I'll come back at three.

Similarly, it is will that is “used to express degrees of willingness to do something” or to make offers but not the present simple. E.g.:

I'll carry that for you.

I won't lend him any money. Why should I?

In more impersonal and objective senses, will can be used “in a disapproving way to refer to persistent actions of oneself or others (He will leave the door open every time he goes through. /which is more emphatic than the present simple/ Oh, I will keep banging my elbow on that shelf.). It is also used “to refer to inanimate objects and how they respond… to human intervention (This window won't open. It won't let me save the file with a different name.)” (CGE, 648-649: 387)

The use of will to express requests and invitations, to voice directives or express disapproval is wholly related to politeness. Will is commonly used to make requests and invitations. E.g.:

Will you pass me that newspaper please?

Will you join us for a drink after the concert?

“A rarer and more formal use of won't occurs in polite requests and invitations:

The manager will be here in a minute. Won't you take a seat, Mr Parker?

Strong directives can be issued using will in the interrogative and as strong a command for someone to do something using will in declarative clauses. E.g.:

Will you sit down and just be quiet!

You will pick it up and you'll pick it up now! (CGE, 648-649: 387)

The examples quoted above show clearly that almost every instance of the use of the modal verb will is related to different degrees or strength of insistence, demand or assurance. An aspect of modality may be traced therefore in most of the quoted examples, while politeness and strength of reference intermingle in them.

Once regular with the first and second person subjects to express future tense and intentions, shall has become less frequent than will in these senses. In present-day English, shall is used “with first person subjects in rather formal contexts to make predictions and to announce intentions or decisions”. E.g.:

I shall always be grateful for what he did on that day. (`I will/I'll be grateful…' is less formal)

While she's here, we shall never be able to put the past behind us.

`I don't want anyone with me. I shall do this on my own.' Bless said…

The use of the negative shall not/shan't to make prediction and announce intentions is rarer and also occurs in formal contexts: I shan't be here for much more than half an hour.

The use of shall with the second and third person subject to issue directives is very formal and rare but occurs in notices, threats and legal statements. E.g.

This curtain shall be left open during takeoff and landing. [a notice in an aircraft cabin]

`You shall be punished,' said Mrs Marline. `You shall go to your room and stay there without a light when it is dark.'

Shall is frequent, though, in first person interrogatives when it is commonly used to make offers and suggestions or to seek advice. E.g.:

As soon as Bob comes back, Ken, shall I give you a ring?

Shall we go and have a walk in the garden?

What shall I do? Come in first thing in the morning then?- `Mm, that's probably the best thing, yeah.' (CGE, 649-650: 388)

A little statistics indicates eloquently the difference in the currency of shall and will in present-day English. The authors of The Cambridge Grammar of English state that “will is almost ten times more frequent than shall in spoken and written texts taken together. The contracted form `ll is almost three times more frequent than the full forms will and shall taken together. Shall is, …, not very frequent, but is twice as common in spoken texts as in written texts because of the use of Shall I / we to make suggestions or to seek advice”. (CGE, 650: 389)

The more frequent will is sometimes used with the first person subjects to enquire or make suggestions and replaces shall but only in informal conversation: `Will I bring out the salads?''No. But…' (CGE, 650: 389)

However, there is a strong preference for will/shall in spoken English over be going to in stating predictions when evidence is not obvious or relevant and when opinions have to be relied upon: The baby will have black hair. I'm sure that we shall have a good discussion. The same usage applies in stating absolute certainties about the future: My birthday will fall on Tuesday in 2007.

(CGE, 630-631: 363). Modality is confined to the senses of politeness in shall and will.

Would is a widely used modal verb. “Would has many meanings.” It is used to refer to past time, to express conditional meaning in conditional sentences and “as a hedge to soften statements and requests.” (CGE, 650: 390).

