* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download They are can, could, may, might, will, would, shall, should, must
Navajo grammar wikipedia , lookup
Scottish Gaelic grammar wikipedia , lookup
Ukrainian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Old Irish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Modern Greek grammar wikipedia , lookup
Germanic strong verb wikipedia , lookup
Lithuanian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Macedonian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Udmurt grammar wikipedia , lookup
Georgian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Old English grammar wikipedia , lookup
Portuguese grammar wikipedia , lookup
Ancient Greek grammar wikipedia , lookup
Swedish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Kannada grammar wikipedia , lookup
Yiddish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Latin syntax wikipedia , lookup
Spanish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Spanish verbs wikipedia , lookup
Polish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Serbo-Croatian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Pipil grammar wikipedia , lookup
Hungarian verbs wikipedia , lookup
Finnish verb conjugation wikipedia , lookup
English clause syntax wikipedia , lookup
German verbs wikipedia , lookup
English grammar wikipedia , lookup
Auxiliaries English verbs, in terms of their functions in forming verb phrases, fall into two major categories: main verbs and auxiliaries. Auxiliaries can again be divided into primary auxiliaries, modal auxiliaries, and semi-auxiliaries. • The function of primary auxiliaries (be, do, have) is to combine with main verbs to form complex verb phrases. • The present lecture will concentrate on the use of modal auxiliaries and semi-auxiliaries. • It is generally acknowledged that English has 13 modal auxiliaries (or "modals" for short). They are can, could, may, might, will, would, shall, should, must, ought to, dare, need, used to. • Morphologically, modals have no non-finite forms, nor -s form for third person singular present tense. • Syntactically, modals can only be the initial element of a finite verb phrase and are invariably followed by a bare infinitive. • In terms of semantics, modals have lexical meanings and no two modals can co-occur in a verb phrase. • The tense distinctions of modals are not the chief markers of time reference, that is to say, their present forms do not necessarily refer to present time, nor do their past forms to the past. • What is more, most modals are polysemous, and they behave differently in affirmative, negative, and interrogative sentences. • Here is a survey of the uses of the modals. 1 Modals and modal meanings (1) Ability and possibility The modals used in these senses are can, could, may, might and be able to. (a) To talk about "ability", we can use can, could, and be able to. (b) To talk about "possibility", we can use may, might, can and could. He may not go tomorrow. (prohibition) He may not go tomorrow. (impossibility) • She can't / could have missed the train. • Note that "might / could have + -ed" is sometimes used to talk about an unrealized possibility in the past, about something that was possible but did not happen, e.g. • You might have finished the work last week, but you didn't. (2) Permission, and prohibition The modals used in these senses are can, could, may and might. (a) To ask for permission, we can use can, could, may, might. Compared with can / could, may / might sounds more formal; compared with can / may, the past forms sound more polite, implying no difference in time reference. In colloquial English, can is very frequently used to ask for permission, e.g. Can I smoke in here? (b) To refuse to give permission, we can use may not (with stress on not) or cannot, e.g. Can I go out for a moment? No, you can't. May I use your car for a few days? No, you may not. • In impersonal statements, may not can also be used to indicate what is not permitted by rules or regulations, e.g. Borrowers may not take out of the library more than two books at a time. Note that the past form of may not (in the sense of refusal to give permission) is not might not. The notion of refusing to give permission in the past is usually expressed by other forms, e.g.. He was not allowed to go. I didn't permit him to go. (3) Obligation and necessity The modals used in these senses are should, ought to, must and have to / have got to. (a) To talk about "obligation", we can use should, ought to and must. Used in this sense, these three modals vary slightly in tone. Should and ought to are used to advise or urge. These two modals are interchangeable in most cases. There is, however, a very slight difference: Should is used when we give our own subjective opinion; ought to has a rather more objective force. Consequently, should, rather than ought to, is used to give strong advice, e.g. You should / ought to have asked my permission first. Must is even stronger than should. Used in the sense of "obligation", must usually implies that the speaker is the person in authority : You must be back by ten o'clock. Need not / needn't denotes absence of obligation or necessity. Alternative forms of needn't are "don't need to", "don't have to", and "haven't got to" with corresponding past forms "didn't need to" and "didn't have to", e.g.. A: Must you leave so soon? B: No, I needn't. He didn't need to do it at once. (b) Should and