Dunarea de Jos University of Galati Faculty of Letters Department of English Language and Literature

Aspects of Modality and Modal Verbs

Optional Course in English Language for 2nd Year Students

Associate Professor Steluta Stan, PhD

Galati 2008

CONTENTS
1

Chapter 1 Aspects of Modality in English 3 Chapter 2 Context and Modality 5

2.1. Context and Modality 5 2.2. Expressions of Modality. Some examples 7

Chapter 3 Modals Verbs 9

3.1. Syntactic Behaviour 9 3.2. Modals and Tenses 10

Chapter 4 Meanings and Uses of the English Modal Verbs 12

4.1. CAN 4.1.1. Ability CAN 12 4.1.2. Permission/Deontic CAN 15 4.1.3. Possibility/Epistemic CAN 16 4.1.4. Recurrence CAN 4.2. General Notes on the Secondary Modals 18 4.3. COULD 4.3.1. Substitutes for CAN/COULD 20 4.3.2. CAN/COULD Roundup 20 4.3.3. Exercises Meanings and Uses of CAN/COULD 22 4.4. MAY 4.4.1. Permission MAY 4.4.2. Epistemic MAY 25 4.4.3. Ability/Capability MAY 4.5. MIGHT 4.5.1. Epistemic MIGHT 26 4.5.2. Deontic MIGHT 4.5.3. Ability MIGHT 27 4.5.4. Exercises Meanings and Uses of MAY/MIGHT 27 4.6. MUST 4.6.1. Epistemic MUST 4.6.2. Deontic MUST 31 4.6.3. MUST Roundup 4.6.4. Exercises Meanings and Uses of MUST 35 4.7. SHALL 4.7.1. Epistemic SHALL

12

17 19

25 25 25 26 27

29 29 33 37 37

4.7.2. Deontic SHALL 37 4.8. SHOULD 38 4.8.1. Epistemic SHOULD 39 4.8.2. Deontic SHOULD 4.8.3. SHOULD in Indirect Speech Acts 40 4.8.4. Exercises Meanings and Uses of SHALL/SHOULD 40 4.9. WILL 4.9.1. Volition/Deontic WILL 4.9.2. Power WILL 44 4.9.3. Epistemic WILL 4.10. WOULD 45 4.10.1. WOULD for Past Time Reference 46 4.10.2. WOULD for Present Time Sphere 46 4.10.3. WOULD as an Irrealis Marker 47 4.10.4. WOULD in Indirect Speech Acts 47 4.10.5. WILL/WOULD Roundup 48

39

42 42 44

Chapter 1 Aspects of Modality in English

Central to discussions on modality are the notions of possibility, necessity and impossibility; logicians and philosophers, ever since Aristotle, have defined these notions together with the relations which may be perceived to exist between them; such investigations provide the basis of modal logic, which today is one of the most pursued branches of logic. The problem is that different disciplines have each approached the notion from different starting points, asking different questions on the basis of different theoretical assumptions; in each case, the nature of the question posed and of the goals set have led to different answers, i.e. different descriptions. A first attempt may be to consider the type of mental attitude and experience that involves the notions of possibility, necessity and impossibility. Michael Perkins says in Modal Expressions in English: To put it quite simply, it would appear that such notions are conceptually grounded on the fact that human beings often think and behave as though things might be or might have been other than they actually are (or were). Such a worldview appears to constitute an essential part of the fabric of our everyday lives. For example, the fact that it is raining, that the car has broken down and that I am late for

work does not prevent me from imagining myself arriving at work on time [] in a quietly purring car in brilliant sunshine. (1983) To talk about things being otherwise than they actually are is to talk about ALTERNATIVE, about conceivable though not actual states of affairs; such talk is known in logical studies as talk about other possible states of affairs or other possible worlds. It has been shown that the principles governing the use of modal expressions in ordinary language differ from those on which the use of their logical counterparts is based. Although the modal systems used by logicians cannot adequately explain the behaviour of modal expressions in the language, they can, nevertheless, serve as a basis for understanding how modality works in natural languages. So, in Perkinss example above, the fact that it is raining, that the car has broken down and that the speaker is late for work pertain to the actual state off affairs. A possible alternative course of events is a world in which the speaker conceives himself arriving in time, in brilliant sunshine, in a perfectly functioning car. We can say that to conceive of something being otherwise is to conceive its being real in some non-actual world or in some state of the actual world at a point in time other than the present. M. Perkins remarks that broadly speaking, the actual world is itself just one of an infinite set of possible worlds and, as such, it is not exclusively significant. Talk about possible worlds is noteworthy in so far as they are contrasted with and relative to the current, actual world. To say that Mary ought to be a loyal friend to Ann is to say that there is a state of affairs in which, according to the principles of morality, when a person interacts with other people, she is loyal. No need to stress the fact that what ought to happen is not exactly what actually happens, which means that moral statements do not derive from examples, rather they are grounded on a system of duties which reside in human reason. Perkins shows that there are three general systems of principles that can be involved when one studies the modalities: 1. Firstly, there are the modalities which conform to the rational laws of deduction. They are concerned with the interpretation of the world via the laws of human reason. They are known as EPISTEMIC MODALITY. The term epistemic derives from episteme, the Greek word for knowledge. Perkins aptly points out that, in fact, the key concept which underlies modality is the state of lack of knowledge. To know that something is the case means that it, actually, is the case; of course, there are cases when one can know something and be mistaken, but then, ones knowledge is no longer knowledge. But to be certain (an epistemic modality) that something is the case does not mean that it really is the case. 2. The second set of principles concerning modalities is defined in terms of social/institutional laws. These are of two general kinds: 4

a) On the one hand, are those laws explicitly involving some legal authority or institution b) On the other hand, are the usually less formal laws relating to social status, according to which one person may be said to have personal authority over another; in fact, there is no absolute dividing line between the two. The modalities that conform to social laws regard the sphere of duty, compulsion, order, command, instruction, appropriateness, and are known as DEONTIC MODALITY. 3. The third set of principles concerning modalities has in view the relationship between actual (empirical) circumstances or states of affairs, and the states of affairs that follow from them in accordance with natural laws (the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, anatomy etc.) These modalities define the notion of capacity (physical or intellectual). The three general systems of principles (rational/the laws of reason, social/the laws of society, natural/the laws of nature) define three different types of states of affairs/worlds. There are three envisageable courses of events conceived as alternatives to the actual world; they form the theoretical background against which the nature of the English modal expressions will be determined.

Chapter 2 Context and Modality 2.1. Context and Modality

Language production starts from an extra-linguistic real-world situation. When the situation eliciting language appears, the speaker performs a speech act which involves a series of logical hierarchical choices of the linguistic elements at his disposal, which will best suit his communicative intentions. Communication and language production being organically bound to human beings and extra-linguistic situations, any adequate description of utterances should account for the relationships between the real-world extra-linguistic context the linguistic choices made by the participants in the discourse. The proper interpretation of utterances can be a very complicated matter, to determine their appropriate use and to provide adequate descriptions and explanations, one must refer to many levels of language; not only the superficial (surface) syntactic environment and the logical semantic structure, but also the social context in which the discourse occurs must be brought into consideration. Many linguists have lately felt a real need for a theory of pragmatics in addition to syntax and semantics, to maintain a proper balance between the syntactic, the semantic and the pragmatic factors involved in the use of utterances in natural languages. In his study, Pragmatics and the Description of Discourse, Charles Fillmore has defined syntax, semantics and pragmatics and their interrelation as follows: SYNTAX as form characterizes the grammatical forms that occur in a language: the structural organization of sentences and the cooccurrence possibilities among lexical items in particular kinds of grammatical constructions. SEMANTICS as form+function relates the grammatical forms with their potential communicative functions, that is with what users of a language can do with these forms, in terms of the propositional content they can be used to express, as well as the speech acts they can be used to perform. PRAGMATICS as form+function+context is concerned with the relation between linguistic forms, their communicative functions and the contexts/settings in which given linguistic forms have given functions. Fillmore has emphasized an idea which is old in anthropology and philology, namely the necessity to contextualize, to anchor utterances in some social system as a condition for understanding how they can be used, under what circumstances, the role they can play in on-going conversations, etc. It is in the discourse context that one can best see what the participants are doing and what they are experiencing. The discourse rules, a subset of which is referred to as conversation rules, govern the conditions under which it is appropriate to perform one type of illocutionary act; also, they determine what answers qualify as appropriate responses to a certain 6

act. Therefore, the concepts of pragmatics and contextualization have great relevance for the applied linguist, for the contrastive analyst, for second language teaching/learning and also for translation and interpretation. If one is to teach/learn second language use successfully, he must: 1. identify the situation in which certain forms and syntactic configuration are usable in his language. 2. determine the means by which the target language makes these distinctions, and 3. pair the two, although in terms of surface syntax the two languages might appear very different. Similarly, a translators task is compound: in addition to merely translating words and ideas, he must transpose contextual social and cultural concepts, contexts that are strictly speaking extra-linguistic. To be more specific, besides syntactic and semantic elements, pragmatic factors are clearly involved in the use and choice of modal expressions. The rules that enable one to define and classify them, to account for their often peculiar behaviour, to tell whether they are appropriately used and determine that use, are also to be found in the area of pragmatics, in the real-world context of the utterance. Consequently, one has to know: the syntactic features and semantic values the social position assumed by the participants in the discourse the relationships between the speaker and the addressee/surface subject - the source and the goal of modality the contextual assumptions shared by the participants in the discourse the impression the speaker wants to make on the hearer etc.

