Modal verbs
Content
INTRODUCTION 3
MODAL VERBS 7
Can 11
may 18
we can compare may
and can 24
must 25
must and may
compared 28
to have to 29
to be to 31
must, to have to
and to be to compared 32
ought to 34
Shall and should 35
shall 35
should 36
must, should and
ought to compared 41
Should + perfect
infinitive, ought to + perfect infinitive and was/were to + perfect infinitive
compared 41
will
42
need 47
dare 48
Shouldn’t + Perfect
Infinitive, oughtn’t to + Perfect Infinitive and needn’t + Perfect Infinitive
compared 49
Final conclusion 50
BIBLIOGRAPHY
52
Introduction
Modality is expression of speaker’s attitude
to what his utterance denotes.
The speaker’s judgment may be of different kinds,
that is, the speaker may express various modal meanings. Modal verbs unlike
other verbs, do not denote actions or states, but only show the attitude of the
speaker towards the action expressed by the infinitive in combination with
which they form compound modal predicates. These modal verbs may show that the
action (or state, of process, or quality) is viewed by the speaker as possible,
obligatory, doubtful, certain, permissible, advisable, requested, prohibited,
ordered etc. Modal verbs occur only with the infinitive. This or that meaning
is to a great degree determined by communicative type of the sentence and the
form of the infinitive. That is a huge problem for foreign learners of English,
who make a great deal of mistakes in this field. So, the aim of my work is to
show how modal verbs can be used, in what case we need one or other verb and
why.
English modality can
be expressed not only by modal verbs. Modality can be expressed by different
linguistic means. In actual speech all forms expressing modality work together
to make the meaning clear. But in every case there is some leading form that
expresses the main attitude. These forms fall into four categories: phonetic
(intonation), grammatical (mood), lexico-grammatical (modal verbs), lexical
(modal words and phrases). But the most important from them is the third form,
which includes modal verbs. It is important to take into account one more
feature peculiar to modal verbs. They all show that a certain action is
represented as necessary, doubtful, etc. From the point of view of the speake,
there are verbs which ‘help’ other verbs to express a meaning: it is important
to realize that “modal verbs” have no meaning by themselves/ A modal verb such
as would has several varying functions; it can be used, for example, to
help verbs express ideas about the past, the present and the future. It is
therefore wrong to simply believe that “would is the past of will”:
it is many other things.
English modality can
be expressed not only by modal verbs. There are many ways to express it –
generally Mood shows the relation between the action expressed by the
predicate verb and reality. The speaker establishes this relation.
In present-day
English the category of mood is made up by a set of forms opposed to
each other in presenting the event described as a real fact, a problematic
action of as something unreal that does not exist.
Actions represented
as real facts are expressed by the Indicative Mood.
E.g.
Architects have done some very good work, too, in designing new schools.
Many of these are prefabricated, which means that as much of the
building work as possible if done not on the building site but in
factories where mass production methods are used.
When the brothers had
gone home, Mr. Waterfall announced that they were a much
pleasanter pair of young men than the had been led to believe.
The Indicative mood
is characterized by a great number of tense-aspect-phase forms that may be used
in the Active or in the Passive Voice. It should be stressed that the use of
the Indicative Mood does not always mean that the action expressed by the
predicate verb is true to fact, that it actually takes (or took, or will take)
place in reality. When the speaker uses the Indicative Mood he merely represents
an action as a fact, but he maybe mistaken or even telling a lie.
E.g. “I’ve
seen to it,” he said, but everyone knew it was not true.
Commands and
requests, which are problematic actions, are expressed by the Imperative
Mood.
The Imperative Mood
is the plain stem of the verb (e.g. Come over here. Listen to him,
etc.). It may be used in the affirmative and in the negative form The negative
form is an analytical form built up by means of the plain stem of the auxiliary
verb to do followed by not (don’t) and the infinitive of the
notional verb without to (e.g. Don’t go over there. Don’t listen to
him, etc.). The negative form of the verb to be is also built up by
means of the auxiliary verb to do (e.g. Don’t be inquisitive. Don’t
be a fool, etc.).
If we wish to make a
command or request more expressive, we use the emphatic form. It’s also an
analytical form built up with the help of the plain stem of the auxiliary verb to
do which is placed before the notional verb, including to be (e.g. Do
come over here. Do listen to him. Do be quiet, etc.).
A
command or request is generally addressed to the second person singular or
plural. There is usually no need to mention the subject of the action before
the verb in the Imperative mood. But occasionally the verb may be preceded by
you in familiar style (e.g. You don’t worry.).
A
command or request may be addressed to the first person plural. It is also
formed with the help of the plain stem of the verb, to let followed by
the pronoun us (the contracted form is let’s) and the infinitive
of the notional verb. This form is actually an invitation to a joint action
(e.g. Let’s have a cup of tea. Let’s do it together, etc.).
Actions
represented as unreal are in present-day English express by a variety of forms.
Among
them there is a mood form – the conditional Mood.
The fact
that there are a number of forms engaged in expressing unreal actions could be
explained historically.
In the
older periods English used to be a synthetic language and had special forms
that served to express unreal actions – the so-called Subjunctive mood. It was
built up synthetically by means of inflections. As a result of loss of
inflections, the difference between the forms of the Indicative Mood and the
Subjunctive Mood has in most cases disappeared. The place of the old
Subjunctive Mood was in a number of cases taken up by analytical forms and
modal phrases, i.e. combinations of modal verbs with the infinitive. It is this
historical process that accounts for the great variety of different forms
expressing unreality in modern English.
As some
of the forms expressing problematic or unreal actions are modal phrases, it is
necessary before describing the different forms of unreality to treat modal
verbs first.
The
speaker’s attitude towards the action if the sentence may be expressed in
different ways:
1)
By one of the mood forms that serve to show whether the action is
represented as a real fact of as problematic, or unreal, this form of
expression is found in every sentence because it is indispensable to
predication.
2)
By modal verbs which represent an action as necessary or
unnecessary, possible or impossible, certain of doubtful and the like. But
modal verbs need not be used in every sentence and are, therefore, to be
regarded as an additional means of expressing the speaker’s attitude towards
the action in the sentence.
3)
By attitudinal adverbs such as certainly, perhaps, probably,
luckily, unfortunately, etc. They express different degrees of certainty on
the part of the speaker of the desirability of the action from his point of
view.
Modal Verbs
We find
the following modal verbs in English: can, may, must, ought, shall, should,
will, need and dare. Besides, to have and to be in some of
their uses are also classed among modal verbs. A modal verb in combination with
the infinitive forms a modal compound predicate.
Modal
verbs are defective verbs since they lack many forms characteristic of regular
verbs: they have no –s in the third person singular in the present tense and no
verbal, so they have no analytical forms; some of them lack the form of the
past tense.
Modal
verbs have the following peculiarities:
1)
they are followed by the infinitive without the particle to
(with the exception of ought, to have and to be);
2)
their interrogative and negative forms are built up without the
auxiliary do.
Most of
the verbs have more than one meaning. Each of their meanings is characterized
by a specific usage.
1)
Some of the meanings may be found in all kinds of sentences; others
occur only in affirmative of interrogative or negative sentences;
2)
Different meanings may be associated with different forms of the
infinitive – simple and perfect (both in the active and passive forms),
continuous and perfect continuous;
3)
If the modal verbs have more than one form (can – could, may – might,
will – would, also the verbs to have and to be), their
different meanings are not necessarily found in all those forms.
