Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Introduction
This chapter gives a relevant presentation of the most important
contributions to the study of the modal verbs in English. It provides some
theoretical insights into the types of the modal verbs.
Among the
relied on Biber, Conrad and Leech (2002), Quirk and Greenbaum (1985) and
Dixon (2005) to show the types, the functions and the use of the modal verbs.
The chapter is organized in 3 sections. In the first section I will discuss the
classification of the modal verbs (Central modals ,Peripheral modals and Semimodals).The second section will deal with the syntax of the modal verbs
(Unique properties, Negation, Interrogation
Coordination, Emphasis). I will continue with a short presentation of the
semantic groups of modals: ability, possibility, obligation, permission, giving
instructions and making requests, making an offer or an invitation, making
suggestions, stating an intention, indicating unwillingness or refusal, expressing
a wish, indicating importance, introducing what you are going to say.
1.1. The classification of modal verbs
According to Biber, Conrad and Leech (2002: 174) there are nine central modals
verbs in English: can, could, may, might, must, should, will, would, and shall.
They express stance meaning, related to possibility, necessity, obligation, etc.
in most dialects of English; only a single modal can be used in a verb phrase.
However, certain regional dialects (such as southern AmE) allow some
combinations of modals (e.g. might could or might should).
The nine central modal differ greatly in frequency. The modals will, would and
can are extremely common. Shall is rare. The other modals fall between. If you
consider the pairs of central modals, the tentative/past time member is usually
less frequent than its partner. For example, will is more common than would,
and can more common than could. The exception is shall/should, because
should is more common than shall.
Modals and semi-modals are most common in conversation and least common
in news and academic prose. Semi-modals are much more common in
conversation than they are in the written expository registers. It is more
surprising that the central modals are also more common in conversation, since
researchers have often assumed that modal verbs are especially characteristic
of writing. However, it turns out that the both modals and semi-modals are
extremely common in conversation, where they are one of several devices used
to express stance. May is extremely rare in conversation. Academic prose
shows a very different set of tendencies.
Non-negative
cannot,
can not
could not
may /mei/
might /mait/
may not
might not
(maynt /meint/)*
mightnt /maitt/
shall not
(shant**1/a:nt/ <BrE>)
6
should not
will /wil/
ll /()l/
will not
ll not
wont /wnt/
would /wd/
d /()d/
would not
d not
wouldnt /wdt/
must not
mustnt /mst/
10
11
Dare and need can be used either as modal auxiliaries (with bare infinitive and
without the inflected forms) or as main verbs (with to- infinitive and with
inflected s, -ing, and past forms). The modal construction is restricted to
nonassertive contexts, ie mainly negative and interrogative sentences, whereas
the main verb construction can always be used, and is in fact more common.
There is a semantic contrast between the two uses of need and dare.
Blends of the two constructions (modal auxiliary and main verb) are widely
acceptable for dare:
31)
They do not dare ask for me.
Do they dare ask for more?
John darent go.
Dare John go?
The two syntactic uses of dare carry semantic differences. The lexical- verb
sense tends to refer to an inner state of the subject, and the modal use to some
external circumstances.
Need is basically a Secondary- B verb but has a further sense as a modal and
then shows a different syntax. There is a semantic difference- the Secondary- B
sense relates to some inner state of the Principal (in subject relation), as in a),
12
14
49)
I have to get home now.
Its something I have got to overcome.
You can use have to or have got to instead of must to say that something is
necessary or extremely important:
50)
The pine tree has to produce pollen in gigantic quantities.
We have to look more closely at the record of their work together.
This has got to be put right.
Youve got to be able to communicate.
You can use had better instead of should or ought to to say that something is
the right or correct thing to do. You use had better with I or we to indicate an
intention. You use it with you when you are giving advice or a warning.
51)
I think I had better show this to my brother.
He decided that we had better meet.
Youd better go.
All modals, in all their uses, express some degree of vagueness or uncertainty.
They also
tend to fall along a continuum from more to less probable, possible, realistic,
necessary, or polite.