The problem of the equivalence or synonymy between two modals, between a modal and a lexical/cognate verb or between a modal and an idiom/apparent paraphrase is a good example to consider. MUST and SHOULD in their epistemic sense are often taken together under the label probably/likely and are assumed to be semantic equivalents; yet, the parallelism is not complete and the explanation is pragmatic, not syntactic or semantic; although the concept of probability is present in both, there are environments in which only one is possible or appropriate. Notice that in the following sentences only one Romanian modal corresponds to the two English verbs: You must/*should1 be out of your mind! Trebuie sa fii scrantit/ca nu esti intreg la minte! We should/*must get there before dark. Ar trebui sa ajungem la cabana inainte de a se intuneca. Both CAN and MAY partake of the notion of possibility, yet what is described as possible by the former is different from what is described as possible by the latter. They are not exact, interchangeable equivalents and there are contexts where the use of one is appropriate, while the others is not. Can is closer to logical possibility and is paraphrasable in English by it is
1

incorrect

possible for to, while may is closer to epistemic possibility corresponding to may: a avea posibilitatea, ,a-ti fi posibil and a fi posibil/cu putinta, poate (ca), respectively: I can be there in time It is possible for me to I may be there in time It is possible that Pot sa fiu acolo la timp Am posibilitatea/Imi este posibil sa - Este posibil sa/Poate ca Another intriguing relationship is that between English modals and their paraphrases. Until recently, they were regarded as perfect synonyms, the paraphrases existing only to fill the syntactic gaps where the simple modals were not available. But, if we consider the following sentences, we shall easily notice that there are semantic distinctions and differences in distribution and use between them. a) You may smoke. b) You are allowed to smoke. a1) Poti fuma/Iti dau voie sa fumezi. b1) Iti este permis sa fumezi. c1) Ti se da voie sa fumezi/Ai voie sa fumezi. In a) the speaker himself is giving permission or indicates his approval of it; in b) he merely reports that the subject has permission, but the speaker may be opposed to the idea. In Romanian the modal a putea does not make the performative/nonperformative distinction; the phrase, a da voie, a-ti fi permis, is chiefly used to report the existence of permission; it can also be used to give permission, as in a1), or to report permission, as in c1); the other paraphrase, a avea voie, may also be used both performatively, ai voie (de la mine) sa fumezi and non-performatively, ai voie (de la tatal tau) sa fumezi. Consider also: a) You must go now. Trebuie sa pleci acum. b) You have to go now. Trebuie sa pleci acum c) Youve got to go now. Trebuie sa pleci acum Sentence a) may be used when the speaker himself sets the obligation; b) is apt to be used when, say, the addressee needs to catch a train; c) seems closer to b). Romanian uses one modal, a trebui, for all the modal expressions used in the above English sentences, and does not make the distinction between obligation imposed by the speaker and obligation derived from other constraints. In conclusion, from the modal expressions available to him, a speaker will choose what will best suit his communicative intentions in a particular contextual situation. Hence the importance of pragmatic elements, in addition to the syntactic and semantic ones, for an adequate interpretation of modal expressions.

2.2. Expressions of Modality. Some Examples

8

At the level of linguistic manifestation, one can identify a set of modal expressions on the basis of their shared semantic characteristics previously discussed; in point of their syntax, the different modal expressions belong to different syntactic classes and have widely different syntactic properties: nouns: allegation, hypothesis, prophecy, proposal, command, instruction, invitation, request, assumption, certainty, doubt, expectation etc. adjectives: sure, certain, possible, necessary, probable, compulsory, imperative, lawful, legal, permissible etc. adverbs: allegedly, apparently, certainly, evidently, hopefully, likely, necessarily, obviously, perhaps, possibly, presumably, probably, seemingly, supposedly etc. verbs: assume, believe, fancy, fear, feel, guess, hope, imagine, presume, suspect, think, trust etc. modal verbs: can, may, must, will, shall, could, might, ought to, would, should, need, dare. All these lexical items have been termed modal expressions in virtue of the fact that they appear to express the same type of meaning, realizing the conceptual sphere of the three systems of law discussed above: rational, social and natural.

Chapter 3 Modals Verbs 3.1. Syntactic Behaviour

From the point of view of their surface syntactic behaviour, the English modals do not constitute a uniform class; a sub-class of what might be called pure/syntactic modals includes such items as CAN, COULD, MAY, MIGHT, WILL, WOULD, SHALL, SHOULD and MUST. Some grammarians also consider a class of modal candidates involving such verbs as seem, tend, happen and, possibly, believe, know, insist, advise, as well as cause and make. The subcategory of modals that is intermediate between the pure modals and the modal candidates is generally referred to as quasi-/semi-modals/modal paraphrases and traditionally includes items as dare, need, ought to, have to, be to, be going to, be about to, be able to, used to. The syntactic modals exhibit the following idiosyncratic features or, very often called, unverblike properties, which has been used as an argument to characterize them as auxiliaries or semi-/quasi-auxiliaries. It has been assumed, among other things, that the English modals are main verbs in the deep structure and this unverblike behaviour is due to what E. Bara calls history-specific development of the English language (Bara 1979). These features are: 1. they do not take the concord morpheme s on the 3rd person, singular, present tense (do not participate in number agreement); 2. they do not have non-finite forms (infinitives, participles); 3. they occupy the leftmost position in the verb phrase (may leave, must be reading, will have been told); 4. they do not co-occur in constructions like *must can, *will may, *shall must However, the grammaticality of the following examples shows that concepts such as possibility, obligation, permission, ability are not necessarily mutually exclusive: You may need to/have to call again, where may signals epistemic possibility and need/have to deontic necessity. It is possible, therefore, to have a combination of modalities in a sentence, but they cannot, in general, be both expressed by syntactic modals. 5. they do not allow do-support; 6. they invert with the subject in interrogation; 7. they can be directly negated by not; 8. they are complemented by a verb in its infinitive form. The treatment of ought to, be to, have to, used to, dare and need varies from author to author; however, here are some of their most important features: 1. OUGHT TO is considered not to belong to the true verb category in the surface structure because it cannot pass the test for verbs, being a syntactic modal with idiosyncratic surface behaviour. In present-day (American) English, ought to is very often reduced to otta, mainly but not exclusively, in the spoken language. 10

2. BE TO, in almost all respects, behaves like the syntactic modals. Unlike them, it exhibits person and number agreement (am, is, are, was, were), has past tense syntax and may appear in the infinitive and not occupy the leftmost position in the VP: Worse still may be to come. 3. HAVE TO agrees in person and number (have, has) and has past tense syntax. In interrogation, it may both invert with the subject, like the syntactic modals, or allow do-support, like true verbs: Have you (got) to leave right now? Do you have to leave? In negation also, have to is either directly negated by not or allows dosupport: Hadnt you got to do it? Didnt you have to do it? 4. USED TO is in present-day English a very defective verb, having one past form for all persons, two possible negative forms (usedn/t to, didnt use to), two possible interrogative forms (used you to?, did you use to?). Note that the forms with do-support seem to be more common. 5. DARE, as well as NEED, displays a formal behaviour that is characteristic of both syntactic modals and ordinary verbs, without any significant difference in meaning. The most common terms used for them are pseudo-/quasi-modals. Their use as syntactic modals is relatively rare in British English and even more restricted in American English. a) dare behaves like a regular verb in the affirmative (dare/dares in the present, dared in the past). It should be pointed out that it is not much used in the affirmative except, perhaps, in the expression I daresay, only with the 1st person singular. In the negative and interrogative it may appear either as an ordinary verb or a syntactic modal: Do you/does he dare? Dare you/he? Negative and interrogative forms with do/does/did are in theory followed by the to-infinitive, but in practice the to is often omitted: He doesnt dare (to) say it right (in)to my face. *Note that when it is used with the meaning to challenge, dare is an ordinary transitive verb: I dare you to fill in for me and see how hard it is. b) need may also occur either as an uninflected syntactic modal or as an inflected regular verb: in positive statements the true verb is commonly used, while in negations and questions both forms are possible: I need/needed to go. They need not go/dont need to go. Need you go?/ Do/Did you need to go? *Notice that the complement verb following need may be used either in the long or the short infinitive, except after the inflected forms needs and needed, when the to-infinitive is always used. When need is used with the meaning to require, it is a perfectly regular transitive verb: He needs all the support he can get. He doesnt need our pity.

3.2. Modals and Tenses

The distinction between the sometimes called primary modals (can, may, must, will, shall) and the secondary modals (could, might, would, should) as seen by such grammarians as O. Jespersen, G. Leech, F.R. Palmer is based

11

on a semantic dimension of meaning present in the secondary modals and possessed only to a minimal degree by the primary ones. Some grammarians speak of a common hypothetical meaning shared by the secondary modals (Leech), others of a formal/tentative meaning (Palmer), while most traditional ones view it simply as a problem of past time reference (Jespersen). But speakers of English seldom recognize them as an indication of past time. They are rather felt as markers of some kind of remoteness from the reality immediately perceptible at the moment of encoding. Tentativeness, for example, is understood as a more remote possibility, a more tentative probability, a lower degree of certainty: They might be telling the truth (although I very much doubt that). A special type of remoteness is unreality or counterfactuality: I told you time and time again not to drive so fast; you might have had an accident. *Notice that, taken out of the context, might have had is ambiguous; it can express both tentative possibility and counterfactuality (contrary-toreality). Nevertheless, there are cases when these forms may be used to express earlierness in time. This happens when the time sphere is past and is indicated by a deictic marker or an introductory verb in the past tense, in which case the sequence of tenses occurs. We shall not insist on this aspect, though a very important one, because it will be furthered in the chapters dedicated to each modal. The perfect marker have-en can also indicate counterfactual possibility: The car is in such a bad condition that you might have got into trouble but for the safety belt. It is generally claimed that forms like could, would, might, should, ought to, neednt + have-en never occur as deontic and ability modalities; they can only appear with epistemic meanings. This is because epistemic modality is related to speaker-now and does not have tense itself. One exception may be deontic must which has no corresponding past/oblique forms: Applicants for this position must have obtained a diploma in the past five years. *Note that the construction expresses a present requirement (must) concerning a past process (have obtained). In conclusion, when simple epistemic modals combine with the perfect marker on the complement verb (perfect infinitive) it is the latter which signals past. Things are different with simple deontic or ability modals. We cant say: She can have smoked and mean She was able to smoke. When have-en co-occurs with past/oblique forms of the modals, it indicates past time, thus permitting the modals to signal tentativeness or unreality/non-fulfillment. *Note that neither dare not nor used to can occur with this construction, whereas need can: I neednt have invited him over; hes such a bore.

12

 The progressive marker be-ing can combine with modals, but with certain restrictions referring to those verbs that cannot be usually used in the progressive aspect (know, resemble, understand etc.) Sometimes the be-ing morpheme may distinguish between possible and permissive MAY: I think they may be visiting some relatives in Bucharest; thats why we couldnt find them home. (=possibility). I think they may travel abroad since they have their passports on them. (permission) There are, however, contexts which allow deontic uses of modals to occur with the be-ing marker: I shouldnt be talking to you. I dont even know you. To conclude, the preferred or dominant interpretation in this combination is the epistemic reading, but it is by no means the only possible.

