1.

Modality Modality : is talking factual matters-what is true and not true, what has happened and has not happened, what may be true or not, what ought to be and ought not to be-what certain individuals are capable of and what is impossible for us, what obligation we have to do or to refrain from doing. Must, should, cant and similar expressions encode modality. Markers of modality are interpreted either in relation to the demands and preferences of people, or in relation to evidence. With interpretations of the first kind (called deontic), You must communicates that the speaker demands that you ; You cant that the speaker disallows it, and so on. Interpreted in a context where the issue is the senders degree of certainty about inferences from evidence (epistemic modality), It must conveys strong conviction about the likelihood of something being true, It should that the proposition is expected to be true if things unfold in an average sort of way, and so on. Necessity and possibility are fundamental concepts in modality, and elucidating them involved consideration of quantifiers, such as all and some (the second topic of the chapter), because for example what is necessarily true pertains all the time; and what holds some of the time is possible. Example : -) Its your duty to visit your ailing parents. -) You ought to visit your ailing parents. A predicate that has a clause, an embedded proposition, as one of its arguments may be factive, counterfactive or nonfactive. Whether the proposition appears as a full clause, an infinitive clause or a gerund clause is a grammatical matter; the factivity of the predicate is semantic, an element of its meaning. A factive predicate, whether affirmative or negative, presents the embedded proposition as established truth; a nonfactive predicate gives no indication whether the proposition is true or not; and a counterfactive predicate, the verb wish, presents the embedded proposition as not true. Other predicates accompanied by embedded sentences, always in reduced form, are implicative predicates. They imply the truth or non-truth of what is stated in the embedded sentence. Six groups of implicative predicates are recognized, differing from one another in what can be inferred about the content of the embedded sentence from affirmative and negative values of the main predicate. Modality has to do with two kinds of necessity,

obligation or possibility/probability. Modality may be expressed in various ways, but our presentation has concentrated on the modal verbs of English. Deontic modality has to do with obligation (the necessity of action or non-action); epistemic modality is concerned with possibility (the necessity of existence or non-existence). Deontic modality is typically centered on some entity, generally expressed in the subject of the sentence; epistemic modality is centered on the whole predication. Obligation is prospective, while possibility may involve looking backward or forward in time. The set of modal verbs express different degrees of obligation and different degrees of possibility or probability. Occurrence of not with a modal verb may negate the modal verb itself or the content of the following proposition.

2. Aspect Aspect is the cover name for different ways in which the proposition contained in a sentence is viewed. Different aspects are fairly easy to recognize and understand, but any one aspect may be expressed in various ways. The semantic nature of a predicate often has something to do with the aspect it expresses, but it is also a fact that some predicates may occur in sentences with different aspects. Aspect is expressed primarily in the predicates of sentences, but there are certain similarities. Just as we distinguish between generic and non-generic reference, we can distinguish generic and non-generic aspect. This has drawn a distinction between states and activities, the former containing stative predicates and the latter dynamic predicates. Some states express generic propositions, essentially unchanging, and others express non-generic propositions which have come about through change and may change again. Relations between a present state and a previous one can be indicated with the aspectual modifiers already, still, no longer and not yet. States and activities are durative. They are also atelic, not expressing any definite endpoint. Achievements and accomplishments are telic; the former are punctual, with the endpoint of the activity occurring instantaneously, whereas it takes some period of time for an accomplishment to reachits endpoint. Achievements and accomplishments are specific and require specific noun phrases as arguments. Some predicates express the beginning (ingressive aspect), the continuation (continuative aspect), or the end (egressive aspect) of states. Some causative predicates express what happens when an agent brings a state into existence,