The use
of modal verbs is in most cases independent of the structure of the sentence:
the use of this of that modal verb is determined by the attitude of the speaker
towards the facts contained in the sentence. In this case we may speak of the free
or independent use of modal verbs.
E. g.
He admires you. He thinks you’re a little beauty. Perhaps I oughtn’t to
have told you that.
He may
be in the hall now, waiting for me.
But
sometimes the use of certain modal verbs depends on the structure of the
sentence, mainly on the type of the subordinate clause, and occasionally also
on the lexical character of the predicate verb in the principal clause. This
may be called the structurally dependent use of modal verbs.
E. g.
It is obviously necessary that an investigation should be made.
Christine feared she might not be met at all.
When the
use of modal verbs is structurally dependent, their meaning is sometimes
weakened; in fact, it may be quite vague. This may be accounted for by the fact
that these verbs become rather part of the structure than bearers of individual
meaning.
It is
important to take into account one more feature peculiar to modal verbs. They
all show that a certain action is represented as necessary, possible, desirable,
doubtful, etc. from the point of view of the speaker. Consequently,
modal verbs are generally used in conversation. In past-time contexts they may
be found only in reported speech or thought, Thus You should have done it
before, or He might be wrong, or It must be true cannot be
possibly found in narration unless they are used after He thought that … He
said that … He knew that …, etc.
The only
exceptions are the past tense forms could, would, had, was and might
which may be used only in conversation but also in narration.
E. g.
Walker was illiterate and could not sign his name.
When I
looked at her I saw tears in her eyes. So I had to tell her the truth.
We can’t
but mention that modal verbs are of common usage in literature – both American
and English. In this work several examples taken from the works of famous
American and English writers of the 18-19th centuries, such as I.
Asimov, O. Henry, S. Maugham, F. Scott Fitzgerald, A. Christie, O. Wilde, M.
Spark and others, can vividly show you their usage and importance in speech.
We guess it’ll be necessary to provide you with some examples on their usage
from different newspapers and analyze them thoroughly.
Can
The modal
verb can has the following forms: can – the present tense (e.g.
He can speak English) and could – the past tense. The form could
is used in two ways: a) in past-time contexts as a form of the Indicative Mood
(e.g. He could speak English when he was a child), b) in present-time
contexts to express unreality, or as a milder and more polite form of can,
or as a form implying more uncertainty than can (e.g. He could speak
English if necessary. Could I help you? Could it be true?). Compare with the
Russian мог бы: Он мог бы сделать это, если бы у него было
время (unreality). Не мог бы я
Вам помочь? (politeness). Неужели он мог бы так
сказать? (uncertainty).
Can
has the following meanings:
1)
ability, capability,
E.g. I can imagine how angry he is.
We can represent a figure of a three-dimensional solid.
This meaning may also be expressed by to be able . The phrase can
be used in all tense-forms if necessary.
In the
meaning of ability and capability can occurs in all kinds of sentences.
E.g.
Right and left we can go, backward and forward freely enough, and men
always have done so. You can move about in all directions of Space, but
you cannot move about in Time.
In this
case can is followed by the simple infinitive and reference is made to
the present. But depending on the context it may also refer to the future.
E.g.
He can go up against gravitation in a balloon, and why should he not
hope that ultimately he may be able to stop or accelerate his drift along the
Time-Dimension, or even turn about and travel the other way?
However,
if the time reference is not clear from the context or if it is necessary to
stress that the action refers to the future, shall/will be able is used.
E.g.
He will be able to write to us from Portugal. I shall be able to earn
by own living soon.
The form could
may be used in past-time contexts and in this case it is followed by a
simple infinitive. It is a form of the Indicative Mood here.
E.g.
A man could not cover himself with dust by rolling in a paradox, could he? But
then where could it be? After what had happened I couldn’t
trust him.
The form
could may also be used in present-time context in combination with the
simple infinitive to express unreality with reference to the present or future.
E.g.
I told myself that I could never stop, and with a gust of petulance I
resolved to stop forthwith. (не смог бы прекратить).
You could articulate more distinctly with that
cigarette our of your mouth. (мог бы говорить более отчетливо).
As the form could may be used in two ways it is
usually undertoosd as expressing unreality with reference to the present or future
unless there are indications of past time in the sentence or in the
context. Thus the sentence She could paint landscapes will be understood
as Она могла бы писать пейзажи.
If there
is no indication of past time in the context but the speaker
wishes to refer the action to the past, was/were able is used of could
to avoid ambiguity.
E.g.
She was able to explain the mystery.
In
combination with the perfect infinitive could indicates that the action
was not carried out in the past.
E.g.
She could have explained the mystery. (Она могла бы
объяснить эту тайну; но не объяснила).
2)
possibility due to circumstances.
E.g.
You can see the forest through the other window.
We can
use either the Present Perfect of the Present Perfect Continuous in this
sentence.
In this
meaning can is found in all kinds of sentences. It is followed by the
simple infinitive and it refers the action to the present of future.
E.g.
You can obtain a dog from the Dog’s Home.
Can
we use the indefinite article with this noun?
We can’t
use the indefinite article with this noun.
In
past-time contexts the form could is used. It is followed by the simple
infinitive in this case.
E.g.
You could see the forest through the other window before the new block
of houses was erected.
The form
could in combination with the simple infinitive may also express
unreality with reference to the present of future.
E.g.
You could see the houses from here if it were not so dark.
In
combination with the perfect infinitive, could indicate that the action
was not carried out in the past.
E.g.
You could have seen the house from there if it had not been so dark.
3)
Permission
E.g.
You can take my umbrella.
Can
in this meaning is found in affirmative sentences, interrogative sentences in
which a request is expressed, and in negative sentences where it expresses
prohibition.
E.g.
You can use my car. Can I use your car? You can’t use
my car today.
In this
meaning can is combined with the simple infinitive.
The form
could with reference to the present is found only in interrogative
sentences in which it expresses a more polite request.
E.g.
Could I use your car?
The form
could is found in reported speech (i.e. in accordance with the rules of
the sequence of tenses).
E.g.
He said that I could use his car.
He asked
me if he could use my car.
4)
uncertainty, doubt
E.g.
Can it be true?
In this
meaning can is found only in interrogative sentences (in general
questions). Besides, sentences of this kind are often emotionally colored and
so their application is rather restricted.
Depending on the time reference, can in this meaning is used in
combination with different forms of the infinitive.
Thus, if
reference is made to the present, the simple infinitive is found with static
verbs.
E.g.
Can he really be ill?
Can
it be so late?
With
dynamic verbs, the continuous infinitive is used.
E.g.
Can she be telling lies?
Can
he be making the investigation all alone?
Can in
combination with the perfect infinitive refers the action to the past.
E.g. Can
he have said it? Can she have told a lie?
The
combination of can with the perfect infinitive may also indicate an
action begun in the past and continued into the moment of speaking. This is
usually found with static verbs.
E.g.
Can she really have been at home all this time?
However,
if can is followed by a dynamic verb the Perfect Continuous infinitive
is used.
E.g.
Can she have been waiting for us so long?
Could
with reference to the present is also used in this way, implying more
uncertainty.
E.g.
Could it be true?
Could
she be telling lies?
Could
he have said if?
Could
she have been waiting for us so long?
In
Russian both variants, with can and could, are rendered in the
same way: Неужели это правда? Неужели он лжет? And so on.
5)
Improbability
E.g.
It can’t be true. (Это не может быть правдой. Вряд ли это
так.)