The function of the past tense of will (I knew that would cause a problem.), reference to future-in-the-past (Her funny crooked smile … inspired him with exciting ideas of friendship. Perhaps one day he would summon the courage to speak to her…) and reference to habitual actions and events in narratives (The monkeys would sit there staring,… The waiters would return, collect the tray and the monkeys would follow them to the next room and do it all over again.) make the elementary meanings of would. This verb also expresses volition in past time situations : Patsy was so kind. She would always help when we needed her. I did ask him, but he wouldn't give me an answer. The negative form wouldn't is used to express the meaning analogous to that in the last example with reference to inanimate things - it indicates how inanimate things respond to human intervention: It was a freezing cold morning and the car wouldn't start. (CGE, 651: 390a)

Would is used to express modal meaning in particular. It is used in the main clause of conditional sentences to express hypothetical supposition, which is an aspect of modality: If I had to leave, I would probably go to India. If it had another little room, it would have been quite nice.

Used as a hedge to soften the meaning of the sentence, would expresses tentativeness, especially with verbs advise, imagine, recommend, say, suggest, think. E.g.: [a shop assistant to a customer] I would always recommend a slightly softer bed than a harder one. [advising a friend choosing a jacket in a shop] I'd say get the bigger one.

In requests would is “a more polite or indirect form of will”: Would you give me a call this evening? I want you to have a look at this, if you would. (CGE, 652: 390b)

Would functions to make requests more formal and polite than they would be if will were used.

E.g.: Would you excuse me just one second? (heard as more polite than `Will you excuse me…').

Will and would express willingness in present and past time contexts, respectively. E.g.: John says he'll do it for you. When he was at home, his mother wouldn't allow him to go out anywhere…

But would is not used to express willingness to do something on a specific occasion in past time context - the simple past is used instead: I suggested she came on her own, and she finally agreed to it. (CGE, 652: 391)

Should is used to refer to events “that are likely or possible, but it is more frequently used to refer to things that are desirable”. It is also used to give advice and make suggestions as well as express tentativeness in conditional sentences.

One can identify the meaning referring to a desired state of affairs (He should be wearing glasses. He should have been here at five and he's not here yet. `I should be careful, he's very tight by now.' M.D., 45), to something that happened and to which the speaker reacts with surprise ( I'm sorry that he should be so upset by what I said. I'm amazed that he should have done something so stupid. `Look, Gill, how should I know?' M.D., 79), as well as the expression of suggestions (You should tell him straight what you think. We should leave it till tomorrow, don't you think.) and thanks as gratitude for gifts (Thanks so much for the CD. You really shouldn't have.) among the more or less referential uses of should.

One can find a number of modal uses of should. 1) Should is often used to indicate what speakers think is likely to occur : Erm your evening class tonight has had to be cancelled… but it should be back to normal next week. `Tomorrow I've got a lost of sport. …' - `It should be a pleasant day then.' 2) Should can be used in a more general way to refer to what might possibly happen: It seems unfair that you should have to do all the driving. Why should anyone object to her getting the job? 3) Should is also used to express tentative possibilities in hypothetical conditional sentences with if in formal contexts: Some people carry a card which means that if they should be killed in an accident, they can be identified. If you should need anything else, do just let me know. “Should also occurs with subject-verb inversion as an alternative to if in more formal contexts to refer to hypothetical situations: I'll be accountable on this number should you need me. (CGE, 652-654: 392)

Should and would are comparable as formal and informal alternatives in the expression of hypothetical ideas. “Should occurs as a more formal alternative to would with first person subjects in hypothetical clauses, in future-in-the-past clauses and in clauses where would can occur as a softener or hedge: … even if disadvantages had been doubled, I should still have been of the same opinion. She was aware of our feelings for each other and she guessed we should like to be alone. Things change, especially in our field, I should imagine.” (CGE, 654: 393) `I should think that perhaps it means that he would like you to go,' I said finally. I didn't really think so but I didn't have the nerve to suggest the other thing. (M.D., 79)

Should and would are also comparable in the expression of `pure' future. “When should and would are used in `reported speech' to represent the `pure' future, the distinction between them has traditionally been the same as that between shall and will. Should was used for the first person, so that We shall come became W e said we should come, and would for the second and third persons, so that They will come became I thought they would come. This distinction is dying out. Would and `d commonly replace should, particularly in American English, just as will replaces shall, and I said I would come is now acceptable. The process may have been hastened for the good reason that should can also mean `ought to' in all three persons: You should see a doctor; It shouldn't be allowed. If you use should with I or we you may introduce an unintended element of `ought'. /…/

Should is correctly, though rather formally, used after if: if it should snow (for if it snows); if you should be late (for if you're late). Here there can be no implication of `ought'. Nor is there any ambiguity over the polite phrase I should think, which is less dogmatic than I think. It is very common, though, in British as well as American English, to write I would like, I would prefer, I would be inclined, etc rather than using should in such phrases, and the practice does not seem to attract criticism.” (The Longman Guide to English Usage. - 1989, 649-650)

Must has a number of meanings. It can be used to express deduction, different strength of obligation, polite invitations, reproaches and laws.