Semi-modals are multi-word constructions that function like modal verbs.
grammatical meaning.
Any of the primary or modal auxiliary can stand in initial position and so
function as operator in a VG. The operator element has a number of syntactic
features which distinguish it from the other elements of a complex VG.
1.2.1. Unique properties
According to Collins COBUILD (1990: 227), certain characteristics apply
specifically to modal auxiliaries. They are followed by the bare infinitive (i.e.
the base form of the verb alone without preceding to):
52)
I must leave fairly soon.
I think it will be rather nice.
The rich ought* to pay the tuition fees of their sons and daughters2.
Sometimes a modal is followed by the base form of the one of the auxiliary
verbs have or be, followed by a participle. When a modal is followed by be and
a present participle, this indicates that you are talking about the present or the
future:
53)
People may be watching.
You ought to be doing this.
The play will be starting soon.
When a modal is followed by have and a past participle, this indicates that you
are talking about the past.
54)
You must have heard of him.
She may have gone already.
I ought to have sent the money.
In passive structures, a modal is followed by the auxiliary verb do, or by
another modal.
They cannot occur in non-finite functions, ie as infinitives or participles: may ~
*to may, *maying, *mayed. In consequence they can occur only as the first verb
in the verb phrase.
Modal do not inflect. This means there is no -s form in the third person
singular, and there are no -ing or -ed forms:
55)
Theres nothing I can do about it.
I am sure he can do it.
17
Their past forms can be used to refer to present and future time (often with a
tentative meaning):
56)
I think he may/might be outside.
Will/Would you phone him tomorrow?
1.2.2. Negation
Negatives are formed by putting a negative word such as not immediately after
the modal. In the case of ought to, you put the negative word after ought. Can
not is usually written as one word, cannot:
57)
You must not worry.
He ought not to have done so.
I cannot go pack.
After could, might, must, ought, should, and would not is often shortened to nt
and is added to the modal:
58)
You mustnt talk about the Ron like this.
Perhaps I oughtnt to confess this.
Shall not, will not, and cannot are shortened to shant, wont, and cant. May
not is not shortened at all:
59)
I shant get much work done tonight.
He wont be finished for at least another half an hour.
I cant go with you.
The scope of negation may or may not include the meaning of the modal
auxiliaries. We therefore distinguish between auxiliary negation and main verb
negation. The contrast is shown in the following sentences with may not, where
the paraphrases indicate the scope of negation:
60)
You may not smoke in here. [You are not allowed to smoke in here]
- main verb negation
They may not like the party. [It is possible that they do not like the
party]
Here we give some example of modal auxiliaries in their various senses,
according to weather the scope of negation usually includes the auxiliary or
excludes it.
18
Auxiliary negation
61)
may not [ = permission]:
You may not go swimming.
[You are not allowed]
cannot, cant [in all senses]:
You cant be serious.
[It is not possible that]
You cant go swimming.
[You are not allowed to]
He cant ride a bicycle.
[He is not able to.]
Need not, neednt (both esp. BrE):
62)
You neednt pay that fine.
[You are not obliged to]
It neednt always be my fault.
[It is not necessary that]
Dare not, darent:
63)
I darent quarrel with them.
[I havent got the courage to quarrel with them]
Main verb negation
64)
may not [ = possibility]:
They may not bother to come if its wet.
[It is possible that they will not bother to come]
shall not, shant (all senses; esp BrE; shant rare):
65)
Dont worry. You shant lose your reward.
[Ill make sure that you dont lose your reward.]
I shant know when you return. [I predict that I will not know ]
must, mustnt [obligation]:
66)
You mustnt keep us waiting. [It is essential that you dont keep us
waiting.]
ought not, oughtnt (both senses):
67)
You oughtnt to keep us waiting.
[obligation]
He oughtnt to be long.
[tentative inference]
The distinction between auxiliary and main negation is neutralized for will
in all senses, as the paraphrases below indicate:
68)
Dont worry. I wont interfere.
[I dont intend to interfere; I intend not to interfere.]
19
today.]