In this meaning can is found only in negative sentences,
which are often emotionally colored. Depending on the time reference, this can
is also used with different forms of the infinitive/
E.g.
He can’t be really ill.
She can’t
be telling lies.
He can’t
have said it.
She can’t
have been at home all this time.
She can’t
have been waiting for us so long.
Could
is also used in this way making the statement less categorical
E.g.
It couldn’t be true.
She couldn’t
be telling lies.
He couldn’t
have said it.
She couldn’t
have been at home all this time.
She couldn’t
have been waiting for us so long.
Can
and could followed by different forms of the infinitive, are found in
special questions where they are used for emotional coloring (to express
puzzlement, impatience, etc.).
E.g.
What can (could) he mean?
What can
(could) he be doing?
What can
(could) he have done?
Where can
(could) he have gone to?
It can
be rendered in Russian as: Что, собственно,
он имеет в виду?
As is
seen from the above examples, the form could referring to present is
sometimes clearly opposed to can in that it expresses unreality whereas can
expresses reality. This may be observed in the following meanings:
ability
– He can speak English. He could speak English if necessary.
possibility
due to circumstances – You can get the book from the library. You could
get the book from the library if necessary. E.g. “You can have a million
books on our television screen, and even more. There is nothing to throw away.”
(I. Asimov)
“How could a man be a teacher? “ (I. Asimov)
In the
other meanings, however, this difference between the two forms is obliterated. Could
is used either as a milder or mote polite form of can as a form
implying more uncertainty than can:
permission
– Can I use your pen? Could I use your pen? (more
polite)
uncertainty,
doubt, improbability – Can it be true? Could it be
true (less certain). It can’t be true. It couldn’t be true (less
certain).
We can also
find some examples of modal verbs usage in some newspapers , magazines or in
literature.
E.g. It could
be true but it is advisable to find out first what has really happened there. (Может быть, это и правда, но лучше сначала выяснить, что же
действительно там произошло.)
“Honey, you couldn’t
support a wife,” she answered cheerfully. “Anyway, I know you too well to fall
in love with you.” (F. Scott Fitzgerald)
In this case
the verb could is used here in the meaning of doubt, uncertainty and
improbability.
May
The
modal verb may has the following forms: may – the Present tense
(e.g. it may be true) and might – the Past tense. The form might
is used in two ways: a) in past-time contexts, mainly in reported speech in
accordance with the rules of the sequence of tenses (e.g. He told me that it
might be true) and b) in present-time contexts as a milder and more polite
form of may, or as a form implying more uncertainty than may (e.g. Might
I come and see you? It might be true), or to express unreality (e.g. He
might have fallen ill if he hadn’t taken the pills).
May
has the following meanings:
1)
supposition implying uncertainty
E.g.
He may be busy getting ready for his trip.
In
Russian this meaning is generally rendered by means of the modal adverbs возможно and может
быть.
In
English this meaning may also be rendered by means of the attitudinal adverbs perhaps
and maybe.
In the
meaning of supposition implying uncertainty the verb may occurs in
affirmative and negative sentences.
E.g.
He may be at home.
He may
not be at home (Возможно, что его нет дома).
Two
factors may temporarily have increased their caution. (W.
Faulkner)
In this
meaning may can be followed by different forms of the infinitive
depending on the time reference expressed.
May
in combination with the simple infinitive usually refers the action to the
future.
E.g.
He may come soon.
The
action may also refer to the present but only with stative verbs.
E.g.
He may be ill.
He may
not know about it.
May
in combination with the Continuous infinitive of dynamic verbs refers the
action to the present.
E.g.
It’s too late to phone him now. He may be sleeping.
I never
see him about now. For all I know, he may be writing a book.
May
in combination with the Perfect infinitive refers the action to the past.
E.g.
He may have fallen ill.
“What’s
happened to the dog?” I asked. “It isn’t here. His master may have taken it
with him.”
The
combination of may with the Perfect infinitive may also indicate an
action begun in the past and continued into the moment of speaking. This is
usually found with stative verbs.
E.g.
He may have been at home from about two hours.
However,
if may is followed by a dynamic verb, the Perfect Continuous infinitive
is used.
E.g.
He may have been waiting for us for an hour.
In the
meaning of supposition implying uncertainty, the form might is also found. It
differs from the form may in that it emphasizes the idea of uncertainty. It may
be followed by the simple, Continuous or Perfect infinitive.
E.g.
He might come soon. He might be ill.
He might
be doing his lesson now. He might have spoken to her yesterday.
3)
possibility due to circumstances
E.g.
You may order a taxi by telephone.
A useful
rough-and-ready rule is that rime adverbs may come at either end of the
sentence, but not in the middle.
May
in this meaning occurs only in affirmative sentences and is followed only by
the simple infinitive.
The form
might is used in past-time contexts in accordance with the rules of the
sequence of the tenses.
E.g.
He said the might order a taxi by telephone.
Might
followed by the Perfect Infinitive indicates that the action was not carried
out owning to certain circumstances (expressed in the sentence or implied).
E.g.
He might have fallen ill if he hadn’t taken the medicine.
Luckily
he wasn’t driving the car. He might have been hurt.
You are
so careless. You might have broken the cup. (Ты чуть было
не разбил чашку).
It
seemed to him that the most interesting thing in life was what might lie
just around the corner. (O. Henry)
4)
permission
E.g.
The director is alone now. So you may see him now.
If you
have got a car and can drive, you may spend part of your holiday moving
from place to place. (C. Eckersley)
May
in this meaning is found in affirmative sentences, in interrogative sentences
which usually express a request, and in negative sentences where it denotes
prohibition. But in negative sentences it is not common as prohibition is
generally expressed by other modal verbs (see can and must).
E.g.
You may smoke in here. May I smoke in here? You may not
smoke in here.
In this
meaning may is combined only with the simple infinitive. In
interrogative sentences the form might is also found when we wish to
express a more polite request.
E.g.
May I join you?
In
reported speech the form might is used.
E.g.
He told me that I might smoke in the room He asked me if he might
join us.
5)
disapproval or reproach
E.g.
You might carry the parcel for me. You might have helped me.
Here we
find only the form might used in affirmative sentences and followed by
the simple of Perfect infinitive. In the latter case it expressed reproach for
the nonperformance of an action.
The form
might which expresses unreality is not always parallel to may. Might expresses
unreality only in combination with the Perfect infinitive.
E.g.
You might have let me know about it beforehand.
There
was a car accident in front of our house. Luckily Tommy was at school. He might
have been killed.
In most
cases might is used as a milder and more polite form than may of as a form
implying a greater degree of uncertainty:
permission
– May I call to my mother now? Might I call to
my mother now? (very polite)
Might
I take the liberty of pointing out that you have made a small mistake? (J.
Joyce)
supposition
– He may come a little later. He might come a little later (less
certain).
The
Chancellor’s measures might help towards an agreement on an incomes
policy. (Moscow News).
The two
forms are not opposed in the meaning of possibility due to circumstances where
only may is used, nor in the meaning of disapproval of reproach where
might alone is found.
E.g.
You may find the book at the library.
You might
have considered your parents’ feelings.
May
as well (might as well, might just as well) + infinitive is a very mild and
an emphatic way of expressing an intention. It is also used to suggest of
recommend an action.
E.g.
I may as well take the child with me. (Я, пожалуй,
возьму ребенка с собой. Пожалуй, будет лучше, если я возьму ребенка с собой).
You may as well give him the letter. I might as
well stay at home tonight.
“I’ll go at
six.” “That’s far too late; you might just as well not go at all.” (Можно было бы и не ходить туда совсем).