1) Deduction as `the process of using information to find an answer to a question' is commonly indicated by must in expressing reactions in spoken contexts: I'm twenty-eight, so she must be twenty-seven. `There was a power-cut on the London Underground.' `That must have been terrible. Er, I read about that.' `How long is it now? Six years?''I suppose it must be.' (M.Dr., 94)

`Surely,' the woman said, `you must be Emma Lawrence?' (M.Dr., 61)

2) Must expresses strong obligation: You must get those done by tomorrow. I told her she must keep her door locked at all times.

3) Must is also used to express polite invitations and intonation has a role to play in their meaning: You must come down and have a meal with us sometime. `You must come down and have a drink,' David was saying in no time. (M.Dr.)

4) It is usually in the interrogative form that must is used to express reproaches, in which a feeling of exasperation on the part of the speaker is often implied: Must you have that music so loud? Why must people always park right across our exit?

As must has no past form, the past is expressed by had to. The negative of obligation, which is the meaning of must, can be expressed by must not, need no/needn't, don't have to, and don't need to.

(CGE, 654-656:394-394b)

Modality can be expressed by verbs called semi-modals. They include dare, need, ought to and used to. Dare and need are also lexical verbs.

Dare, the negative of which is either dare not or didn't dare, usually means the presence or absence of a person's boldness to do something or disapproval at some action. E.g.: Dare we write to them and complain? I dare not tell her what happened. I daren't ring Linda again. Marie didn't dare say anything to them. And she dare criticise the running of the Centre! (= strong disapproval) (CGE, 657-658: 395-396)

The semi-modal need, which common occurs in negative declarative, indicates absence of obligation: She needn't take the exam if she doesn't want to. His tie could hang loose all the time. He need not wear a tie.

Although often including an element of negation, affirmative declaratives with semi-modal need often express the presence or absence of necessity to do something, are rarer and associated with formal contexts. E.g.: No one else need see what he was doing either. If we feel wisdom itself is lost, we need only enter a library.

Interrogatives with the semi-modal need are very rare and formal. E.g.: Fishing is dangerous - er, but need it be this dangerous? (CGE, 658-659: 397)

Ought to usually refers to desired states of affairs and, in this sense, it is analogous to should but is much less frequent. E.g.: I really ought to go outside and get some fresh air for a bit. `Well that isn't good enough. You ought to complain.

Ought is used less frequently, in a similar way to should, to state what is likely or probable. E.g.: I think it ought to take about three hours, if the traffic is not too bad. CGE, 659-660: 398)

“Should is much more frequent than ought to, in referring to both what is desirable and what is likely. This statistical frequency of should may have influenced the structure of interrogatives so that “tags for clauses with ought to often occur with should, instead of ought:

There ought to be criteria, shouldn't there?

It oughtn't to have been like that really, should it?

“Interrogatives and negatives with ought are rare and should is generally preferred instead:

Should we have this window open again now or not? (preferred to: Ought we to have…?)

It's a tax form to say I'm a student and I shouldn't be paying tax. (preferred to: … I'm

a student and oughtn't/ought not to be paying tax.) (CGE, 661: 399)

Used to means reference “to past habitual behaviour or states of affairs in the past which are no longer true: `She's very tall isn't she?' `Yes, she used to do ballet.' There used to be a railway going through the village but it was closed in the 1960s.