Very rarely, PREDICTION NEGATION occurs in the context of denials and
permission. The scope of negation if different from that normal with the
particular modal auxiliary:
71)
They may not go swimming. [They are not allowed to go swimming.]
I can, of course, not obey her. [Its possible, of course, not to obey her.]
In such instances of the main verb negation, the clause is not negated and it is
possible to have double negation- auxiliary negation and predication negation:
72)
I cannot, of course, not to obey her.
1.2.3. Interrogation
Questions are formed by putting the modal in front of the subject. In the case of
ought to, you put ought in front of the subject and to after it:
73)
Could you give me an example?
Ought you to make some notes about it?
20
orientation:
81)
Need they leave now?
Common substitutes (esp. in AmE) bare the main verb need to and have to:
82)
Do they need/ have to leave now?
On the other hand, must in the necessity sense has positive orientation:
83)
Why must it always rain when we want to have a picnic?
Dare is occasionally used as a nonassertive modal auxiliary, especially in BrE:
84)
Dare we complain?
Common substitutes are the main verb dare and (esp. in AmE) the blend
construction with DO and the bare infinitives:
85)
Do we dare to complain?
Do we dare complain?
1.2.4. Modals in reported speech
Modals have special uses in three kinds of complex sentences:
a) They are used in reported clauses:
86)
Wilson dropped a hint that he might come.
I felt that I would like to wake her up.
If there is a change in time- reference, a modal auxiliary is back- shifted from
present tense forms, to past tense forms even if these do not normally indicate
past time in indirect speech:
87)
You may be able to answer this question, he told her.
~ He told her that she might be able to answer that question.
I wont pay any other penny, I said.
~ I said that I wouldnt pay any other penny.
If a modal auxiliary in the direct speech is already a past tense form, then the
same form remains in the indirect speech:
88)
You shouldnt smoke in the bedroom, he told them.
22
23
Now we have to analyse some of the semantic changes that occur when backshifting. It is usually said, following what was an accurate analysis in older
stages of the language, that four of the modals inflect for tense, as follows:
Present
Past
will
would
shall
can
should
may
could
might
A main justification for retaining this analysis from back shifting in indirect
speech. Recall that a sentence uttered with present tense is placed in past
tense when it becomes indirect speech to a speaking verb in past tense:
91)
Im sweating, John said.
~ John said that he was sweating.
We do get would, could and might functioning as the back-shift equivalents, in
indirect speech, of will, can and may:
92)
I will/can/may go, he said.
~ He said that he would/could/might go.
Shall and should now have quite different meanings and the backshift version of
shall, referring to prediction, is normally would (as it is of will and would) while
the back-shift version of should, referring to obligation, is again should.
As Dixon argues (2005: 224, 225), it is instructive now to examine how backshifting applies to modals and semi-modals. Semi-modals show present and
past tense, and behave like other verbs under back- shifting:
93)
John isnt able to tie his shoelaces, Mary remarked.
~ Mary remarked that John wasnt able to tie his shoelaces.
However, in modern English modals have no past tense forms. Here are some
examples:
94)
It will rain this afternoon, she said.
~ She said that it would rain that afternoon.
I shant go, I said.
~ I said that I wouldnt go.
Examining each of the modals we find:
24
Form in
direct speech
will
would
shall
Back-shifted in
indirect speech
Would
Form in
direct speech
Back-shifted
in indirect speech
can
could
could
should
ought to
Should
may
might
might
must
had to
is to
was to
25
Nowadays, would, should, could, and might function as modals in their own
right. But the historical tense connection is echoed in back shifting. Would is
the back- shifted version of will (as it should be, were it the past form of will)
and also of would: similarly for the other three.
Should now indicates obligation, quite different from the prediction of shall, and
the back- shift for shall as for will and would is would. Should can be used as
the back- shift equivalent of should and also ought to (although it is also
possible for ought to to function as its own backshift). Had to functions as backshifted version of must and have to, demonstrating the close semantic link
between
modals
and
semi-modals,
despite
their
differing
grammatical
proprieties. Finally, is to, being the only modal to mark tense, has a regular
back-shifted form was to.