It might have been worse means “Things are not so
bad after all.” In Russian it is rendered as: Могло бы быть и
хуже or в конце концов дела обстоят не так
уж и плохо).
He might have been a … means ‘He might have been
taken for a …’ ‘He looked as a …’
E.g.
Roy Wilson, the new doctor, was twenty-eight, large, heavy, mature and blond. He
might have been a Scandinavian sailor.
If I
may say so … has become a stereotyped phrase in which the meaning of
permission is considerably weakened.
E.g.
If I may say so, I think you have treated him very badly.
In
addition to the above cases illustrating the independent use of may,
this modal verb occurs in subordinate object clauses after expressions of fear
as well as in adverbial clauses of purpose and concession.
Here are some
more examples from the works of the English and American literature:
E.g. Try as
she might, her poor head just wouldn’t let her think what it was she
should rightly remember.(O. Wilde)
You certainly
won’t. You may freeze your nose, but you won’t be shivery cold. It’s
hard and dry, you know. (F. Scott Fitzgerald)
We
can compare May and Can
The use
of can and may is parallel only in two meanings: possibility due
to circumstances and permission. In these meanings, however, they are not
always interchangeable for a number of various reasons.
1)
Thus in the meaning of possibility due to circumstances the use of may
is restricted only to affirmative sentences, whereas can is found in all
kinds of sentences.
Can
– He can find this book at the library. Can he find this book at the
library? He cannot find this book at the library.
May
– He may find this book at the library.
Their
time reference is also different. May refers only to the present or
future: the form might is used in past-time contexts only in reported speech. Can
(could) may refer to the present, pastor future.
May
– He may find the book at the library. I said that he might find
the book at the library.
Can
– He can find the book at the library. He could find the book at
the library yesterday. He can find the book at the library tomorrow.
Both could
and might combined with the Perfect infinitive indicate that the action
was not carried out in the past.
E.g.
He might have found the book at the library.
He could
have found the book at the library.
It
follows from the above that the sphere of application of can in this meaning
is wider than that of may.
2)
When may and can express permission the difference between
them is rather that of style than of meaning – may is more formal than can
which is characteristic of colloquial English.
E.g.
May (might) I speak to you for a moment, professor?
Can
(could) I have a cup of tea, mother?
May
in negative sentences expressing prohibition is uncommon.
Must
The
modal verb must has only one form it is used in present-time contexts
with reference to the present of future and in combination with the Perfect
infinitive it refers to the past. In past-time contexts this form is used only
in reported speech, i.g. the rules of the sequence of tenses are not observed
with must.
Must has
the following meanings:
1)
obligation (from the speaker’s point of view)
E.g. Any
real body must have extension in four directions: it must have Length,
Breadth, Thickness, and – Duration.
In
different contexts must may acquire additional shades of meaning, such
as duty or necessity.
In this
meaning must is found in affirmative and interrogative sentences and
followed only by the simple infinitive.
2)
Prohibition
E.g.
He must not leave his room for a while. (Он не должен (ему
нельзя) выходить из комнаты некоторое время).
This meaning is expressed in negative sentences and must
is also followed by the simple infinitive.
3)
emphatic advice
E.g.
You must come and see us when you’re in London.
You must
stop worrying about your son.
You mustn’t
give another thought to what he said.
You mustn’t
miss the film. It is very interesting.
You must
have your hair cut.
It is
much too long. You mustn’t cry.
“Andy” –
she spoke in a quick, low voice – “of course you must never tell
anybody what I told you about Canby yesterday.” (F. Scott Fitzgerald)
This
meaning is found in affirmative and negative sentences and is closely connected
with the two above mentioned meanings.
4)
supposition implying strong probability
E.g.
Watson, we must look upon you as a man of letters.
It must
be late as the streets are deserted.
Must
in this meaning is found only in affirmative sentences. In Russian this meaning
is generally rendered by means of the attitudinal adverbs вероятно,
должно быть.
In
English this meaning may also be expressed by means of the attitudinal adverb probably.
In this
meaning must may be followed by different forms of the infinitive. If
reference is made to the present, the Continuous infinitive is used with
dynamic verbs.
E.g.
The book is not on the shelf. Jane must be reading it. Let’s have
something to eat. You must be starving.
If must
is followed by the simple infinitive of dynamic verbs, it expresses obligation.
E.g.
Jane must read the book. You must stay here.
However, with
stative verbs the simple infinitive is used to express supposition.
E.g.
He must be over fifty.
He must
know all about it as he has read a lot on the subject.
“He must
be a Southerner, judging by those trousers,” suggested Harry mischievously. (F.
Scott Fitzgerald)
Must
in combination with the Perfect Infinitive refers the action to the past.
E.g.
You must have examined the house very carefully, to find a single pellet
of paper.
It must
have been his first taste of peace for years.(A. Marshall)
The
combination of must with the Perfect Continuous infinitive indicates an
action begun in the past and continued into the moment of speaking.
E.g.
It must have been raining all the night. There are big puddles in the
garden.
However,
if must is followed by a stative verb, the Perfect infinitive is used.
E.g.
He must have been here since breakfast. He must have known it all
along.
When must
expresses supposition implying strong probability, its use is restricted in two
ways:
a)
It is not used with reference to the future. In this case we find
attitudinal adverbs in the sentence.
E.g.
She must really love you to distraction. He must evidently
know all about it
b)
It is not used in the interrogative or negative forms. It is found only
in the affirmative form.
Must
needs denotes obligation.
E.g.
He must needs go there. (Он непременно должен пойти туда.)
“I think you must ask somebody else to your party instead of
Henry, Jim” (B. J. Chute)
“Yes, but I must
wash before dinner,” Jimmy said and added, “You’re lucky. Dirt doesn’t
show on you.” (B.J. Chute)
I
must be going and I must be off both mean – it is time for me to go
(in Russian – мне пора уходить).
I must
tell you that … and I must say … are stereotyped phrases in which
the meaning of obligation is considerably weakened in must.
In the
sentences: You must come and see me some time You must come and have a
dinner with me. You must come to our party. You must come and stay with us for
the weekend and the like, the meaning of obligation in must is also
weakened. Must has become part of such sentences which are a common way
of expressing invitations.
Must and May compared
Must
and may can be compared in two meanings:
1)
Both may and must serve to express supposition but
their use is not parallel. May denotes supposition implying uncertainty
whereas the supposition expressed by must implies strong probability
E.g.
For all I know, he may be an actor. His face seems so familiar. He must
be an actor. His voice carries so well. I saw him an hour ago. He may
still be in his office now. He always comes at 10 sharp. So he must
be in his office now.
They must
be satisfied with going to the piers… (M. Spark)
2)
May and must are used to express prohibition in
negative sentences. But may is seldom found in this meaning. In negative
answers to questions with may asking for permission we generally find must
not or cannot.
E.g.
‘May I smoke here?” “No, you mustn’t (you can’t).
To
have to
To
have to as a modal verb is not a defective verb and can have all the
necessary finite forms as well as the verbal.
E.g.
He is an invalid and has to have a nurse.
She knew
what she had to do.
He
frightened her – I had to yield him my last date before Bill
came. (F. Scott Fitzgerald0
I shall
have to reconsider my position.
He is
always having to exercise judgment.
My
impression was that he was having to force himself to talk.
I have
had to remind you of writing to her all this time.
The
women at barfed had had to be told that an experiment was taking place
that day. “As a matter of fact,” he said, “I’ve been having to spend
some time with the research people.”