ought to can be used to denote assumptions arrived at by inference, not by direct experience, e.g. That should not be a difficult problem for Mary. These young trees ought to provide shade in ten years. Ought to in this sense is synonymous with must denoting "necessity", only it sounds less certain than must, e.g..Bob must be home by now. Bob ought to be home by now. (4) Prediction and predictability The modals used in these senses are will, shall, would, should, ought to and must. (a) The shall/ will future can be used for predicting. (b) The modals relating to predictability or assumption are will and would apart from should, ought to and must. Predictability denoted by will and would can be classified into specific predictability, habitual predictability and timeless predictability. (5) Willingness, intention and determination The modals used in these senses are will, would and shall. (a) Will in the meaning of willingness or weak volition is found with subjects of all three persons. Will so used is normally unstressed and can be contracted to 'll, e.g. I will / I'll lend you the money if you need it. Who will / Who'll go with me? (b) Another type of weak volition is intention that can be expressed by will in all persons. Will in this sense is unstressed and is generally contracted to 'll, e.g. I'll get some drinks. What’ll you have? He won't help me unless I accept his offer. (c) Determination or insistence, also referred to as strong volition, is expressed by stressed will, which cannot be contracted to 'll. Stressed will can be used in all persons, e.g.: • I will ( = am determined to) take the job and no one is going to stop me. • If you'll eat ( = insist on eating) too much pastry, you can't complain if you get fat. • He'll go out ( = insists on going out) without an overcoat although the weather is so cold. (6) Other modal meanings The modals dealt with here are should, would, dare, need and used to. (a) In specific contexts, should can denote emotional feelings of sorrow, joy, displeasure, surprise, wonder, etc. Should in this sense is especially common in certain that-clauses, in rhetorical questions and in some idiomatic exclamations, e.g. . • It's unbelievable that he should have finished the work so soon. • How should I know? • That he should dare to attack me! • In some other contexts, should can function as a substitute for be-subjunctive, in which case should is without any definite modal meaning, e.g. I insisted that he go / should go with me. • This use of should is also found in adverbial clauses introduced by for fear that, so that, and lest ( = for fear that), e.g. He ran away lest he should be found by people. (b) Would can be used to make a tactful statement, a polite request, and a tentative suggestion, e.g. It would be a shame to stop our work halfway. Would you like to stay here for the night? Wouldn't it be better for us to start off a little earlier tomorrow morning? (c) As a modal, dare (except in "I dare say") is restricted to questions and negative statements. Modal dare has no past form. It may appear in present time as well as in past time contexts. Likewise, daren't, the negative form of dare, too, can be used for both present and past time reference, e.g.: I dare not go there. How dare he say such rude things about me? (d) Need can also be used as a modal or as a main verb. As a modal, need only occurs in questions and negative statements. Note that in answer to a question introduced by need, we should use must in a positive response and needn't in a negative response, e.g. Need we work late today? No, we needn't, but we must tomorrow. (e) Used to is commonly used to denote a past habitual action or an existence in the past. The use of this modal stresses the notion that the habit has been given up or the state no longer exists. The negative form of used to is usedn't to, e.g.: He used to live in Shanghai, usedn't he? • In negative statements and negative questions, we may either use "didn't use to" or "usedn't to", e.g.: • He didn't use to smoke cigarettes. = He usedn't to smoke cigarettes. 2 Epistemic and non-epistemic use of modals As has been pointed out, modals are mostly polysemous. In terms of the meanings they express, modals can be divided into two categories—epistemic and non-epistemic. The function of epistemic modals is to make judgments about the possibility or necessity that something is or is not the case. The non-epistemic category only describes the fact as it is, e.g. • He must be very careless. (epistemic) • We must be careful. (non-epistemic) (1) Epistemic modals • As the examples demonstrate, there are nine modals that have both epistemic and non-epistemic functions. A summary below will help to illustrate this.. • modals non-epistemic use epistemic use • can / could ability, permission possibility • may / might permission possibility • will / would volition predictability • should / ought to obligation logical necessity • must obligation logical necessity • In their epistemic uses, the above modals can be arranged on a scale according to the degree of certainty or uncertainty that the speaker feels. Might can be viewed as the most uncertain, while must as the most certain. The scale is as follows: • uncertain might That might be George. • may • could • can • should • ought to • would • will • certain must That must be George. • From the scale above we can see that might, may, could, can refer to "possibility"; should, ought to, would, will