Would, could, and might nowadays have semantic functions that go far beyond
past tense of will, can, and may. Whereas will, can, and may tend to be used
for unqualified prediction, ability and possibility, would, could and might are
employed when there is some condition or other qualifications. For example:
95)
You will find it pleasant here when you come.
If you come, you would find it pleasant here.
You can borrow the car when you come.
If you come, you could borrow the car.
I may bake a cake.
I might bake a cake if you show me how.
In addition, would can mark a likely hypothesis:
96)
I saw John embrace a strange woman.
Oh, that would be my sister.
Could is often a softer, more polite alternative to can compare:
97)
Could you pass me the salt? and Can you pass me the salt?
(in both cases what is literally a question about ability is being used as a
request). And only may (not might) can substitute for can in a statement of
possibility.
26
The past tense modals can be used in the hypothetical sense of the past tense
in both main and subordinate clauses. Compare:
98)
a) If United can win this game, they may become league champions.
b) If United could win this game, they might become league champions.
Sentence b) unlike a), expresses a hypothetical conditional; ie it conveys the
speakers expectation that United will not win the game, and therefore will not
become league champions. For past hypothetical meaning (which normally has
a contrary to fact interpretation), we have to add the perfect aspect:
99)
If United could have won that game, they might have become league
champions.
The usual implication of this is that United did not win the game.
Would/Should as a marker of hypothetical meaning.
Would (and sometimes, with a 1st person subject, should) may express
hypothetical meaning in main clauses:
100)
If you pressed that button, the engine would stop.
If there were an accident, we would/should have to report it.
Although the conditional sentence, as in example 105 a), b), it is the most
typical context in which hypothetical would/should occurs, there are many other
contexts in which hypothetical would/should is appropriately used:
101)
a) Id hate to lose this pen.
b) Should as a marker of putative meaning:
In this use should + infinitive is often equivalent to the man dative subjunctive.
In using should, the speaker entertains, as it were, some putative world,
recognized that it may well exist or come into existence:
102)
She insisted that we should stay.
Its unfair that so may people should lose their jobs.
Let me know if you should hear some more news.
Putative should is more common in BrE than in AmE.
There is a clear semantic difference between the necessity forms must/ has
to/has got to and the obligation forms should/ought to:
103)
I should/ought to finish this essay tonight. (but I dont think I will).
27
I must/ have to/ have got to finish this essay tonight. (and I will, come
what may).
They are used in conditional clauses. You always use a modal in the main clause
when you are talking about a situation which does not exist:
104)
If the bosses had known that he voted liberal, he would have got the
sack.
If only the things had been different, she would have been far happier
with George.
They are used in purpose clauses.
Finite purpose clauses usually begin with in order that, so that, or so. They
usually contain a modal. If the verb in the main clause is in a present tense or in
the present perfect tense, you usually use one of the modals can, may, will,
or shall in the purpose clause:
105)
Its best to be as short, clear and factual as possible, in order that there
may be no misunderstanding.
If the verb in the main clause is in the past tense, you usually use could, might,
should, or would in the purpose clause:
106)
He stole under the very noses of the store detectives in order that he
might be
arrested and punished.
In clauses beginning with lest, you use either the subjunctive mood or a
modal.
1.2.5. The modal verb as a constituent of the VP
According to (Dixon 2005: 173) a clause may contain a chain of verbs, each in
syntactic relation with its neighbours:
107)
She will soon be able to begin telling John to think about starting to build
the house.
A modal verb must occur initially in such a chain- that is, it cannot be preceded
by any other verb. Semi- modals behave like other Secondary verbs in that they
28
can occur at the beginning or in the middle of a chain, but not at the end. A VP
can contain only one modal, but it may involve a sequence of semi- modals:
108)
He has to be going to start writing soon.
A semi- modal can occur in initial position; it does not then have exactly the
same
import
as
the
corresponding
modal.
Semi-
modals
often
carry
The semi- modals have to and be going to can occur in series following another
modal or semi- modal:
119)
The researchers warn that they will have to treat many more patients before
they can repost a cure.