13

Chapter 4 Meanings and Uses of the English Modal Verbs

Before dealing with each of the modal verbs previously mentioned, we feel bound to sum up the basic meanings they occur with: a. logical/epistemic modalities expressing possibility, probability, virtual certainty; b. deontic modalities signaling permission, obligation, necessity; c. ability/dynamic modalities expressing potentiality, capability. In actual use, however, the modals appear with many overtones, shades of meaning and degrees of intensity that can only be identified in the discourse context. The meanings of the modals will be distinguished from the speech acts they may be used to perform. Thus, with the literal meanings mentioned above they may appear in direct speech acts such as statements, questions, negations of possibility, probability, certainty, obligation, etc. In addition, they often participate in indirect speech acts whose illocutionary force differs from that of the direct act suggested by their surface structure: offers, invitations, requests, orders, suggestions etc.

4.1. CAN
Like all the other modal verbs, can is considered by traditional studies a polysemous word having three different senses: the ability sense (both physical and mental), the permission sense (replacing may in everyday, colloquial language) and the possibility sense. Other grammarians consider that the polysemy of can is, in fact, a function of the contexts in which it occurs. Thus we come to distinguish between ability can, possibility can (epistemic modality), and permission can (deontic modality). 4.1.1. ABILITY CAN He doesnt trust too many people, but he cannot resist his little grandson. Can you feel the tension between them? The present study is meant to show evidence that infants can and do solve problems at a relatively simple perceptual level. They cant speak a word of English but they can make themselves understood. The subject of all these sentences is animate, as questions of ability rise only in connection with animate creatures. In all these examples, can may be replaced by be able to. There is no such perfect equivalence between the two, but it has been claimed that there are conditions that favour the use of be able to rather than can. As given by F.R. Palmer, these conditions are: 1. Since can has no non-finite forms, only be able to is available after other modal verbs: might be/should be/has got to be/must be able to etc.; 2. Be able to is a little more formal than can, and its occurrence is much greater in written texts; 14

Be able to is preferred if the TR (time reference) of the sentence is present, to indicate that the subject accomplishes the task: In this way we are able to carry out our research. If the TR is past and if the situation is a single accomplished occurrence, only be able to is used: I ran and was able to catch (not could) the train. *Note that in the negative, the sentence I ran fast but couldnt catch the bus is correct. 3. As the examples indicate, can and be able to are not always freely interchangeable. What it should also be remembered is that if there is an intention to specify that the task is accomplished, be able to is used. Consider also the following examples: Ken is driving. Ken can drive. In the first one, a process is going on; it can be rephrased as Look! Ken is able to drive. So, according to Palmer, is able to says can and does. In the second sentence, no process is going on; the speaker merely assumes some circumstances, a previous occasion on which Ken demonstrated his ability to drive, and that a similar occurrence may happen again. So, again according to Palmer, can says can and will do. Taking some more examples as: She can tell awful things sometimes. He can lift that huge suitcase. Our local team can beat yours. Joan of Arc can hear voices telling her to save France, we can conclude that, instead of different senses of the modal can, we can speak about different possible environments of it. The contribution of can to the meaning of the sentence seems to be to relate the event referred to to some external circumstance which is not explicitly identified, but the existence of which is assumed, and which is such as not to preclude the event from occurring. At the pragmatic level, we shall remark that can may be used to indicate different speech acts. Consider some examples in which can is used contextually to indicate that action should be taken: 1. with 1st person pronouns, I or exclusive we, can is used to make an offer: We can also give you a copy of the document if you wish. I can tell you the truth if you will hear it. 2. with 3rd person pronouns, where the speaker speaks on behalf of someone else, but it is not clear if the initiative is his or not: Ill send him to see what he can do and then he can call you. 3. with a 2nd person pronoun it suggests that action be taken by the person addressed: You can certainly give me a call back tonight. If the context is an interrogative one, then can with you does not function as a question about the addressees capacity to carry out the action, but as a request that he do so: Can you hold on? Can you give me a hand with this? 4. if we is used inclusively, it combines offer and suggestion: Do come early and we can have a drink. 5. can occurs with verbs of mental cognition like understand, remember, think, stand, bear, be bothered: He can never really believe that when somebody takes a drug it is actually going to harm him. What you can remember out of his speech is what really matters. Can you see me wearing something like that? 15

Such examples represent contextual extensions of ability can, possible environments of it. Syntactic behaviour a) negation Usually only the modal verb is negated; with be able to either the auxiliary be is negated or unable is used instead: We have to take into consideration the fact that they werent able/were unable to elaborate on the matter at stake. But Palmer shows that it is also possible to negate the event by using emphatic not: We can/cant not go. Such forms are a little more natural with always, just, simply: We can always/simply/just not go, cant we? b) interrogation both can and be able to occur in interrogative sentences. c) past time reference - As already stated, the affirmative past tense form for accomplished tasks is was/were able to. Nevertheless, Palmer discusses some cases in which could is used instead: when an accomplishment is a matter of potentiality, not of realized task: In the state she was she could actually kill someone. in contexts in which a habitual, recurrent event is intended, could is the rule: I could stand up and tell them my opinion whenever I wanted to. couldnt occurs in all types of negative contexts to indicate that an event was not accomplished: Only when he died, his wife realized she could not live without him. A negative meaning of the entire context favours could with the same interpretation of non-accomplished task: He could hardly breathe, let alone speak. One moment she seemed to be everything to him, and then all he could think of was his career. Could is also used with negative items like hardly, scarcely,little, nearly which create an overall negative context: Little could he make out of the text he was given for analysis. the past time reference of can with sensation verbs is formed by using could: From where I stood, I could see the moon. I could understand all he said. d) future time reference Can, as shown above, does not indicate an event that takes place now; it merely indicates that circumstances are such as not to preclude such an eventuality: Youll go to Ireland any time you like as long as you can get a good job there. Therefore, the temporal sphere of can is present and extended present. The modal verb can be marked as future by will/shall be able to: When youre in your eighties youll be able to say that you are old and wise. Well be able to save an awful lot of money by living there. Provided the possibility is timeless, can may relate to a specific future event. In sum, the distinction between present ability and future ability can be clearly seen in the following examples: He will be able to 16

run faster next year (future ability). He can run faster next year (inappropriate). Their team can win the Cup next year (present ability to be actualized in the future). In conclusion, the differences between can and be able to are: o in the present tense, be able to indicates an accomplished task, unlike can; o be able to is mandatory for past time reference to indicate the accomplishment of an event; o there where the ability is with the subject rather than the circumstances, be able to is preferred; o a distinction is to be drawn between present ability that can accomplish something in the future (can), and future accomplishment (be able to); o be able to is more common in writing than in speech. 4.1.2. PERMISSION/DEONTIC CAN Since about the 18th century, it has been possible to use can in the sense of permission. Consider the following examples: You can go now. Can I borrow your car; mine is broken. If you dont eat your meal, you cant have any cake. Residents can use the car-park without a ticket. In all these examples, the system of laws relative to which the statements are made represent the laws of society/social laws/institutional laws, and involve either a person/an institution which creates permission. This use of can is relatively recent and it is a case when can encroaches upon mays deontic territory. Until quite recently it has been fashionable for popular grammar books to state that it is incorrect to use can in contexts in which permission is given. Perkins gives the following example in this respect: Jack: Can I go out? Mum: Not can, May. Jack: Ok, may I go out? Mum: Sure you can. Many an English schoolchild has been rebuked for saying Can I? instead of May I?. Yet, in fact, can is more widely used than may as an auxiliary of permission in colloquial English, having the less specific meaning you have permission rather than I give you permission. On the other hand, can tends to be avoided in formal and polite usage in both written and spoken English, where may is felt to be the more respectable form. Nowadays can is no longer regarded as incorrect, but merely as a less polite version of may. This use of can may be extended from permission to strong recommendation as in: You can forget about your pocket money this week. Well, if he doesnt like it he can always lump it. Here the speaker is being ironical, offering somebody the choice of doing something that cannot be avoided, or of something no one would choose to do. 17

If the context is such as to give rise to a sarcastic attitude in the speaker, then permission can is extended to mean quite the reverse of permission, approaching a brusque and somehow impolite command: You can leave me out of that silly list of yours, thank you very much. Syntactic behaviour a) negation when in the negative, can refuses permission, in the same manner as may not. Remark that mustnt and shant negate the situation i.e. they lay an obligation that a situation will not take place. There is also a possibility of negating the situation i.e. of giving permission not to act, as in You can NOT come, but this can be ambiguous unless cleared up by the context: You can come or you can not come, as you wish. b) interrogation in interrogative sentences, can is used to ask if the person addressed gives permission, being in some cases simply a matter of courtesy: Can I get you a drink? Can I ring you back? A further contextual extension of permission is one in which the person addressed should act in order for the event to take place: Can I have the salt, please? c) past time and future time reference as a past form, could may occur in reported speech since it is evident that one cannot give permission in relation to past events: He said I could leave the next day. Could in the following examples is not a past form but a more polite way of asking for or granting permission: Could we go on to talk about modernist novels? For similar reasons, there can be no future expression of permission. Palmer shows that we can indicate that permission will be given by using the verb to permit: I shall permit you to. 4.1.3. POSSIBILITY/EPISTEMIC CAN Can is said to have a possibility interpretation when it indicates that, according to the laws of reason/rational laws, circumstances are such as not to preclude the truth of the asserted sentence: There can be only one outcome of nuclear war. Cigarettes can seriously damage your health. He cant be working at this late hour. Remark that can would not be used to refer to a sentence in the present which is known to be untrue: This can be a Toyota. *This can be a Toyota, but it is a Mercedes. Possibility can is more frequent in non-assertions i.e. negative and interrogative sentences, while in affirmative ones may is preferred: This may be true. Can this be true? This cant be true. Leech points out that it is not always easy to distinguish between possibility can and ability can since ability implies possibility. There are however some syntactic markers present in the context which lead to one interpretation rather than the other: 18