maintains it, or ends it. Uneven matrixes of such predicates have been illustrated for the areas of physical location, possession, cognition, temporal location and sentences with adjectives and nouns as predicates. Certain verbs followed by an infinitive clause are prospective: they express a meaning that is necessarily previous to the proposition in the infinitive clause. Other verbs, followed by a gerund clause, are retrospective and express a looking back at the content of the gerund clause. English also has grammatical means of indicating prospective aspect. The most common form is composed of be plus the infinitive. The grammatical means of expressing retrospection has the traditional name perfect and consists of forms of have plus the past participle. This grammatical form is used in telling the duration of states up to a present or past moment and in recounting events that are seen as relevant to such a moment. Finally, English has a progressive form consisting of be plus the present participle. The progressive expresses a temporary, or bounded, activity. With achievement predicates it expresses a process moving toward an occurrence. With stative predicates the progressive often adds intensity to what is said.  Different kinds of aspect, but two terms commonly used in discussions of aspect have been omitted: perfective and imperfective. These seem unnecessary for the purpose here and their introduction might lead to confusion in a treatment of English. Whereas Slavic languages maintain a clear lexical distinction in two kinds of verbs, those that express what is done, completed, accomplished (perfective) and what is in progress, incomplete (imperfective), and Romance languages have such a distinction grammatically in past tenses, the preterite (orpast definite) versus the imperfect, there is little need for drawing such a distinction in English. Telic predicates achievements and accomplishmentsare perfective, stative predicates are

imperfective, but activities can be either. The English present perfect expresses imperfective aspect when it is applied to present states measured from a time in the past (We have been here for an hour) and perfective aspect when predicating past events (We have seen the reports)but the past tense (We saw the reports) is also perfective.  Grammarians and semanticists describing the English language often insist, a priori, that the progressive aspect is incompatible with stative predicatesand then go on to classify the exceptions. However, there would seem to be little reason for expecting correlation between aspects and their expression in a specific language. This

viewpoint leads to a mis-classification of verbs like remain and wait, which can be progressive but which express no action, and fails to account for the difference between, for instance, to wonder and to be wondering. The verbs stand, sit, kneel and lie express bodily stance (stative) or the assumption of such a stance (dynamic), the latter often accompanied by a particle (up with stand, down with the others). In the absence of a particle the progressive forms (He is standing, They were sitting, etc.) are more likely to be interpreted as stative than as dynamic.

3. Tense Tense is about inflectional pointers to the position of events relative to the time of utterance. Tense is deictic. It locates events in relation to the time of utterance: present (unmarked or with an -s suffix), suffixed past and the variously marked future. Time adverbials help reveal the mapping between tense forms and time. Other side we can say it is a grammatical category that locates a situation in time, to indicate when the situation takes place. Some typical tenses are present, past, and future. Tense can make finer distinctions than simple past-present-future; past tenses for example can cover general past, immediate past, or distant past, with the only difference between them being the distance on the timeline between the temporal reference points. Such distinctions are not precise: an event may be described in the remote past because it feels remote to the speaker, not because a set number of days have passed since it happened; it may also be remote because it is being contrasted with another, more recent, past event. This is similar to other forms of deixis such as this and that. In absolute tense, as in English, tense indicates when the time of assertion, time of completion, or time of evaluation occurs relative to the utterance itself (time of utterance). In relative tense, on the other hand, tense is relative to some given event.

4. Voice Voice is While the following two sentences convey the same basic information, they do not present it in the same way. Subject Voice Jessica An email Predicate sent an email to Mary. was sent to Mary by Jessica.

The verb form is different ("Sent" in the first sentence becomes "was sent" in the second), and the grammatical functions of the nouns are different. Linguists and grammarians call this a difference of voice. Voice is relate with intonation and stressing in senteces/phrase. Diffrent intonation and stressing will make different sense/meaning. Voice heads, which modify voice and are morphologically realized as the passive and middle templates. Causative and middle morphemes are thus accounted for within a unified system, which, first, explains their affinity in language in general (both are found crosslinguistically as markers of transitivity alternations), and which, moreover, sheds new light on problems in the interface of semantics and morphology. One problem is the impossibility, mostly ignored in linguistic theory, of deriving the semantics of middle verbs from that of the corresponding transitive verbs. The second is explaining the identity found crosslinguistically between middle and reflexive morphology. The third is determining the grammatical function of the causee in causative constructions.