Sequences of modal + have to are relatively common in all four registers,
especially in combination with volition/prediction modals:
120)
He would have to wait a whole year again to taste it.
These complex verb phrases are generally less common in conversation than in
the written registers, even though semi- modals are more common in
conversation overall. The only complex modal combination that occurs
commonly in conversation is the one that combines the two most common
semi- modals, be going to +have to:
121)
Because youre going to have to say something.
This enables speakers to express two modal meanings in one clause: future
time + obligation.
31
32
33
These two main types of modal meaning are called according to Downing and
Locke (1992: 383), respectively, epistemic, in which the speaker comments on
the content of the clause, and non-epistemic, in which the speaker intervenes in
the speech event. Other terms are extrinsic and intrinsic. Epistemic refers to
knowledge; it is, however, the lack of knowledge that is characteristic of this
kind of modality. Within non-epistemic modality the term deontic is used to
refer to obligation and permission. Be means of these two main kinds of
modality speakers are enabled to carry out two important communicative
functions:
- to comment on and evaluate an interpretation of reality;
- to intervene in, and bring about the changes in events.
34
The epistemic modals mark application of logic at the time of speaking, so like
the deontic modals they independent of tense and use the different aspects
to show an event happens:
124)
-past time: He must have liked singing a lot in those days.
-future time: He must be going to sing tomorrow.
tefnescu (1978: 80), makes the following chart that attempts a rough
classification of the modals according to the distinction made between deontic
and epistemic modals:
35
DEONTIC MODALS
EPISTEMIC MODALS
May =permission
May =possibility
It may happen.
Can =possibility
Can it be true?
Linguistics can be made attractive.
Must =certainty
clarify it.
for.
Will =volition
He wont go.
Should =obligation
Should =probability
36
Hofmann, (1998: 98) adds to the classification of modal verb values into
deontic and epistemic, that is capacity or dynamic modals. For physical or
neutral capacity we normally use can, cant, have to or need to. These describe
the physical or neutral capacities of the subject of the sentence (they are
subject-oriented) and so we can label them as ability modals. Can is used for
action that is possible, while cant, cannot are used for something that is
impossible. If however, some action is necessary for the subject, we use need
to or have to.
125)
I can lift a car.
I cant get there by five.
I need to breathe.
I could solve the problem yesterday.
(could does not suggest that the action was carried out, but only that the
possibility was there).
The types of modality that are recognized will be mentioned in the following
sections. (cf. Collins 1990:229- 236; Alexander 2005: 212- 40; Leech 2002: 110140)
1.3.1. Ability
Can is used to say that someone has a particular skill or ability:
126)
You can all read and write.
He cannot dance.
Can is also used to say that someone is aware of something through their
senses:
127)
I can see you.
Could is used to say that someone had a skill or ability in the past:
128)
He could kick penalty goals from anywhere.
Could is used to say that someone is aware of something through one of their
senses on a particular occasion in the past:
129)
37
137)
You cant have forgotten me.
You use could, might, or may to say that there is a possibility of something or
being the case. May is slightly more formal that could or might; otherwise there
is very little difference in meaning:
138)
In rare cases the jaw may be broken during extractions.
If you put well after could, would, might, or may, you are indicating that it is
fairly likely that something is the case:
139)
You might well be right.
You use might not or may not to say that it is possible that something is not the
case:
140)
He might not be in England at all.
You use could not or cannot to say that it is impossible that something is the
case:
141)
You cant talk to the dead.
Could is sometimes used in negative constructions with the comparative form
of an adjective. You use could like this to say that it is not possible for someone
or something to have more of a particular quality:
142)
I couldnt be happier.
You use will to say that something is certain to happen or be the case in the
future:
143)
They will see everything.
Be going to can also be used to say that something is certain to happen in the
future.
Shall is also used to say that something is certain to happen. You usually use
shall when you are talking about events and situations over which you have
some control. For example, you can use shall when you are making a resolution
or a promise:
39
144)
I shall be leaving as soon as Im ready.
Youll make a lot of money. I shall one day.