o CAN in the ability interpretation requires a human or at least an animate subject; the possibility interpretation is also available in those contexts in which the subject is inanimate: Lightning can be dangerous (the possibility is stated positively). Lightning may be dangerous (or not) (both possibilities are open); o Passive sentences constitute another context that favours the interpretation towards a possibility sense; contrast the following sentences: This game can be played by young children. (a clear possibility interpretation due to the passive construction) Young children can play this game (ambiguous between a possibility and an ability interpretation) o Constructions with impersonal subjects favour an epistemic reading for can: You can get quite lost in that metropolis. o The interpretation of circumstantial possibility is more appropriate if there is a clear indication of the circumstances in which an event is possible: You can only get a job if youre good at it and you really want it. If they give you the sack, you can always come and work for me. o The progressive aspectual form is a marker for epistemic interpretation: Shes pulling your leg; she cant be working at this hour. Its such a fishy situation that you can be standing on a bomb; so, handle it with care. Palmer distinguishes between She cant come (ability) and She cant be coming (possibility). With 2nd and 3rd person subjects, it is familiar though tactful imperative: Jack and Jill, you can be standing over there; and you, dear, can sit right beside me. It can be contrasted with the undemocratic, coercive shall. o The perfect infinitive form is another marker of epistemic interpretation: Can I have made such a mistake? He can have been hiding from you at that time. o The interpretation of possibility for can may be further extended in colloquial language to express a suggestion for future action: We can see about that tomorrow. Syntactic behaviour a) negation cant negates the modality (=it is not possible that), while may not negates the complement verb (=it is possible that not): He cant be at home (=it is not possible that he is). He may not be at home (=it is possible that he is not). If you saw a woman in front of the house, it cant have been Jennifer (it is not possible that it was Jennifer). They came back so quickly from their honeymoon that they cant have been too happy there. b) interrogation the epistemic interpretation is frequent, indicating uncertainty, bewilderment: Can it have been love that she was talking so excitedly about? Who can it be that bosses everybody around?

19

c) past time reference can + perfect infinitive. Note that the perfect infinitive does not generally co-occur with deontic or ability modals: He just cant have made such a fool of himself. 4.1.4. RECURRENCE CAN Can is often used to denote recurrence, the fact that a tendency in a person or thing is apt to manifest itself occasionally. Consider the sentences: Curiosity can kill. She can be so obliging when she chooses to. The examples above can have indicative paraphrases with adverbials like at times, sometimes, etc. Closest in meaning to the occasional can is characteristic will and customary, habitual would: She can/will/would spend hours on the internet. None of them refers to a specific time; however, while will and would imply regular/habitual activity, can suggests occasional behaviour. Note that can also occurs in certain adverbial clauses of degree which have the value of a superlative: She is as happy as can be (= very happy). The duty of a president is to serve the people as best he can.

CONCLUSIONS In sum, the above analysis shows that the question about whether particular instances of can should be interpreted as ability, permission or possibility can be resolved by postulating an invariant core sense which may contextually interact with one or more of the three different systems of laws in which the circumstances are such as not to preclude an event (in the ability and permission interpretation) or the truth of a sentence (in the possibility interpretation).

4.2. GENERAL NOTES ON THE SECONDARY MODALS

As briefly mentioned before, some grammarians speak of a common hypothetical meaning shared by the secondary modals, others of a formal/tentative one, while others view it simply as a problem of past time reference: O. Jespersen remarks that the modals could, might, would, should, ought to are identical in formal realization with the past tense counterparts of the primary modals, can, may, must, will, shall. His position is that the secondary modals do not indicate past time; instead, they indicate, what he calls, unreality, impossibility, improbability which, in his opinion, constitute an imaginative use of the past unreal, hypothetical tense which is thus devoid of temporal connotations (1931: 112, 114); G. Leech discusses the secondary modals as sharing a hypothetical meaning not present in the same degree in the primary ones. According to him, this meaning extends over three different areas: 20

hypothetical permission (could, might)/volition (would)/possibility (could, might). He also establishes a connection between this hypothetical sense and the formal, polite use of the secondary modals (1971: 117). F.R. Palmer characterizes the common, unifying semantic feature of the secondary modals as tentativeness, saying that the secondary modals have a more tentative epistemic or deontic interpretation than their primary modal correlates (1974: 127, 1979: 48); M. Perkins objects to all the above mentioned proposals and offers a unifying denominator for hypothetical, imaginative past, formal/polite, tentative, under the term conditional, which, he thinks, subsumes all these distinctions and points out the fact that the secondary modals presuppose the existence of a conditioning environment overtly marked, i.e. conditional clauses, indirect speech, past time reference. In his own words: Sometimes the condition will be realized formally as a conditional clause and sometimes it will be merely left implicit in the context of utterance; but no matter what its formal status might be, such a condition must always be present in some way or another. (1983: 51)

4.3. COULD
The interpretations of could are essentially the same as those of can, the difference being one of conditionality: - ability could. Could may have an ability interpretation if it is the system of natural laws that is taken into consideration and, under a conditional reserve, the circumstances are such as not to preclude the occurrence of the event: I couldnt endure such behaviour. He could do it with the right moral support. If she tried harder, she could certainly do it. Note that the present conditional of a putea is the usual form in Romanian for these weakened modalities. In all examples, can may be substituted for could, the difference residing in the conditionality sense of could. As already stated, could can be used to indicate habitual ability, general possibility that resulted in a single occurrence, when be able to is preferred in statements while the rule is more relaxed in the negative or with verbs of perception: I could stand up and tell them my opinion whenever I wanted. He read the message but could not understand it. - permission could. It is frequent in 1st person requests as: Could I see your driving license? I wonder if I could borrow some money? Could we have something to drink? Sometimes could is used instead of could+perfect infinitive for past time reference, as in: She made a compromise. How could she do/have done otherwise? In all the examples but the last one, could may be replaced by can with a difference that Leech characterizes in the following manner: with could the speaker does not expect his plan to be granted, the negative inference being but I dont suppose I may. Sometimes this negative assumption is 21

overtly expressed in requests where the conditionality sense is explicit as in: I dont suppose I could talk to her. By extension, could will be used out of habit of politeness even in cases in which the speaker does expect his request to be complied with. Notice that could may report both can and could used in direct speech: He said I could go can be the reported form of both You can go and You could go. A past time sphere and the rules of the sequence of tenses are the most common reasons for past-marking: He asked if he could use my phone. - epistemic could: You could not be put to prison for speaking against industry, but you can be sent to an asylum for speaking like a fool. What could have turned him so angry? Leech remarks that it is difficult to see any difference in the use of could and might in the epistemic interpretation, except in the negative form where couldnt is an instance of external negation and mightnt an instance of internal negation: He couldnt have said that. (Its not possible that he said that). He mightnt have said that (Its just possible that he did not say that) *Remark that the time sphere of epistemic could is the present/extended present and the future (polite suggestion for future action): There could be trouble at the Dinamo-Steaua match tomorrow. You could answer these messages for me. For past time reference, could+perfect infinitive is used: Could you have left your umbrella on the train? This construction can also lead to a contrary-to-fact interpretation or, also, complaint: They could have come when expected. You could have told me in advance. It should be pointed out that such statements can be ambiguous lest cleared by larger contexts as to the type of counter-factuality and the time reference. 4.3.1. SUBSTITUTES FOR CAN/COULD 1. BE ABLE TO its use is compulsory in the following cases: to supply non-finite forms (infinitive, participles). Note that it almost never has progressive and past forms, and it cannot be doubled by can/could since it would be pleonastic; to form compound tenses; to avoid ambiguity for past time reference: He could have a picnic on Friday last (permission). Remember that for past continuous ability only could is available: She could speak English and so was able to direct the stranger to his hotel., while be able to is used to express an achievement, the result of an effort; compare: He went up onto the roof and was able to see the lake in the distance with From the window of his motel room, he could see as far as the bridge (possibility, no effort) 2. MANAGE TO is often used to stress more effectively than be able to the notion of overcome difficulty;

22

3. USED TO is preferred to could/was able to for habitual, frequent past action/state which no longer exists at the moment of speaking. It is more colloquial than be able to; 4. ZERO CAN/COULD when followed by verbs of physical/mental perception/activity or emotions, they often lose the notional content becoming mere auxiliaries which should not be translated in Romanian: I cant understand what youre getting at. (Nu inteleg) 5. BE SUPPOSED TO can be one of the most subtle ways of expressing interdiction in English: You are not supposed to enter this club if you are not its member. 4.3.2. CAN & COULD - ROUNDUP CAN expresses: present tense of modal can: ability characteristic capacity, competence, skill (exception recurrence can = sometimes it can be/happen that ); possibility, supposition, logical deduction (=MAY); permission (= MAY): I am told you can tame any animal. People can often be very unfeeling. Can he belong to our group and me not having met him yet! Why cant you take your pills in time for a change? Can I use your phone? past tense of modal can = can + perfect infinitive (true for any modal) (=past time + doubt, uncertainty, contrary-to-factness): I dont think he can have been so thoughtful. You can have met him some time ago; hes quite your age, isnt he? They cant have seen us in that pub, can they? near future (as to the present, for ferm, precise statement or categorical request; with could, the speaker is more hesitant, polite, diffident): Can/Could you come to/and have lunch with us, say tomorrow? Can/Could you repeat, please? When can/could you bring the articles to be reviewed? They can/cant come to the meeting tomorrow. * Note that when the future moment is more remote, there is an adverb of definite future time in the sentence (next week/month/year, when) and the future possibility depends on the ability, not on the circumstances (the ability has not yet been acquired), shall/will/ll be able to are the only choices, can expressing permission: Shell be able to speak (not can) several foreign languages when she has finished the interpreters course. Dont worry about her! When she has been coached long enough, shell be able (not CAN) to pass the entrance examination. future (as to the past should/would be able to) I knew I should/would be able to meet them again. COULD expresses: past tense of modal can only when it expresses: o general past permission (informal alternative for may) She knew she could do whatever she liked. 23

o unfulfilled past possibility He said he couldnt believe it when he was told the news. o past occasional ability She could be a charming person, in spite of the moments when she lost her temper. The drug can be very effective in the treatment of pneumonia. o past general physical/intellectual ability When young, he could speak Arabic like an Arab. Years ago, she could jog four miles in the morning, before going to work. o present indicative (the sequence of tenses, especially in indirect style) At his party, he said we could make as much noise as we wanted to, and we did. o could (not) for all negative/interrogative/negativeinterrogative sentences with a past main verb. future in the past of modal can: They said they could help us move in on Monday. conditional/subjunctive moods: I could have told that myself. Hes put on weight, so he could take more exercise. If you could draw, you could have your name entered for the coming competition. I wish I could have had the chance to meet her. could+perfect infinitive is used to express past ability not necessarily used, or a possibility not put to the test: You could have finished the text but insisted to leave. We could have offended them if we had omitted to send an invitation.