to "probability" must to "certainty". The past forms of epistemic modals are realized by adding a perfective infinitive, e.g.: • That might have been George. • That must have been George. • Note that the negative equivalent of must is can't, e.g. • That can't be George. • That can't have been George. (2) Syntactic features of epistemic modals • The following five syntactic features are common to all epistemic modals; • (a) All epistemic modals can combine with a perfective infinitive, e.g.: • You must have been disappointed. (b) All epistemic modals can combine with a progressive infinitive, e.g.: • He must be working late at the office. • He must have been working late at the office. (c) All epistemic modals can be used in existential sentences, e.g.: • There must be some mistake. (d) All epistemic modals can combine with sativa verbs, e.g.: • He must understand that we mean business (e) All epistemic modals can be used with an inanimate subject, e.g. It must be George. Not all these features are shared by nonepistemic modals. (3) Time reference of epistemic modals • . About time reference of epistemic modals, there are two points worth noting. First, in direct speech, the modal statement is invariably made with present time reference, because judgments or deductions are usually made at the moment of speaking, e.g.: He might have lost his way. He couldn’t be still working at the office. • Secondly, the time reference of the contents of the judgment or deduction is determined by the form of the infinitive that follows the modal. When the infinitive is in the simple or progressive form, it usually refers to present or future time; if the infinitive takes the perfective form, it refers to past time, e.g.: • He must be calling tonight. = I'm sure he is calling tonight. He may have come last year. = It is possible that he came last year. 3 Semi-auxiliaries Semi-auxiliaries constitute a category of verbs between auxiliaries proper and main verbs. (1) Types of semi-auxiliaries • Structurally, semi-auxiliaries fall into three types: one type is initiated with the verb be; a second type is initiated with the verb have; the third type is initiated with the verb seem, chance, happen, appear, etc. • Most of the semi-auxiliaries belong to Subclass I. They include: be about to be able to be apt to be bound to be due to be going to be liable to be obliged to be supposed to be sure to be to be willing to had better had best have to have got to come to fail to get to tend to, etc • The following semi-auxiliaries belong to Subclass II: be certain to happen to be (un)likely to seem to appear to turn out to chance to, etc • Semi-auxiliaries are invariably followed by infinitive which might be in the simple, progressive or perfective form, e.g.: • I chanced to be out when he called. • He seems to be enjoying himself. (2) Semi-auxiliaries and "it ... that-clause" • As has been said before, semi-auxiliaries of Subclass II can be transformed into an "it ... thatclause" construction. The transformational relation is more or less the same as when we discussed the two passive possibilities. For convenience sake, we might as well label the "it ... that-clause" construction as Pattern I, and the sentence with a semi-auxiliary as Pattern II, e.g. • It appears that he has many friends in China. (Pattern I ) • He appears to have many friends in China. (Pattern II ) Contracted forms of auxiliaries • All the primary and modal auxiliaries have contracted forms, which may be divided into two types: negative contractions and positive contractions. (1) Negative contractions • All the primary and modal auxiliaries except "am not" have negative contractions: am not don't couldn't aren't doesn't mayn't isn't didn't mightn't wasn't shan't mustn't weren't won't oughtn't haven't shouldn't needn't hasn't wouldn't daren't hadn't can't usedn't • The negative contractions of the verb be may take two forms, except for the first person singular.. I'm not --(aren't) he's / she's / it's not he/she/it isn't (wasn't) we're / you're / they're not we/you/they aren't (weren't) (2) Positive contractions • There are only ten items that have positive contractions. These include: am ('m), is ('s), are ('re), have ('ve), has ('s), had ('d), shall ('II), will ('II) ; should ('d), would ('d). These positive contracted forms are usually combined with personal pronouns, with noun phrases, with possessive, demonstrative, and indefinite pronouns, with introductory there, as well as with interrogative words, e.g. I 'd be grateful if you'd lend me your car. Mary's coming tomorrow evening. (3) Restrictions on the use of positive contractions • There are situations in which positive contractions cannot be used. (a) They cannot be used in short responses, e.g.: • Have you finished your work? • Yes, I have. ( * I've) (b) They do not appear at the end of a sentence, e.g. • John is not such a good student as Bill is. ( * as Bill's) (c) They do not occur in general questions, e.g. • Is it raining? • Yes, it is. (d) They cannot be used when the verb is stressed, e.g. • You're coming with me? • I am coming whether you like it or not. (e) The verb have cannot be contracted when it is used to denote "possession", nor can have to when used to denote "obligation", e.g.: • They have three children. ( * They've) • He has to leave early. ( * He's to) • This restriction, however, does not apply to have got or have got to, e.g.: They've got three children. He's got to leave early.