It
wouldn’t have been very nice for the David’s sons to have to mix with
all those people in the smoking-room.
Having
to work alone, he wanted all his time for his research.
The
interrogative and negative forms of the modal verb to have to are built
up by means of the auxiliary verb to do.
E.g.
Why do I have to do everything?
Did he
have to tell them about it?
“That is
all right,” she said. “I just thought I’d ask. You don’t have to explain.”
There
was a grim on his face. He did not have to tell me that he already knew.
The verb
to have to serves to express obligation or necessity imposed by
circumstances.
It is
rendered is Russian as приходится, вынужден.
In this
meaning it is found in all kinds of sentences – affirmative, interrogative and
negative – and is combined only with the simple infinitive.
E.g.
I am afraid you will have to go to the court.
They will
have him back. (Они заставят его вернуться)
Did he have to do it? He did not have to
do it.
If you
go abroad, no matter how you are traveling, you have to go
through the customs. (M. Spark)
The
negotiations might fail. In that event the Government would have to decide
what to do. (Morning star)
I have
to revise other ideas about her. (F. Scott Fitzgerald0
In
negative sentences to have to denotes absence of necessity.
E.g.
You don’t have to go there. (Вам нет необходимости идти
туда).
You mustn’t go there. (Вам нельзя идти
туда).
In spoken English the meaning of obligation and necessity is
also expressed by have (has) got to. Like the verb to have to it
is found in all kinds of sentences and is combined with the simple infinitive.
Has he
got to go right now?
He hasn't
got to go just yet.
This
combination may also be found in the past tense, though it is not very common.
E.g.
He had got to sell his car.
A few
drops begun to fall “We’d better take shelter,’ she said. (Нам лучше укрыться).
She didn’t like to say that she thought they had better
not play cards when the guest might come in at any moment.
Had
better is followed by the infinitive without to.
We can
compare the usage of this verb in American and British literature:
You’ve got
to be kidding – American English.
You’ve got
to be joking – British English.
To
be to
To be
to as a modal verb is used in the present and past tenses.
E.g.
We are to meet at six.
We were
to meet at six.
To be
to as a modal verb has the following meanings:
1)
a previously arranged plan or obligation resulting from the
arrangement
E.g.
We are to discuss it the following week.
Is he
to arrive tomorrow?
Who was
to speak at the meeting?
Mass
struggle is vital if the elimination of the evils of racial hatred is to
be guaranteed.(Daily Worker)
This
meaning of to be to is found in affirmative and interrogative sentences
in the present and past tenses. To be to is followed by the simple
infinitive.
The past
tense of the verb to be to in combination with the Perfect infinitive
denotes an unfulfilled plan.
E.g.
I promised to go to a club with her last Tuesday, and I really forgot all about
it. We were to have played a duet together.
2)
orders and instructions, often official (frequently in reported
speech).
E.g.
I just mention it because you said I was to give you all the details I
could.
Norman
says I am to leave you alone. All junior officers are to report
to the colonel at once.
The
Prime Minister is to go to Paris next week. (Daily Worker, London)
In this
meaning to be to is found is affirmative and negative sentences and
followed by the simple infinitive.
3)
something that is destined to happen
E.g.
He was to be my teacher and friend for many years to come.
He did
not know at the time that he was never to see his native place
again.
How was
I to know that I was going to meet a raging beauty?
It has
been a great blow to me that you haven’t been able to follow me in my business
as I followed by father. Three generations, that would have been. But it wasn’t
to be.
This
meaning of to be to is rendered in Russian as суждено. It is mainly found in the past tense and its
application is limited to narration. It occurs in affirmative and negative
sentences and is followed by the simple infinitive.
4)
Possibility
E.g.
Her father was often to be seen in the bar of the Hotel
Metropole.
Where is
he to be found?
Nothing was
to be done under the circumstances.
Responsibilities and obligations possessed by the Soviet trade unions are to
be envied. (Morning Star)
In this
meaning to be to is equivalent to can or may. It is used in all kinds of
sentences in the present and past tenses and is followed by the passive
infinitive.
Here are some
examples taken from the literary works:
‘Tell him to
go to sleep’. – ‘She says you’re to go to sleep’. (D.H. Lawrence).
I could
scarcely see her in the darkness, but when I rose to go – it was plain that I was
not to linger – she stood in the orange light from the doorway.
(F Scott Fitzgerald)
Must, to have to and to be to Compared.
The
verbs must, to have to and to be to have one
meaning in common, that of obligation. In the present tense the verbs come very
close to each other in their use, though they preserve their specific shades of
meaning. Thus must indicates obligation or necessity from the speaker’s viewpoint,
i.e. it expresses obligation imposed by the speaker.
E.g.
I must do it. (I want to do it).
He must
do it himself.
To have
to expresses obligation or necessity imposed by circumstances.
E.g.
What a pity you have to go now (It is time for you to catch you
train).
He has
to do it himself. (He has got no one to help him).
To be
to expresses obligation or necessity resulting from an arrangement.
E.g.
We are to wait for them at the entrance. (We have arranged to meet there, so
we must wait form them at the appointed place).
Sometimes the idea of obligation is absent and to be to expresses only a
previously arranged plan.
E.g.
We are to go the cinema tonight.
In the
past tense, however, the difference in the use of the three verbs is quite
considerable.
Must
has no past tense. It is used in past-time contexts only in reported speech.
E.g.
He said he must do it himself.
Had
to + infinitive is generally used to denote an action which was realized in
the past as a result of obligation or necessity imposed by circumstance.
E.g.
I had to sell my car. (It was necessary for me to do it because I
needed money).
He had
to put on his raincoat. (It was raining hard outside and he would have
got wet if he had not).
Was
(were) to + infinitive is used to denote an action planned for the future
which is viewed from the past. The action was no realized in the past and the
question remains open as to whether it is going to take place.
E.g.
We were to meet him at the station. (It is not clear from the
sentence if the action will take place).
If the
speaker wishes to make it clear at once that the plan was not fulfilled, the
Perfect infinitive is used to show that.
E.g.
We were to have met him t the station. (That means that we failed to
meet him). However, the simple infinitive may also be used in this case.
In
reported speech (in past-time contexts) must remains unchanged in all of
its meanings.
E.g.
He said he must do it without delay.
He said
I mustn’t tell anyone about it.
The
doctor told her that she must eat.
They
believed the story must be true.
Parallel
to must, had to + infinitive is also used occasionally in
reported speech to express obligation.
E.g.
He said he had to make a telephone call at once.
In this
case had to is close to must in meaning: it does not include the
idea of a realized action but refers to some future moment.
Ought to
The
modal verb ought to has only one form which is used “with reference to
the present of future. In reported speech it remains unchanged. Ought is
always followed by the infinitive with to.
Ought
to has the following meanings:
1)
obligation, which in different contexts may acquire additional
shades of meaning, such as advisability and desirability,
E.g.
You ought to say a word or two about yourself.
Ought
she to warn him?
He oughtn’t
to mention it to anybody.
“It
doesn’t mean you ought to marry a Yankee.” He persisted.(F. Scott
Fitzgerald)
In this
meaning ought to is possible in all kinds of sentences, though it is
felt to be awkward in questions where should is preferred.
Generally ought to refers an action to the future and is followed by the
simple infinitive. With reference to the present ought to is used with
the continuous infinitive or with the simple infinitive if the verb is stative.
E.g.
At your age you ought to be earning your living.
You ought to feel some respect for your elders.