* Note that: if there is no indication in the context as to the meaning of could, it can only express permission; if there is no indication of mood, it is considered to be a conditional; the pattern I can do it has the past form I was able to do it; I couldnt do it covers both the affirmative and the negative and can be interpreted as both a negative conditional (future reference) and a past tense (past reference); a larger context will clear the ambiguity; when there is a specific past time adverbial (yesterday, two days ago, last week, at five oclock, then, when she saw them), be able to is preferred: John was able to have a picnic on Friday last. (could would signal permission)

24

4.3.3. EXERCISES MEANINGS AND USES OF CAN/COULD I. Identify the meanings of can in the following sentences; choose between: a) physical / mental ability; b) theoretical possibility; c) permission / prohibition; d) request, invitation, offer, suggestion (indirect speech acts). * Support your choices with explanations; add examples of your own. You cant take these books home with you. She knows I cannot refuse her so she always asks for favours. Can it be true? It (simply) cant be true! What is done cannot be undone. There can be only one possible and terrifying outcome of this imminent war. He cant have meant to hurt her feelings as I know they are the best of friends. Who can be ringing so late at night? Can it be Jim, whos just got back from the States? What can she mean by that? Now I can understand what you mean to do. We can send you a confirmation of receipt, if you wish. The bus station is not very far; you can walk there; it takes you about five minutes. Can I have a look at those photos? You can call on me every time you feel like it. Im sorry I cant help you with your mathematics; I have no head for algebra. You can certainly give me a ring back to tell me when you come by. She can spend day after day in the library searching more data for her research paper. Can you pass me the sugar, please? We already know she can be unfriendly when she wants to. He cant not answer their polite request to forward the necessary details. We can try to solve that now or we can put it off for later. You cant have rejected such an attractive proposal if you know where your interest lies. II. Give reasons for using can/be able to in the following sentences; refer to the course whenever you need: If he still is the person I have known him to be, Im sure he will to provide quite decently for him and his family. I see her standing there alone, and I say that she felt embarrassed, to say a word. When she saw the bus, she ran as fast as she , but to get on. He made me so mad that in the state I was, I actually say things I knew I would regret later. However harsh they were, they still wanted their son to always be honest and speak up his mind; he stand up and tell them his opinion whenever he wanted to. 25

There was very little I say or do about the whole situation. What had been done be undone. They were so shocked, they hardly utter a word. I understand what he meant, but that did not necessarily mean that I agree with him. Look! As I have told you I dont know how many times, I do it on my own. When you are in your sixties, youll to say that you have had enough. * Supply some more examples to highlight the differences in use between the two. III. Make sentences to illustrate the following meanings and uses of can-could/be able to: present physical/mental ability; past physical/mental ability; present ability to be actualized in future; accomplished task in the present; single accomplished past occurrence; single potential (not realized) task; habitual, recurrent past event; not accomplished past event; timeless future physical/mental ability; physical/mental ability to be actualized at a specific future moment; description of present/past characteristic features of people/events; possible event/situation; asking for/granting present/past/future permission; strong recommendation; circumstantial possibility (if, you can)/(so that X can/could); present/past occasional, recurrent, habitual behaviour (the same WILL/WOULD); past possibility not put to the test/unfulfilled past possibility; reproach for past actions; offers, requests, suggestions, invitations. IV. Translate into English and give reasons for your choices: M tem c nu neleg prea mult din ce spune; ori nu sunt n stare s urmresc nimic pentru c sunt obosit, ori vorbitorul nu i-a structurat prea bine discursul. Sunt nou n ora. Credei c m-ai putea ajuta s gsesc sediul Institutului de cercetri? Sugerm s ne oprim deocamdat, dar am putea continua mine la aceeai or. Credei c vom putea termina suficient de repede pentru a trimite la timp documentele? mi amintesc c era o vreme cnd puteam petrece zile ntregi fr s obosim. S fie oare vrsta? Nu se poate! Am s fiu n stare s-l bat la table cnd voi avea mai mult experien. Putem s gzduim urmtoarea conferin la Galai, vara viitoare. Am putea s trimitem invitaiile chiar sptmna viitoare. Din fericire, mi-am fcut muli prieteni de cnd m-am mutat n acest ora. tii ct de greu poate fi la nceput. 26

as

Dac te concediaz, poi oricnd s vii la firma noastr. tiu ct de ncredere poi fi i chiar a dori s ni te poi altura. n ce privete medicamentul acesta, se tie c poate fi foarte folositor n tratamentul pneumoniei; nu se poate s fi refuzat administrarea lui. Iari vorbete la telefon! Cu cine o mai fi vorbind i de data asta? A putea s pariez c e vreuna din prietenele ei cu care poate vorbi ore ntregi fr s se plictiseasc. Nu se poate s fi venit la ntrunire; a fi observat-o i sigur m-a fid us s vorbesc cu ea. tiu ct de jignit se poate simi cnd nu este bgat n seam. Spune c ar putea termina lucrarea de ndat ce intr n posesia tuturor articolelor de specialitate care s-au publicat n ultimii doi ani. A spus c ar putea termina lucrarea de ndat ce intr n posesia tuturor articolelor de specialitate care s-au publicat n ultimii doi ani. Nu-mi dau seama ce urmrete; s-ar putea s intenioneze s nfiineze o societate de asigurri. Dei poate fi nesuferit uneori, i-a cerut scuze c n-a putut ajunge la timp din cauza unui blocaj n traffic. Ai fi putut s-mi spui i mie despre brourile pe care le-ai luat de la agenia de voiaj; mi-a fi fcut o idee mai clar despre condiiile pe care le ofer. Vezi silueta acea care se apropie? Dac reueti s recunoti persoana, poi s-mi spui i mie cine este, pentru c nu vd nimic cu ochelarii tia noi; a fi putut la fel de bine s m lipsesc de ei. Poi s crezi c parlamentul ar fi putut vota o asemenea lege care s afecteze interesele bolnavilor? Dac au reuit s-i conving s intre n proiect, este pentru c ei chiar sunt n stare s-l duc la bun sfrit. Cercettorii din domeniu s-au strduit s obin un nou medicament care s fie ct mai eficient, astfel nct bolnavii s poat spera ntr-o nsntoire rapid.

27

4.4. MAY
Traditional studies of modal may recognize that it can be used in two different senses, a permission/deontic sense and a possibility/epistemic sense. 4.4.1. PERMISSION MAY Consider the following examples for the permission use of may: You may leave the table when everyone has finished. May I have a quick word with you? If a sentence like You may go is uttered by someone in a position of authority to someone of lower authority, would be probably understood as a command. This explains why permission may can occur in rules and regulations. Perkins shows that the command interpretation of may is entirely due to the circumstances peculiar to the situation described. If the same person had said You may smoke, it would have been understood not as a command but as a giving of permission. All in all, the interpretation is: relative to the system of social laws, a deontic source an institution or a person in position of authority does not preclude an event to take place. When compared to can, may is regarded as more polite while might carries an indication of greater uncertainty about the answer and also of modesty, diffidence. 4.4.2. EPISTEMIC MAY In its possibility interpretation, may indicates that evidence available to the speaker is such that the sentence cannot be assumed to be true, but nor can it be assumed to be false. While possibility can focuses primarily on the current state of circumstances, may focuses primarily on the current verifiability of the truth of the sentence. A sentence like: John may run a mile in 4 minutes, but he never will because hes too lazy is unacceptable because it cites evidence that the sentence John may run a mile in 4 minutes is currently falsifiable. Notice that with epistemic can the sentence is fine, whereas with can it is irrelevant whether; John actually will run a 4 minute-mile or not, as long as circumstances are not such as to preclude it. Consider the following pair of sentences: A friend can betray you. A friend may betray you. The first one is an observation between friends in general, i.e. the circumstances include at least an instance of a friend committing a betrayal, while the second sentence is more likely to be a warning about a particular friend, i.e. the truth of the sentence can be currently verified. May is often attended by well (as an intensifier of the possibility) to express the speakers opinion that something being the case rather than the reverse is possible: It may well be that his wife did not know. (Se prea poateSe poate foarte bine s Este foarte posibil s) 4.4.3. ABILITY / CAPABILITY MAY

28

In this sense may is rarely mentioned by grammarians. It seems to be more frequent in passive constructions where it alternates with can: Problems may be solved over a luncheon. Which have baffled scientists for years. The book can be had in hard cover for 10$ and it may be had in paper back for 2$. Perkins remarks that while can relates to natural and social laws (ability and permission interpretation), may most typically relates to rational and social laws (the epistemic and deontic interpretation, i.e. possibility and permission). In the same time, may in the ability interpretation carries either something of its hypothetical interpretation or of its permission interpretation, being more used in written texts while can is expected in colloquial English. According to Palmer, an important difference between ability/permission can and permission/possibility may is that the former is subject-oriented, i.e. it relates semantically to some kind of activity, quality, status of the subject of the sentence, whereas may is never subjectoriented, the state of affairs being always external to the subject of the sentence. He can speak 14 languages.(Poate/tie s) What can you contribute to the discussion? He may speak 14 languages.(S-ar putea/Ar putea) Syntactic behaviour a) negation: While cant is a case of external negation, the modal being negated: Pigs cant fly (=Its not possible that pigs fly), may not is an instance of internal negation, the sentence being negated: Pigs may not fly.(=It is possible that pigs dont fly). The forms maynt and mightnt are felt as awkward and unnatural in expressions of permissions, cant and couldnt being regarded as the natural forms. b) interrogation: Epistemic/possibility can occurs mainly in interrogative and negative contexts, while in affirmative sentences may is preferred: It may rain today. Can it be cold up there? It cant be that cold. In AE there is an apparent tendency to prefer might to may for present possibility. The effect is to make the expression of possibility more tentative, the paraphrase being: It is barely possible that It is possible, though unlikely, that c) past time reference The deontic senses have past tense counterparts with could and might, respectively, while the epistemic senses form the past time reference by the perfect infinitive forms: Its likely that he may have been there.