You use must to say that something is certain to happen because of particular
facts or circumstances:
145)
Computer interviewing and rudimentary computer diagnosis must eventually
lead to computer decision- making.
You use cannot to say that something is certain not to happen because of
particular facts or circumstances. You do not use must not:
146)
The repression cant last.
You use should or ought to to say that you expect something to happen:
147)
We should at Briceland by dinner time.
It ought to get better as it goes along.
You use could, might, or may to say that it is possible that a particular thing will
happen:
148)
The river could easily overflow.
They might be able to remember what he said.
If you put well after could, might, or may, you are indicating that it is fairly that
something will happen or be the case:
149)
We might well get injured.
If you put possibly or conceivably after could, might, or may, you are indicating
that it is possible, but fairly unlikely, that something will happen or be the case:
150)
These conditions could possibly be accepted.
You use should or ought to with have to say that you expect something to have
happened already:
151)
Dear Mom, you should have heard by now that Im O.K.
You also use should or ought to with have to say that something was expected
to happen, although it has not in fact happened:
40
152)
She ought to have been home by now.
Would with have can be used to talk about actions and events that were
possible in the past, although they did not in fact happen:
153)
Denial would have been useless.
You use could or might with have to say that there was a possibility of
something happening in the past, although it did not in fact happen:
154)
It could have been awful.
You also use could, might, or may with have to say that it is possible that
something was the case, but you do not know whether it was the case or not:
155)
I may have seemed to be overreacting.
You use might not or may not with have to say that it is possible that something
did not happen or was not the case:
156)
They might not have considered me as a friend.
You use could with negative and have to say that it is impossible that
something happened or was the case:
157)
It couldnt have been wrong.
1.3.3. Permission
Can is used to say that someone is allowed to do something:
158)
You can drive a van up to 3 ton capacity using an ordinary driving
licence.
If you are giving permission for something, you use can:
159)
You can borrow that pen if you want.
In more formal situations, may is used to give permission:
160)
You may speak.
Could is used to say that someone was allowed to do something in the past:
41
161)
We could go to any part of the island we wanted.
You cannot use can or could to say that someone will be allowed to do
something in the future. Instead you use be able to:
1.3.4. Prohibition
Modals are often used in negative structures to say that an action is forbidden
or unacceptable.
Cannot is used to say that something is forbidden, for example because of a
rule or law:
162)
Children cannot bathe except in the presence of two lifesavers.
May not is used in a similar way to cannot, but it is more formal:
163)
Communion may not, on principle, be celebrated by one who is not
ordained.
Will not is used to tell someone very firmly that they are not allowed to do a
particular thing. Usually, the speaker has the power to prevent the hearer from
doing this.
164)
Until we have cured you, you wont be leaving here.
Shall not is used to say formally that a particular thing is not allowed. Shall not
is often used in written rules, laws, and agreements:
165)
Persons under 18 shall not be employed in night work.
Shant is used in a similar way to will not and wont:
166)
You shant leave without my permission.
Should not is used to tell someone that an action is unacceptable or
undesirable:
167)
You shouldnt do that.
Must not is used to say much more firmly that something is unacceptable or
undesirable:
168)
You must not accept it.
42
43
Can, could, may, and might are used with I or we when you are asking for
something, or asking permission to do something.
These modals can be used with he, she or they, or with other noun groups,
when you are asking for something on behalf of someone else. For example,
you can say Can she borrow your car? or Could my mother use your
telephone?
Can is used to make a request in a simple and direct way:
176)
Can I ask you a question?
Could is more polite that can:
177)
Could I have a bottle of Vermouth, please?
You can make a request sound more persuasive by using cant or couldnt
instead of can or could. For example, you can say Cant I come with you?
instead of Can I come with you?
178)
Cant we have some music?
May and might are more formal than can and could. People used to taught that,
when asking for something, it was correct to say may rather than can, and
might rather than could.
Requests beginning with might are unusual, and are considered be most people
to be old-fashioned:
179)
May I have a cigarette?
Might I ask what your name is?