It was getting darker and darker – all those tomb-stones ought to be repainted,
sure enough, only that would spoil them, of course. (F. Scott Fitzgerald).
“If you care for him you certainly oughtn’t to belittle yourself in front of
him,” said Ailie in a flash, her head high. (F. Scott Fitzgerald)
In
combination with the perfect infinitive ought to in the affirmative form
shows that a desirable action was no fulfilled.
E.g.
You ought to have chosen a more suitable time to tell me this news.
In the
negative form ought to in combination with the Perfect Infinitive shows
that an undesirable action was fulfilled
E.g.
I’m sorry. I ought to have said it.
You oughtn’t
to have married her, David. It was a great mistake.
2)
supposition implying strong probability.
E.g. Oughtn’t you to go and have your tiffin?
The of ought to in this case is not very common as this meaning is
normally rendered by must: He/You ought to know it (=he is/you
are supposed to know it). You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
Shall
and should
Historically, shall and should were two forms of the same verb
expressing obligation. She was the present tense of the Indicative Mood; should
was the Subjunctive Mood. But later they came to express different meanings and
in present-day English their use is not parallel – they are treated as two
different verbs.
Shall
In modern
English the modal meaning of obligation in shall is always combined
with the function of an auxiliary verb of the future tense.
Shall
is still used to express obligation with the second and third persons, but
at present it is not common in this meaning in spoken English. Its use, as a
rule, is restricted to formal or even archaic style and mainly found in
subordinate clauses, i.e. it is structurally dependent.
E.g.
It has been decided that the proposal shall not be opposed.
This book
is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade, be
lent, resold, hired out or otherwise disposed of without the
publisher’s consent.
At
present, however, this meaning of obligation, somewhat modified, is found with
the second and third persons in sentences expressing promise, threat or
warning. It is used in affirmative and negative sentences and combined with the
simple infinitive.
E.g.
You shall have my answer tomorrow.
“You shall
stay just where you are!” his mother cried angrily
He shall
do as I say.
The
meaning of obligation may also be traced in interrogative sentences where shall
is used with the first and third persons to ask after the will of the
person addressed. In this case it is also followed by the simple infinitive.
E.g.
Shall I get you some fresh coffee, Miss Flour?
Who shall
answer the telephone, Major?
Sentences of
this kind are usually rendered in Russian with the help of the infinitive: Принести Вам ещё кофе? Кому отвечать по телефону? etc.
Should
In modern
English the modal verb should is used with reference to the present or
future. It remains unchanged in reported speech.
Should
has the following meanings:
1)
obligation, which in different contexts may acquire additional
shades of meaning, such as advisability and desirability,
E.g.
It’s late. You should go to bed.
You shouldn’t miss the opportunity.
Should I talk to him about it?
He
said that the status of the Greek minority should be viewed in the light of
political balance. (Moscow news)
He
said that this was not a temporary problem. Lasting arrangements should be
made. (W. Faulkner)
Should
in this meaning is found in all kinds of sentences. Like ought to it generally
refers an action to the future and followed by the simple infinitive.
With
reference to the resent should is used with the Continuous Infinitive or with
the simple infinitive if the verb is stative.
E.g.
You shouldn’t be sitting in home. Move out of it into the garden.
You shouldn’t feel so unhappy over such trifles.
Should
may be combined with the Perfect Infinitive. In this case the meaning of the
combination depends on whether the sentence is affirmative or negative. In an
affirmative sentence should + Perfect Infinitive indicates that a
desirable action was not carried out.
E.g.
He looks very ill. He should have stayed at home.
He
should have told me about it himself.
In a
negative sentence should + Perfect Infinitive serves to show that an
undesirable action was carried out.
E.g.
Oh, John, you shouldn’t have done as you did.
They shouldn’t have concealed it from us.
2)
supposition implying strong probability,
E.g. The film should be very good as it is starring
first-class actors.
The use of should
in this case does not seem to be very common as this meaning is usually
rendered by must.
In
addition to the above mentioned cases showing the independent use of should
this verb occurs in certain object clauses where it depends on the lexical
character of the predicate verb in the principal clause and in adverbial
clauses of condition, purpose and concession.
E.g.
I suggest hat you should stay here as if nothing had happened.
“It’s important,” I broke out, “that the people should know what we’ve
just heard.”
She was terrified lest they should goon talking about her.
Should
may have a peculiar function - it may be used for emotional coloring. In this
function it may be called the emotional should. The use of the
emotional should is structurally dependent.
It is found
in the following cases:
1)
In special emphatic constructions where a simple predicate is not used:
a)
in rhetorical questions beginning with why,
E.g. Why should I do it? (С какой стати я буду это
делать?)
Why shouldn't you invite him? (Почему бы Вам его не пригласить?)
b)
in object clauses beginning with why,
E.g. I don’t know why he should want to see him (Я не знаю зачем он ему нужен)
I don’t see why we shouldn’t make friends.
c)
in attributive clauses beginning with why after the noun reason,
E.g. There is no reason why they shouldn’t get on very well
together (Нет причины почему бы им не ладить дpуг с другом).
d)
in constructions of the following kind,
E.g.
The door opened and who should come in but Tom (Дверь открылась, и, кто бы Вы думали, вошёл? Никто иной, как Том)
As I was crossing the street, whom should I
meet but Aunt Ann.
e)
in the set phrase How should I know? (Почём
я знаю?) In the above cases should may be followed by the Perfect
infinitive which in simple sentences refers the action to the past and in
complex sentences shows that the action of the subordinate clause precedes that
of the principal clause.
E.g. I went into business with her as her partner. Why shouldn’t
I have done it? (Почему бы мне не сделать это?)
He didn’t know why he should have
expected them to look different (Он не знал почему ожидал увидеть их с другими).
2)
In certain types of subordinate clauses where should + infinitive
is interchangeable with a simple predicate in the Indicative Mood:
a)
in object clauses after expressions of regret, surprise, sometimes
pleasure or displeasure,
E.g. I‘m sorry that you should think so badly of me (Мне жаль, что Вы так плохо обо мне думаете).
He was little surprise that Ann should speak so frankly
about it.
I’m content that you should think so.
The rules
of the sequence of tenses are not observed here. The Perfect infinitive is
used to show that the action of the subordinate clause precedes that of the
principal clause.
E.g.
I am sorry that you should have had a row with Kate about it.
He
was annoyed that they should have asked him that.
b)
in object clauses following the principal clause with it as a formal
subject,
E.g. It is absurd that such things should happen to a
family like theirs (Нелепо, чтобы такие вещи случались в такой семье, как их).
In the
principal clause we find such expressions as it is wonderful (absurd,
monstrous, natural, odd, queer, singular, strange, terrible and the like), it
infuriated, (outraged, puzzled, startled, surprised and the like) me, it
struck me as funny, etc. We also find he following interrogative
expressions in the principal clause: is it possible (likely, probable)? , it
is not possible (likely, probable), it is impossible (improbable, unlikely).
As we see
from the above examples, the rules of the sequence of tenses are not observed
here either.
If the
action of the subordinate clause precedes that of the principal clause, the
Perfect infinitive is used after should.
E.g.
It is inconceivable that Mrs. C. should have written such a letter.
It
is much better that you should have found everything out before
it’s too late.
c)
in constructions of the following kind,
E.g. That it should come to this! (И до чего
дело дошло!)
To think that it should come to
this! (Подумать только, до чего дело дошло!)
To think that it should have happened
to me! (Подумать только, что это произошло со мной!)