4.5. MIGHT
4.5.1. EPISTEMIC MIGHT The epistemic interpretation of might is by far more frequent than its deontic one. Although often regarded as a past tense form, might rarely points to the 29

past. However, when the time sphere of the potential situation is past, it is employed regardless of whether may/might are used when the time sphere of the utterance is present: I think I may/might be late for the ceremony. He thought he might Might can also indicate a special type of unreality, namely counterfactuality. In such cases might followed by the perfect infinitive implies non performance of a past potential action. The perfect marker signals past time while might carries only counter-factuality: You might have turned down the invitation (but you didnt). Might + perfect infinitive may also indicate a past possibility not put to the test: Perhaps we should have taken the other road; it might have been shorter. Seldom used in the interrogative to express possibility/probability, may and might do occur in wh-questions to express wonder, doubt, uncertainty, approximation, or a more polite question: She looks so young; how old may / might she be? 4.5.2. DEONTIC MIGHT With its deontic interpretation, might carries an indication of greater uncertainty about the answer, and also of tentativeness, modesty, diffidence. The use of might for permission in the past does not seem to be very common and it is generally avoided in colloquial English and replaced by be allowed/permitted, but not in the passive: I asked him if I might go/He would allow me to go. It was an unwritten rule in their club that no questions might be asked about the members private lives. 4.5.3. ABILITY MIGHT Might is regularly used to express tentative, doubtful (cap)ability either of the present or of the past, depending on the fulfillment of a condition expressed/understood (remember Perkinss conditionality of the secondary modals): If I had a writers pen, I might describe the beauty of this place properly. 4.5.4. EXERCISES MEANINGS AND USES OF MAY/MIGHT I. Explain the meaning in which the modal MAY is used: - permission or prohibition; - request (sometimes ironical); - doubt about the present, past or future; - possibility, probability.

You might have tried to arrive on time. He might be still angry with you if he hasnt called on you for such a long time. She may not have known that she was supposed to attend this meeting. One may come across unusual experiences while hunting in Africa. May I advise you to be more careful with your things? If I may say so, you were rather rash. She may have heard your proposal for greater efficiency in your department. 30

He thought he might not go, but finally had to. My friends may be right this time, but I still think its a good thing to have a talk with him. May I break into what seems to be an endless speech and give you a word of advice? May I have another helping of this delicious cake? The train might be late today on account of the heavy snow falls, or they might as well missed it altogether. She might have sent me a postcard; after all, Ive done so much for her. He asked the captain of the team if he might play that match as a midfield. Who may you be? (cf. Who are you?) He may be still living in that tiny little house, but, frankly speaking, I wish he didnt. Dont be so mad; he asked if he might wait here and I said yes. I might go out tonight if I can find someone to babysit. II. Make four MAY/MIGHT: sentences for each of the following uses of

formal permission asked for or granted (cf. CAN in similar examples and give explanations to highlight the difference between the two); past/present/future possibility (cf. CAN in similar examples and give explanations); (external) ability (especially in passive constructions); counterfactuality/vs/past unrealized possibility; other speech acts (mild/casual commands, persuasive/irritated requests, expressions of reproach, offers); in if-clauses; as part of an analytic subjunctive (for wishes, after ORDER, REQUEST, DESIRE, etc., after expressions of fear, in adverbial clauses of purpose/concession).

III. Translate: Ma intreb daca isi da seama de consecinte; s-ar putea sa fie constient de responsabilitatea pe care si-a asumat-o, desi, sincer sa fiu, nu pare. Poti sa-ti iei adio de la vacanta pe care ti-am promis-o, atat timp cat nu te-ai achitat de partea ta de intelegere. Copiii sub saisprezece ani nu pot participa la curse de masini atat de periculoase. Ai fi putut sa-i anunti ca plecati ca sa nu faca tot drumul acela numai ca sa gaseasca usa incuiata. Sa traiesti fericit o mie de ani si sa ai parte de bucurii si sa stii sa-ti sarbatoresti neimplinirile. Pot sa plec acum, sefu? Da, cred ca poti. Sa punem punct aici, dar maine sar putea sa am nevoie de tine dimineata, desi nu cred ca delegatia pe care o asteptam va veni atat de devreme. Am fi putut sa ne hotaram asupra variantei celeilalte, dar atunci s-ar fi complicat lucrurile si e posibil sa nu mai fi fost in stare sa terminam la timp. Multumesc ca nu mi-ai spus ca nu mergi la petrecere; pot, la fel de bine sa ma duc singura ca si cum n-as avea partener. 31

Dupa cate vad s-ar putea sa amanam iesirea la iarba verde; cerul e acoperit de nori si s-ar putea sa inceapa ploaia in orice moment. Imprumutul acesta se poate obtine daca ai garantii serioase. Jocul se poate juca doar daca ii cunosti regulile si le respecti; altfel, s-ar putea sa nu-ti gasesti nici un partener dispus sa-l joace cu tine. Daca ti-ai lua diploma anul acesta, ai putea sa-ti gasesti un loc de munca care sa-ti satisfaca asteptarile. Toata lumea ocolea subiectul de teama sa nu-i trezeasca amintiri dureroase; ar fi putut sa se inchida din nou in sine, asa cum se mai intamplase, si nimic si nimeni n-ar mai fi deschis-o spre comunicarea cu ceilalti. Dupa cat il cunosc, s-ar putea sa mai studieze inca, inchis in birou, dosarele acelea care i-au dat atata bataie de cap. Desi nu era foarte entuziasmat de idee, tatal sau il trimisese in Italia sa studieze pictura renascentista. Oricat ar costa, si oricate argumente mi-ar aduce el, insist sa ne petrecem vacanta in strainatate pentru ca, asa cum s-ar putea sa stii deja, serviciile oferite sunt mult mai bune si preturile mai rezonabile. Ii puteai simti din tonul vocii ingrijorarea cu privire la soarta proiectului cu care se inscrisese pentru obtinerea unei burse; fie ce-o fi, el incercase si nimeni nu-i putea reprosa lipsa de interes. Dupa atatia ani petrecuti pe mare, inca auzea zgomotul inconfundabil al valurilor, oricat de preocupat de altceva ar fi fost.

4.6. MUST
4.6.1. EPISTEMIC MUST The epistemic sense of must ranks high on the probability scale and occurs in utterances that have been described as necessary statements, logical conclusions, inferences, deductions: They must have used their passkeys to get in. I feel terrible; I must have caught a cold or something. What may be underlined as obvious is the speakers strong belief, conviction or near certainty concerning the truth-value of the proposition. In fact such sentences can be rephrased as Im pretty sure/certain that they used The speaker bases his assertion on his knowledge or on evidence immediately available to him from his observation of the relevant real situations. Palmer proposes as a rough paraphrase for this use the only possible conclusion is, while Leech suggests that epistemic must is used to indicate knowledge arrived at by inference or reasoning rather than by direct experience. But, even if must is said to represent the strongest epistemic judgement one can make, it should, however, be underlined that the strongest of all judgement is not the same as a factual assertion. Must occurs chiefly as a present, since epistemic modalities are oriented to speaker now; it may appear with past time reference, usually in sub-clauses, only if the timesphere of the inference is simultaneous with that of the past state of affairs referred to in the utterance: Than she became aware that the man must be their new neighbour.

32

Even when followed by a perfect infinitive, must is still a present, indicating the conclusions arrived at by the speaker at the time of speaking. She surely must have arrived by this time. For future time reference be bound to is preferred. Must may occur in unreal conditional sentences indicating what, in the speakers opinion, would be a near certainty or inevitable if a past, present or future event did or did not come about, or would have been inevitable if such an event had or had not come about. If one did not make all efforts to come to an understanding, things must come to a deadlock. (Dac nu s-ar face, lucrurile ar intra) If the pistol had been loaded, the child must inevitably have shot himself. (Dac pistolul ar fi fost , copilul s-ar fi mpucat). *Notice that the notion of conviction or high probability implied by must is sometimes strengthened by an accompanying needs, of necessity, inevitably, etc. Notice also that in most cases, corresponding to the epistemic use of must, Romanian uses the present (and sometimes in past contexts, the imperfect) of epistemic a trebui. In some cases it is attended by reinforcing adverbs such as: desigur, cu siguran, negreit, neaprat, inevitabil. Syntactic behaviour a) negation Epistemic must is negated by cant, which is the more natural expression of impossibility in English: If he saw a woman cook, it cant have been her Mustnt can occur in those cases which Palmer calls verbal crossing out: He must be there. Oh no, he mustnt. b) interrogation Epistemic must does not usually occur in interrogative contexts; nevertheless, Palmer offers examples such as: Must they be on holiday? Substitutes for Must 1. BE BOUND TO As already stated, be bound to is usually used for future time reference. When must occurs with a future TR, it almost always is interpreted in a deontic, not epistemic sense: The government must act. It must make up its mind about priorities: offices or homes, housing estates or luxury buildings. This restriction does not function for be bound to. We could say: The odds are bound to be with them in these tight situations. There is a difference in meaning between be bound to and must. Consider the examples: Johns bound to be in his office. John must be in the/his office. The first sentence is the more certain of the two; it has little or no sense of conclusion. The speaker wants to assert as positively as he can that this is the only possibility. In the second sentence, the speaker is drawing the most obvious conclusion. It may be a remark made in response to a comment that the lights were on in Johns office.

33

The nearest synonym of be bound to in sentences with a future TR is it is inevitable: If the Government deals with the situation realistically, the cost of the EU integration is bound to be great. As to this difference, Palmer points out that the concept of conclusivity is more appropriate to the present (must) and that of inevitability to the future. 2. HAVE GOT TO Sometimes it occurs in an epistemic interpretation as in: If hes your friend, youve got to know all his jokes. This interpretation of have got to is quite common in American English: Youve got to be joking, the more likely British English form being You must be joking. 3. HAVE TO In British English there appears to be a difference of context of use between have to and must. Contrast: You must be mad to do that. (epistemic interpretation, i.e. the conclusion from your action is that you are mad). You have to be mad to do that. (being mad is a necessary condition for acting in a certain may => so, the deontic use of have to isnt far away). Have (got) to has a stronger force than must and cannot be weakened to the interpretation of logical assumption. Someone must be telling lies voices mere suspicion. Someone has (got) to be telling lies sounds more like an accusation. 4.6.2. DEONTIC MUST If must is used in a context relative to the system of social laws and the circumstances materialize in a person in a position of authority, must is interpreted as indicating obligation or compulsion. Two roles are important in the deontic use of must: the imposer/ originator and the goal/receiver of the constraint or obligation. The former is the logical subject of must, the latter is usually its surface subject. The constraint imposed upon the subject may originate from various sources such as: o the will of the speaker or some other authority, o the subjects own will or keen desire, o laws, regulations, circumstances, o a power beyond the subjects control. In many cases the source of the constraint is not specified. In sentences such as All man must die. What must be, must be, it is hard to distinguish between the epistemic and the deontic uses. Deontic must is used performatively when the speaker himself as authority imposes the obligation as in: If you come in after midnight you must come in quietly. Dont wake me up. The speaker may also use must to report/state the existence of an obligation imposed by an external authority, to which he may or may not add his support/approval: You must go now; the visiting hour is over and the head nurse is very strict about it.