Would like can be used with I or we in a declarative sentence to give an
instruction or order. It is followed by you and a to-infinitive clause:
180)
Penelope, I would like you to get us the files.
An instruction or order can also be given using will in a declarative sentence.
This form is used when the speaker is angry or impatient:
181)
You will give me those now.
44
45
46
47
You use may as well to show that it is not important to you whether your
suggestions is accepted or not:
203)
You may as well open them all.
You can make a suggestion about what you and someone else could do by using
an interrogative sentence beginning with shall and we:
204)
Shall we go and see a film?
1.3.8. Stating an intention
Intentions are usually stated by using will, shall, or must in declarative
sentence. The subject is I or we. The usual way to state an intention is to use I
or we with will. The shortened forms Ill and well are very common, as Collins
states (1990: 233):
205)
I will call you when I am ready.
Well discuss that later.
You state your intention not to do something using will not or wont:
206)
I will not follow her.
You can indicate that you are very determined to do something by using the full
form I will and stressing wont, or by using I will not or we will not and stressing
not.
Another way of stating an intention is to use I or we with shall. This use is
slightly old fashioned and rather formal:
207)
I shall be leaving soon.
You can indicate that you are very determined not to do something by using
shall not or shant. This is more emphatic than using will not or wont:
208)
I shall not return unless paid to do so.
If you want to indicate that it is important that you do something, you can use
must with I:
209)
I must leave fairly soon.
1.3.9. Indicating unwillingness or refusal.
48
49
217)
I would prefer to say nothing about this problem.
You can say what someone does not want by using would not:
218)
I would not like to see it.
Normally, when you are using would with like to say what someone does not
want, you put not after would. If you put not after like, you change the meaning
slightly. For example, if you say I would not like to be a student, you mean you
are not a student and do not want to be one. But if you say I would like not to
be a student, you mean you are a student and do not want to be one:
219)
All of us would not like to have nuclear weapons.
You can also say what someone does not want by using would with a verb
meaning to dislike:
220)
I would hate to move to another house now.
You can also say what someone wants or does not want by using should. Should
is less common than would, and is slightly more formal:
221)
I should like to live in the country.
You can say that someone prefers one situation to another by using would
rather or would sooner:
222)
He would rather have left it.
If you want to say that someone wanted something to happen, although it did
not happen, you use would have and a past participle:
223)
I would have liked to hear more from the patient.
Another way of saying that you want something is to use wouldnt with a verb
or expression such as mind or object to which is normally used to refuse
something:
224)
I wouldnt mind being a manager of a store.
50
232)
I shall have to speak about that to Peter.
Should and ought to are used in three different ways when you are talking
about the importance of doing something. You use should or ought to when you
are trying to help someone by advising them to do something:
233)
Carbon steel knives should be wiped clean after use.
You use should or ought to when you are saying that something is the right or
correct thing to do:
234)
You should send her a postcard from Eastbourne.
You use should or ought to with have and a past participle to say that
something was desirable in the past, although it did not in fact happen:
235)
One sailor should have been asleep and one on watch.
You also use should and ought to to say that you expect something to happen.
1.3.12. Introducing what you are going to say
Leech (2002: 115) argues that sometimes you introduce what you are going to
say by using a modal followed by a verb such as say or ask which refers to the
fact of saying something. You can also combine a modal with a verb such as
think or believe which refers to the holding of an opinion. You use a modal in
order to sound more polite, or to indicate your feelings about what you are
going to say. In structures like these, the subject is usually I. Sometimes you
use an impersonal structure beginning with it or you.
For example, instead of saying I ought to mention that he had never been
there, you can say It ought to be mentioned that he had never been there. If
you feel strongly that what you are saying is important, you use must:
236)
I must apologise to you.
If you feel that it is important or appropriate that something is said, you
indicate that you are going to say it by using should or ought to.
If you want to say something during a discussion, you can indicate politely that
you are going to say it by using can:
237)
52
Conclusion
The theme of this chapter has been the investigation of the modal verbs
in detail. First I have outlined the fact that modals
instructions,
orders,
making
suggestions
and
commands,
giving
54