Some literary examples:
It is good that the Government should have recognized the
opportunity and the obligations so clearly. (E. Hermingway)
To sum it
up, it should be said that as compared to the use of a simple predicate in the
Indicative Mood, the use of should + infinitive gives the statement
emotional coloring such as surprise, amazement, irritation, indignation,
pleasure, displeasure etc, i.e. it emphasizes the speaker’s personal attitude
towards the facts stated in the sentence. The Indicative Mood represents these
acts in a more matter-of-fact way.
Must,
should and ought to compared.
All the three
verbs serve to express obligation. Must, however, sounds more forceful,
peremptory.
E.g. You must do it at once
(Вы должны сделать это немедленно!).
Both should
and ought to express obligation, advisability and desirability and are
used when must would sound too peremptory.
E.g.
You should do /ought to do/ it at once (Вам следует/надо/нужно сделать это немедленно).
Should
and ought to are very much alike in meaning and are often
interchangeable. In using ought to, however, we lay more stress on the
meaning of moral obligation, whereas should is common in instruction and
corrections.
E.g.
You ought to help him; he is in trouble.
You should
use the definite article in this sentence.
Must,
ought to and should serve to express supposition implying strong
probability. Must, however, seems to be in more frequent use than the
other two verbs.
Should + Perfect Infinitive, ought
to + Perfect Infinitive and was, were to
+ Perfect Infinitive compared.
Should +
Perfect infinitive and ought to + Perfect infinitive show that the
action has not been carried out though it was desirable; was/were to + Perfect
infinitive indicate an action that has not been carried out though it was
planned.
E.g. You should
have helped him.
You ought
to have warned him (Now she is in trouble).
He was
to have arrived last week (but his plans were upset by some cause or
other).
Will
The verb will
has the following forms: will – the present tense and would – the
past tense. The latter form is used in two ways:
a)
in past-time context to express an actual fact and
b)
in present-time context to express unreality or as a milder and more
polite form of will.
Will
and would may also be used as verbs of full predication (not modal
verbs). Will may be used as a regular verb (wills, willed). It means
проявлять волю, заставлять, внушать. Would
s a defective verb. It is used with reference to the present and means “ желать”. It is found mainly in poetry and like the verb to
wish is followed by an object clause: I would I were a careless child.
While shall
and should are treated as two different verbs in modern English, will
and would are considered to be the forms of the same verb, its original
meaning being that of volition (Volition is a general term which
includes such meanings as willingness, readiness, consent, intention and
determination to perform an action). However, in some of their meanings the use
of will is parallel only to would which denotes an actual fact in
the past; in other meanings will is found alongside would which
expresses unreality in the present or serves as a milder or more polite form of
will.
The use of will
and would which denotes an actual fact in the past is parallel in the
following cases:
1)
when they express habitual or recurrent actions,
E.g.
She will (would) sit for hours under the old oak tree looking at the beautiful
country around her (…любит/любила сидеть, обычно сидит/сидела …)
In addition
to indicating an habitual action, will (would) in this case implies
willingness, personal interest on the part of the doer of the action. Will
(would) in this meaning is found in affirmative sentences and is followed
by he simple infinitive.
In
present-time context will in this meaning is not common. In past-time
context would is mainly characteristic of literary style.
E.g. Then
there were weekends when he would ride over to the house of one farmer
or another and spend a couple of nights on the hills.
2)
when they express refusal to perform an action,
E.g. The doctor knows I won’t be operated on.
He was wet through but he wouldn’t change.
“Clark,” she said softly, “I wouldn’t change you
for the world”. (F. Scott Fitzgerald)
This meaning
is found in negative sentences; will (would) is followed by the simple
infinitive. In Russian it is usually rendered as никак не хочу, ни за что не хотел.
3)
when they are used with lifeless things to show hat a thing fails
to perform its immediate function,
E.g.
My fountain pen won’t (wouldn’t) write.
The door won’t (wouldn’t) open.
In this
meaning will (would) is found in negative sentences and is followed by
the simple infinitive. In Russian it is usually rendered as никак
не пишет (не писала), никак не открывается (не открывалась) and the like.
4)
when they are used with the first person to express will,
intention or determination,
E.g. “Damn it!” he thought, “I’m going to get out of this hole. I will
make money. I am an Englishman and I will suffer no priest to
interfere in my business”.
“I said I would do anything for him. We decided that we wouldn’t
interfere”.
This meaning
is found in affirmative and negative sentences. The present tense will,
in addition to expressing its modal meaning, serves to refer an action to the
future; the past tense would is generally used in reported speech and
also serves to refer an action to the future but in this case it is viewed from
a past moment.
The use of will
and would which expresses unreality in the present or serves as a milder
or more polite form of will is parallel in the following cases:
1)
in interrogative sentences where they express willingness, consent,
E.g. Will you dine with me tomorrow, Lewis?
“Won’t you sit down”? said doctor.
You’ll forgive me, won’t you?
2)
in clauses of condition introduced by if where they also express
willingness, consent,
E.g.
“It’s about forty minutes’ walk from ere and if you’ll come now I’ll go
with you” he said.
No,
we are not going to quarrel at all if you’ll only let me talk.
Mr.
Marlowe? If you will come this way, please? (R. Chandler) (Сюда, пожалуйста!)
In both cases
will (would) is followed by the simple infinitive and the action always refers
to the future.
Both
interrogative and conditional sentences are often actually polite requests in
this case. There is hardly any difference between the use of will and would
here; the role of would is to make the request still more polite.
The use of will
and would is not parallel in the following cases:
1)
Will may be used to express supposition with reference to; the
present or to the future in combination with the simple infinitive, or to the
past in combination with the Perfect infinitive. This meaning is found with
the second and third persons.
E.g.
This will be the school, I believe.(Это, по-видимому, и есть школа).
You will
have heard the news, I’m sure (Я полагаю, Вы уже слышали новость).
It should be
noted that the use of will in this meaning is not common.
2)
Would may be used rather sarcastically to express that something
was to be expected. It is found in affirmative and negative sentences.
E.g. “Auntie
Meg has been very brave”. “Yes, she would be brave”. (That was to be expected
of her under the circumstances).
“I don’t
understand him and I don’t approve of is decision”. “No, you wouldn’t”.
(I did not expect you would).
The law wouldn’t
call it a murder if I shot a thief entering my house by force. (W. De Mille)
This meaning
can be rendered in Russian as Этого и следовало ожидать.
3)
Note the use of will in the following sentences, e.g.:
Boys will be boys. (Мальчишки остаются
мальчишками).
Accidents will happen.
4)
phrases with will and would:
a)
Will not have (won’t have) followed by an object and an infinitive
without to means “I’ll see to it that it does not happen”.
E.g. “I will not (won’t) have you speak to me like that, her voice came
sharply.
b)
Both would rather (‘d rather) and would sooner (‘d sooner)
followed by an infinitive without to mean ‘to prefer’.
E.g. “I’d rather do it myself” he said .
He’d sooner die than let me think he was a failure.
c)
Would … mind in interrogative sentences may also express a polite
request: Would you mind getting me a cup of tea?
Would
also occurs in certain subordinate clauses where it is structurally dependent.
E.g.
I wish the train would stop for a moment.
I wish they wouldn’t insist on it.
This modal
verb will – would is more often used in literature. Here are several
examples on its usage.
E.g. Senor
Montevalde had never faced a bull without the protection of a stout fence, and
never would. (F. Harvey)
This Velma
was an entertainer, a singer. You wouldn’t know her? I don’t
suppose you went there much.(R. Chandler)
Look where we
would there was no rock or tree (O. Wilde).