34

A sentence with a 1st person subject, such as I must be leaving/leave now, is analysable in at least two ways: I must be leaving since I have a meeting to attend (the subject is under the pressure of an external agent which reduces his freedom to act); I must be leaving because this is what I want to do/Im bored stiff with your company (the subjects will/desire is so strong as to make him view the actualization of the predication as necessary). Here are some further examples of keen desire or internal compulsion overmastering the subject: Her secret smile made me feel that I must meet her. You must always interfere, mustnt you? If you must smoke, use an ashtray. The subjects obligation/constraint may derive from other sources of authority such as: o a power beyond the subjects control (rules, regulations, a code of honour): Women must cover their heads in church. o the natural/inevitable consequence of a certain event: You made your bed and you must lie upon it. o the necessity that a condition be fulfilled in order that a certain state of affairs may be possible: You must work hard if you want to be an A student. o a strong moral obligation or an urgent advisability: What I have promised I must do. You must quit smoking if you want to live. Like epistemic must, deontic must is chiefly used in the present. It may also occur with a past tense value mostly in sub-clauses when the time sphere is past: And the day came when she and her children must leave their home. Deontic must+perfect infinitive cannot be used to describe an event that has actually occurred; have to or one of the other approximately equivalent phrases are used instead: I was told that he had to/ had been obliged to hand in his resignation. In the following e.g., however, must+perfect infinitive is used in a deontic sense (must expresses a present requirement, the perfect infinitive being a past time indicator of the state of affairs described in the proposition): Applicants for this position must have studied a minimum of two years in a university. Substitutes for MUST 1) HAVE TO The two are not exact semantic equivalents. Unlike must, have to always indicates that it is not the speaker that requires the actualization of predication, but some external authority or circumstances. Some of the deontic functions of must are shared by have to, which may represent a person under the constraint of: a task or official duty: A President has to devote all his time and energy to his country. a power beyond the subjects control (a law of nature, an overmastering emotion): I saw she had to bite her lips not to burst into tears. the necessity of a condition to be fulfilled: If you want to be there in time, youll have to leave early. 35

According to many grammarians, have to is more common and preferable for habitual activities and must for important and urgent obligations: I have to feed the baby six times a day. I must feed the baby now; its been crying for half an hour. *The alternative from have got to is even more common in American English, frequently reduced to gotta both in speech and writing. Syntactic behaviour a) Past time reference Must + Perfect Infinitive for the epistemic use. Had To for the deontic use. b) Speech acts (other than statements, questions or negations of obligations) expression of disapproval/reproach: Must you drink so much? Do you have to smoke those stinking cigars? Dont you have to write some letters? casual invitations, excuses: You must come and see me one of these days.I must be leaving now. suggestions, recommendations, emphatic advice (=should): You must see this movie; its the best Ive seen in years. reprimands, orders: You mustnt speak like this to you mother.

36

4.6.3. MUST - ROUNDUP It expresses the following functions: 1. (objective/subjective) necessity, duty, absolute obligation (either imposed by the speaker especially after the verbs admit, conclude, realise, remember, say, understand - or deriving from external authority rules/regulation orders, interdictions, official prohibitions): You must keep your promise. We all must die. Im afraid I must mortgage the house. I mustnt leave before I say goodbye to all people present. Must you always treat everybody like dirt? I must say that we have not identified all the consequences. You must admit we cannot ignore these arguments. You must call for a doctor; shes been seriously injured. He must never treat us like that; we wont put up with such a behavior. You simply must not wear that shabby coat again; its embarrassing. In Australia traffic must keep to the left. Lights must be on before dark. These books must not be taken away from the reading room. *Absence of obligation/necessity is expressed by need not or dont/doesnt need to: you mustnt do that again, but you neednt be so upset about it. We do not need to go over that again and again; everybody has understood. I must go now! Need you really? Yes, I must or Ill be late for my date. **In questions must and need are often similar in meaning, but need cannot be used after question words; when using need the speaker hopes for a negative answer: What must she do if she wants to make some progress? Need I tell you that this is not the best of solutions? 2. probability, supposition, logical conclusion/deduction: They arent home; they must be on holiday. He returned too soon; he must have had a terrible time. *In the negative, cant/cannot is used: She must be there; she cant be anywhere else. He must have accepted; he cant have rejected such a terrific opportunity; it wouldve been sheer madness. 3. other speech acts: emphatic invitation or advice, reproach: You simply must see him in this performance. You mustnt miss the show tonight; Ive seen it twice already. Must you talk so much? MUST/vs/MAY 1) Both modals can express presupposition, but they differ through the opposed connotations they bring to this concept: may also suggests uncertainty, whereas must suggests certain probability: She usually keeps late hours: she may still be at her work. She never goes to bed before midnight because she has a lot of work to get through; so, she must still be at it now, its only eleven. 37

2) Both may (rarely, and most of the times replaced by can) and must can express interdiction, mainly in negative answers to may questions: Please, Doc! My hand is practically healed. May I go skiing? No, you cant (mustnt). Its much too risky. MUST/vs/HAVE TO Since must is defective, it refers only to present or general time and, possibly, to the future. Where specific reference has to be made to other times or aspects, must is supplemented by have to. The have to forms often suggest that the obligation is habitual or arises from some external source, circumstances: You must pay for yourself tonight. What do you mean, tonight? I always have to pay for myself. She said that I had to be at work early in the morning to have the paper finished. (cf.) You must stay the night (I press you to do so)/vs/You have to stay the night (You cant get back tonight). In the 1st person, the difference between internal (must) and external obligation (have to) is much attenuated and they very often can be used interchangeably. Nevertheless, must is recommended for an extremely important or urgent obligation, while have to should be used for a habitual/regular action: I must be at the airport in half an hour to catch the 6:30 plane. I have to take the pills twice a day. Since must can also be used in sentences where the TR is future, mention should be made of the fact that shall/will have to can imply annoyance with the necessity or obligation of the action they express: We shall have to do it ourselves since no one is here to help. They will have to listen to him unless they want him to take their firm to court.

SHALL/WILL HAVE TO are very common: - where words like probably/perhaps are used to refer to future time: Ill probably have to get it done by next week. Perhaps well have to study in the library to find all the books on the reference list. - when future habitual obligation is expressed: When I start work, Ill have to get up early to catch the morning train. - when annoyance/reluctance/unpleasant necessity is indicated: Since nobody cared to buy some sugar, Ill have to drink my tea with no sugar in it. All I wanted was to go to the disco tonight, but for all I see, Ill have to stay at home and wait for your call. Absence of (external/habitual) obligation in the present, future and past can be expressed by neednt/dont/doesnt need to, shall/will not have /need to, didnt have/need to, to show that an action which was/is thought to be necessary became/becomes unnecessary and so, presumably, did/does/will not occur: I didnt have/need to write her a letter; I simply emailed the invitation. She neednt be/doesnt need/have to be so defensive; no one here accuses her of anything. For all I know, you wont need/have to pay for anything; everything has been taken care of. *neednt + perf. infinitive is used exclusively to refer to something which took place in the past although unnecessarily. 38

**must usually remains must after reporting verbs in the past when it expresses permanent rules/prohibition or logical deduction: She said she must observe the internal regulations, otherwise she would be fired (cf. She said she had to do it no matter what reporting I must do it no matter what).The captain said all the passengers must stay on deck. MUST/vs/OUGHT TO must expresses imperative obligation or logical necessity, whereas ought to indicates moral obligation derived from a sense of duty or conscience, desirability, or logical but not certain conclusion: You must organize work so as not to let machinery run idle. It is late and I ought to go home (but maybe I wont). For the conditional mood, ought to and should are usually used, followed by the present/perfect infinitive: You ought to/should talk to her. He ought to/should have listened to me.

OTHER ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS * MUST = be (bound) to, be essential/necessary for somebody to, be obligatory to, be obliged to, be required to, be compelled to ** MUST NOT = be not to, not be allowed to, be forbidden to *** The concept of obligation can also be expressed with shall (in the 2nd and 3rd persons), chiefly in regulations or legal documents, ought to/should (as mentioned above). **** The concept of prohibition can also be expressed with shall not (in the 2nd and 3rd persons), may not (usually in official notices), cannot (not allowed/permitted to), should not/ought not to (advice and disapproval), the imperative mood, NO ING! (brief announcements). 4.6.4. EXERCISES MEANINGS AND USES OF MUST Write five notices to express regulations (past, present and future). Build 10 sentences to express deduction (past or present). Make 5 sentences to underline the difference between DIDNT NEED TO and NEEDNT HAVE + -EN. Build 6 sentences to express future necessity/habitual future obligation/unpleasant necessity with SHALL/WILL HAVE TO. The subjects obligation may also derive from the necessity to fulfill a condition which will make the event possible. Respond to the following statements: I want to get there in half an hour (run quickly). She wants to talk to him (be formally introduced). We want to participate in the conference (send a 60-word abstract). I want to make it up to you (take me out for dinner). They want to prepare for the debate (have some for and against arguments). 39