The negative form of used to is didn't use(d) to. “In more formal styles used not to occurs”, while the contracted form is too rarer to practice. E.g..: No, I didn't used to be like you, I didn't used to dream, I didn't used to think that love was real. She used not to be … censorious of others' behaviour…

IMPORTANT: “The alternatives didn't used to / didn't use to both occur as written representations of the negative with didn't, though in speech it is often impossible to hear a difference and the most likely pronunciation is /didn(t) `ju:ste/.” (CGE, 661: 400)

The interrogative of used to is formed with the auxiliary did or involves subject-verb inversion, which is rare. E.g.: Did you used to be like me, standing with your head up in the clouds? Rare: Used it to be like that?

“Emphatic did may occur with used to, and the construction may be represented as did used to or did use to: … before I got married we did used to celebrate the New Year, with my sisters. (CGE, 661-662: 400)

“Used to and would both refer to habitual actions and events in the past”, but it is necessary to have an established past time-frame for would. “The past-time frame is often established by a previous occurrence of used to or by adverbial expressions (such as years ago, when I was a child, etc). But would is not used to refer to states in the past which are no longer true. E.g.:

Sandra used to come down here and watch me bake cakes. And she used to find it quite fascinating. … And her grandmother always used to bake cakes and she would go and watch you know.

When I was a kid we'd always go to my aunt's house in the holidays.

`See that cottage on the right?' `Yeah.' `I used to live there.' (NEVER: I would live there)

(CGE, 663: 402)

There are also such modal verb phrases as those highlighted in the examples below:

I thought I had better warn you now.

I've got to photocopy these stories.

I'd rather you came at three-thirty instead of four, if you could.

We are to get married next June.

This door is to remain locked at all times.

He is not to be disturbed, Jackie instructed.

It's going to rain any minute now.

I don't think there's going to be any problem.

We'd better not stay too late tonight.

Have you got to get up early tomorrow?

I have to be in at six every morning.

When have you to meet them?

They express degrees of certainty or necessity about the events that are to happen as prearranged or planned. Be to (are to) is rare in informal conversation. It is used in formal contexts and in issuing directives. On the contrary, have got to is informal and occurs in spoken language more frequently than have to. (CGE, 663-670:403-403f)

Other modal expression with be include: be about to, be able to, be bound to, be certain to, be likely to/that, be meant to, be abliged to, be supposed to, be sure to, etc. There is a number of common verbs which express modal meanings of possibility and likelihood, especially with the first person singular subject. They are: appear, believe, expect, feel, know, promise, seem, sound, suppose, tend, think, etc. Some fo these verbs appear with dummy it as subject. E.g.:

It appears there was a technical fault.

It feels as if they're all criticising me.

It looks like you didn't get very much sleep last night.

It seems as if you put thee papers in the wrong order.

It sounds as if she's going to retire soon.

Tend to is an increasingly frequently used phrase with modal meaning: I tend to believe this will not happen.
There are also common verbs which express modal meanings of obligation and necessity.

They include: allow, demand, entail, forbid, force, involve, let, make, mean, permit, prohibit, require, want, etc. There are also adjectives and adverbs which perform the function of stance markers and impart the sense of the sentence with modal meaning. They include: clearly, definitely, doubtless, likelihood, likely, obviously, seemingly, supposedly, surely, etc.

7. A summary of the present lecture and the student's gain. Reference or identifying by a name in English combines with interpersonal meaning, which is no less significant in this language. The interpersonal meaning is the speaker's or writer's attitude towards or point of view about a state of the world. Modality is major section of interpersonal meaning in English. It differs from modulation or from the description of conditions of the process denoted by the verb, which may be permission, necessity and obligation. Modality is basically expressed by modal verbs in English, by semi-modals and by modal expressions. Their meaning often differs but slightly and their conventional usage is important. Modality is a significant component of meaning in the English sentence. Its delicate shades require skill in expression. Modality should be expressed with care not to overdo the personal aspect of meaning, not to abuse some typical patterns and phrases, and not to make it a mannerism. What have we learned? Language is used not only for naming and describing but also, simultaneously, for the expression of the speaker's attitude, involvement and comment, which take the form of modality. Modality is a significant aspect of meaning in English and is accurately expressed by modal verbs, semi modals and modal expressions. Although in logic the difference between I want a drink. and I would like a drink, or between I think. I should think. and I tend to believe mean nothing, in actual verbal communication the differences between these utterances make a great difference.