“I’ll speak
to her and tell her to lay off.” – “If you would.” (A. Christie) (Будьте любезны!)
“And what would
you be doing, my dears?” she said. “What brings you to Gipsy’s
Acre?” (A. Christie)
(Что бы это вы могли тут делать…..)
Sometimes
the boys would play a trick on their teacher (M. Spark).
It would be
impossible to build a bridge without knowing it.(W. Faulkner)
Need
The modal
verb need may be used either as a defective or as a regular verb.
1)
As a defective one need has only one form, which is the present
tense. In reported speech it remains unchanged. It is followed by the
infinitive without to.
Need
expresses necessity. When reference is made to the present or future it is
followed by the simple infinitive. It is used in negative and interrogative
sentences. In interrogative sentences need usually implies that there is
no necessity of performing the action.
E.g.
You needn’t be afraid of me.
You need
not meet him unless you’d like to. Need I repeat it?
Occasionally
it may be found in affirmative sentences but it is not typical.
In negative
sentences it is not always the verb need that is in the negative form;
the negation may be found elsewhere in the sentence.
E.g. I
don’t think we need give her any more of our attention. I need
hardly say that I agree with you.
In
combination with the Perfect infinitive need express an action which has
been performed though it was unnecessary. It implies a waste of time or effort.
E.g.
You needn’t have come. The deal is off.
It
was obvious. You needn’t have protested. We needn’t have told him
a lie even if we didn’t want to tell him the truth.
2)
As a regular verb need can have all the necessary forms including the
verbal. It also expresses necessity. It is followed by the infinitive with to
and is mainly used in interrogative and negative sentences (like the defective need).
E.g.
He didn’t need to explain.
You don’t
need to tell me that you are sorry.
Did
you need to read all those books?
It should be
noted that this need is in more common use than the defective one,
particularly in American English.
E.g. He needs
a new coat.
Does
he need my help? He does not need anything.
Dare
The modal
verb dare may also be used as a regular and as a defective verb.
1)
Dare as a defective verb has two forms which are the present and
the past forms. It means ‘to have the courage or impertinence to do something’
Its use is very restricted. In present-day English it is mainly found in
questions beginning with how which are actually exclamations and in
negative sentences.
E.g. How dare you say that!
How dare she come here!
How many years is it since we danced together? I dare not
think.
He dared not look at her.
2)
Dare as a regular verb has all the necessary forms including the
verbal. It has he same meaning as the defective dare. Its use is also
restricted. It is mainly found in negative sentences.
E.g. He does not dare to come here again.
She told me she had never dared to ask him about
it.
No one dared to live in the house since.
3)
I dare say.
E.g. I dare say I looked a little confused.
My son is not in town but I dare say he will be before
long.
In Russian
this phrase is usually rendered as очень возможно, пожалуй, полагаю, осмелюсь сказать.
Shouldn’t + Perfect
Infinitive , oughtn’t to + Perfect Infinitive and needn’t
+ Perfect Infinitive compared
Shouldn’t
+ Perfect infinitive and oughtn’t to + Perfect infinitive show that
an action has been carried out though it was undesirable; needn’t
+ Perfect infinitive indicates that an action has been carried out
though it was unnecessary.
E.g.
You shouldn’t have come (for you are ill);
You oughtn’t
to have written to them (because your letter upsets );
You needn’t have come (as the work is finished);
You needn’t
have written to them (because I sent them a telegram).
Final conclusion
I
will formulate few basic grammatical rules applying to modal verbs:
1.
All verbs are NEVER used with other auxiliary verbs such as do, does,
did etc. The negative is formed simply by adding “not” after the verb;
questions are formed by inversion of the verb and subject.
2. Modal verbs NEVER change form: you can never add an “-s” or
“-ed”, for example.
3. Modal
verbs are NEVER followed by to, with the exception of ought
to.
4. Modal
verbs are used in conversation. In the past it is possible to find
them
only in reported speech. The only exceptions are the Past Tense
forms could, would, had, was and might which maybe used not only
in
conversations but also in narration.
So, as you
can see there are in Modern English these modal verbs: ought to, must, shall,
should, will, need, dare: to have and to be can also be used as modal verbs. May
express possibility/high probability (97%) and permission (3%). The modals used
to express permission are can (58%), may (16%), could
(13%), and might (13%), could (17%), will (17%). The three
most frequent modals are would (28% of all modal occurrences), could
(17%), and will (17%).
Bibliography
1.
“Грамматика английского языка: Морфология”.
Кобрина, Корнеева, Осовская и др. С-П., 1999.
2.
“Грамматика английского языка. Пособие для
студентов педагогических институтов.” Под ред. Ильиша.
3. “Learn
to read science”. Н.И. Шахова и др. “Наука”,
1980.
4. “The
English verb. A new grammar for every one”. А.К. Кравченко, Л.В.
Ушакова и др. Иркутск, 1997.
5.
“Modality in Modern English”. Е.М. Гордон и др. М.,
1968.
6.
“Модальные глаголы в английском языке”. Е.А.
Зверева.
7.
“Составные глаголы в современном английском языке”.
М.Д. Кузнецов и др. М., 1959.
8.
“Пособие по морфологии английского языка”. Е.А.
Корнеева. М. “Высшая школа”, 1974.
9.
“Модальные глаголы в английской речи: учебное
пособие для студентов институтов и факультетов иностранных языков”. А.П.
Грызулина. М., “Высшая школа”, 1986.
10.
“Английский глагол”. Т.А. Расторгуева, И.П.
Верховская и др. М., 1987.
11.
“Очерки по сопоставительной грамматике русского
и английского языков”. А.И. Смирницкий. М., “Высшая школа”, 1975.
12.
“Морфология английского языка”. А.И. Смирницкий.
М., 1959.
13.
“Наклонения английского языка”. М.В. Смолина. М.,
1977.
14.
“Учебник английского языка”. Е.К. Старщникова и др.
М., 1979.
15.
“Английский язык для студентов старших курсов”.
Г.А. Попова и др. М., 1961.
16.
“Учебник английского языка”. С.В. Понтович. М.,
1960.
17.
“Трудности перевода общественно-политического
текста с английского на русский”. Т.А. Зражевская, Т.И. Гуськова. М., 1986.
18.
“Новое в английской грамматике”. Г.А. Вейхман. М.,
1990.
19.
“Учебник английского языка”. Т.И. Арбекова, А.Д.
Бодрова. М., 1968.
Цитируемые произведения:
1.“The time
machine”. Herbert G. Wells.
2.“The
Painted Veil”. W. Somerset Maugham.
3.“His Last
Bow”. Arthur Conan Doyle.
4. “The Fun
They Had”. I. Asimov.
5. “The Green
Door”. O. Henry..
6. “The Ice
Palace”. F. Scott Fitzgerald.
7. “Donkey”.
A. Marshall.
9. “You
Should Have Seen the Mess”. M. Spark.
10. “The
Witness For The Prosecution”. A. Christie.
11. “The
Portrait of Dorian Gray”. O. Wilde.
12.
“Ruthless”. W. De Mille.
13. “The
Birthday Present”. B.J. Chute.
14. “The
Bear”. W. Faulkner.
15.
“Evelyne”. J. Joyce.
16. “The Cat
in the Rain”. E. Hemingway.
Newspapers:
1.
“Morning Star”;
2.
“Moscow News”;
3.
“Daily Worker”.