Ask questions to the words or phrases italicized; use MUST or NEED (remember to avoid question words + NEED, and that with NEED you expect a negative answer, it being used where there is a strong element of negation or doubt: e.g. Need she come tomorrow? hoping for a negative answer; Must she come tomorrow? open question): She must arrive at the airport before 8:30. You must work if you want to make progress. He must fly if he doesnt want to be late for his first date. You mustnt do everything by yourself; share the responsibilities. Lucy is going to telephone. Jim is expecting her. (yes/no question) Fill in the blanks with DO (I)?, (I) DONT NEED (TO) and, respectively, NEED (I)?, (I) NEEDNT, taking into account that usually the DO forms express habitual actions in literary language, while the latter are preferred for a particular occasion in spoken English: e.g. Do I need (to) go (to) visit him every Sunday? Need I show you my identity papers? I thought you know me already. You renew your entrance card every month. you write that seemingly long letter right now? He do that every day; every other day is quite enough. you change your clothes whenever he stops by? I listen to all this? You Shake hands with him whenever you meet him. You hurry. I wake him up because he is used to getting up early in the morning. *Add some more examples. Fill in the blanks with must, need or have to: I put my fur coat on? No, you , if it isnt too cold for you. You shout. I can hear you all right. I meet them at the station? Yes, you ; they dont know how to get here. I finish the experiments now? Yes, you ; I the results this very afternoon. You will cook your own meals when you move to Bucharest, but youwash the linen yourself, you can take it to the laundry. You light your cigarette in a petrol station. Translate and comment on the meaning: Anul acesta am ore dimineata; in fiecare zi trebuie sa fiu la facultate la ora 11:30. Trebuie sa semnam actele maine dimineata si, apoi, sa participam la conferinta de presa. Trebuie ca a fost foarte suparat de faptul ca nu ai fost suficient de rezonabil in luarea deciziei. Trebuie sa plec imediat daca vreau sa ii ajung din urma. Va trebui sa-l determin sa isi ia pastilele la timp daca vrea sa se faca bine. Crezi ca va trebui sa merg si eu cu tine? Trebuie sa-ti marturisesc ca nu-mi face nici o placere. Mai este nevoie sa-ti spun ca nu ai voie sa pleci daca nu iti reinnoiesti pasaportul? Ar trebui sa-ti vezi de treburile tale daca nu vrei sa fii ocolit de toata lumea. Nu era nevoie sa cheltuiesti atat de mult pe haine; ai un dulap plin. N-a fost nevoie sa ii traduc ce se vorbeste; spre surprinderea mea, vorbea romana foarte bine. Mark poate sa vina in orice moment; ar fi trebuit sa fie acasa deja. Copiii sub saisprezece ani nu pot participa la aceste curse de masini. Pasagerii zborului 203 se vor prezenta la punctul de control imediat dupa aterizare. Probabil ca se simte bine cu vechii ei prieteni daca nu simte nevoia sa-si faca altii noi. Nu se poate sa se intoarca azi daca s-a oprit in Sibiu. De ce a 40

trebuit sa va duceti acolo? Stiati ca nu era nevoie ba, mai mult, nu aveati voie s-o faceti. A spus ca a facut ce trebuia sa faca. Va trebui sa astepti aici pana se intoarce secretara; cineva trebuie sa raspunda la telefon.

41

4.7. SHALL
Forms: Shall for present tense, all persons, should for past tense, conditional and subjunctive moods, all persons. Functions: Shall +infinitive can be an auxiliary or a modal verb: as an auxiliary, it is used in the 1st person to indicate simple futurity, unstressed intention or normal expectation, and in the 2nd and 3rd persons to express determination, promise, command, compulsion (whereas will is considered to be used in the opposite way: to express simple futurity in the 2nd and 3rd persons, and one of the above conditions in the 1st person). *Nevertheless, in general usage, the rules are much more relaxed and frequent deviations can be noticed. Will appears to have gained ground at the expense of shall: Tomorrow I shall start working on my doctoral thesis. Next September I shall have been a teacher for 22 years. as a modal verb, it occurs in the epistemic and the deontic meaning. 4.7.1. EPISTEMIC SHALL By expressing simple futurity or prediction (as we have seen it does), with epistemic shall the speaker makes a present inference with a high degree of probability or expresses uncertainty about a potential case in relative clauses: He shall be mad about that. Ann shall be a student next fall. Permission to join the society will be granted only to persons who shall observe its regulations. Epistemically, shall also occurs in hypothetical condition or concession clauses: If you shall ever decide you want to do it, just let me know. Whoever shall come, we have to welcome him. Alternating in use with recurrency will, shall is felt as somehow obsolete: A self-centred, selfish person shall see no reason to worry about the sick and the poor. 4.7.2. DEONTIC SHALL The type of modality called deontic is based on the idea of will; will triggers action which is performed either by the speaker or by others. The latter has 2nd person subjects and is the most productive paradigm. Consequently, a distinction is made between internal volition, presupposing the coincidence of the person who wants something with the syntactic subject of the sentence, and external volition, implying a different person from the one who is the subject of the sentence. In its deontic use, shall expresses constraint, necessity or obligation imposed by the speaker. Internal volition, with the speaker as both origin and goal of the constraint, expressing his determination to perform a certain action (1st person resolutions with shall seem to be the result of deliberation or deeply rooted feeling, whereas with will they are sensed to be formed under the impression of the moment):

42

I shall not give up my beliefs, not even for you. You can give him the loan and he shall pay you back in due time (I guarantee that, I make myself responsible for). External volition: with 2nd and 3rd person subjects, shall represents the speaker as determined to bring something about or prevent it: - in the 1st person, interrogative, it points to the interlocutors volition: Lets go now, shall we? What shall we do now? Shall I get you a cup of tea or something? - in the official style (rules, regulations, laws), expressing an intention of punishment: The penalty shall not exceed three years in prison. We shall not hear any of your nonsense. Any one of you who shall break the rule shall be sanctioned accordingly. - a threat in the 2nd/3rd person: He shall face us and shall hear what we have to say. They shall pay dearly for what they did. - a promise or assurance: You shant be sent to another unit. You shall have my full support. - after words expressing request, necessity, determination: Its for them to decide who shall come. We strongly request that no one shall leave the town without letting us know. - a command/commandment: You shall tell the truth! You shall not leave the room unless asked to do so. (prophetic shall) You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind! (Mathew 22:37) - prohibitions (=must not): You shall not block the negotiations! You shall not talk to anybody! - to express the idea of destiny or an obligation independent of human will: What will be shall/will be. - logical necessity: Who will spend more than he should, shall not spend when he would. We shall take responsibility (=must).

4.8. SHOULD
To analyse should as the past form of shall is to reduce to a minimum the large variety of shades of meaning and functions that characterizes it. Functions: Should can be an auxiliary or a modal verb: 1. as an auxiliary, should is used to form: a. future in the past and future perfect in the past, 1st person sg./pl.: I knew I should talk to him. We hoped we should have been back by six. b. conditional mood, 1st person sg./pl: I should go visit her if I were you. I should have told him hadnt I been so shy. c. subjunctive equivalent: Its vital that they should know about that. I avoided her eyes lest she should feel embarrassed. If he should make a decision, Ill let you know. That they should have known about it and not utter

43

a word! How should I have imagined you would be so nuts. 2. as a modal verb, should is used with its epistemic or with its deontic meaning.

44

4.8.1. EPISTEMIC SHOULD With this meaning, it appears in sentences where the speaker expresses an inference, anticipating a probable occurrence, an expectation. This should is weaker than epistemic must. However, there is some contrast in distribution, with should the speaker making a deductive inference, unlike with must, which is apparently based on inductive inference: You must be out of your mind to do something like that /vs/ If they did something like that, then they should be out of their mind. He must be sleeping like a log not to hear the phone ringing /vs/ He should be out if he didnt hear the phone ringing. When compared with inference will, should is felt to be slightly less confident: If we go out on such a rainy weather, we will get wet through. Lets do it tomorrow, when the weather will/should be nicer. Should is used as a past counterpart of both futurity and modal shall. It is used in emotional utterances to state that the situation previously thought about, expected or not expected, has caused an emotional reaction of doubt, uncertainty, disbelief, approval or disapproval: It is unbelievable that he should turn/have turned up again after what he did. Its hardly likely that he should leave/have left without a word. I do not expect that he should ever grow up. *Notice that should occurs in the that-clause while the main one contains an emotional predicate which may be expressed by a verb, an adjective or a related noun: surprise, please, annoy, amaze; curious, natural, lucky, strange, improbable, unconceivable, etc. In such subjective that-clauses, should indicates a conflict between reality and what the speaker had believed/expected. In emotional questions, expressing surprise, indignation, joy: (Isnt it) surprising that they should be back so soon from their honeymoon?! (Isnt it) marvelous that everybody should have come to this celebration! How should I know about it? No one told me anything! What should he come here for? Who should that marvelous woman be? Why should she have destroyed the evidence? I opened the envelope and what should I find but her picture? 4.8.2. DEONTIC SHOULD Should can express several deontic nuances, the strong implication of obligation or necessity in shall/must/have to being less forceful. Should is used performatively when the speaker imposes the obligation (sometimes prescribed by the moral code or social norms: duty, civility, propriety, what is thought as good, correct, right, just, sensible, reasonable, etc. and, therefore, advisable) and non-performatively when he only reports its existence: (I think) you should leave now. They shouldnt allow children to play unsupervised; its too dangerous. Close friends should stand by each other. When followed by the perfect infinitive of the complement verb, should indicates that a past duty or sensible activity was not performed, which causes criticism on the part of the speaker; shouldnt expresses the obligation not to have performed a certain activity: I should have stopped him from doing it. You shouldnt have been so unsympathetic. 45

As a subjunctive equivalent, deontic should occurs in that-clauses after predicates expressing a constraint derived from someones volition, wish, desire; it is used after: Adjectives: imperative, important, necessary, essential, vital, (un)desirable, (un)wise, better, right, etc.; Verbs: desire, propose, suggest, insist, recommend, request, require. Command, urge, etc.; Nouns: wish, desire, etc. It is recommended that all applicants should read the instructions before filling in the forms. I insist that we should talk it through before letting them know. It is your fathers last wish that you should marry Jane. He urged that the conference should be held in Romania. *Notice that the American subjunctive is should-less: It is necessary that you be there in time. Should also appears in clauses of consequence introduced by that: Who are you that you should judge another? What has she done that we should treat her like that? Should is sometimes used in purpose clauses (as an alternative of could/would) and in expressions of fear/anxiety after lest/in case: He spoke in a loud voice so that the audience should/could/would hear him. We tiptoed for fear/lest he should hear us. 4.8.3. SHOULD IN INDIRECT SPEECH ACTS Suggestions and hints: Should I warn him about it? Shouldnt you be there already? Offers and invitations: Should I get you something to eat? Should we dine out tonight? Requests for instructions, advice, orders: Should I mix the ingredients now or after they have been kept in the fridge? Should I take the pills between meals? Recommendations, advice (notice that with had better the advice is immediate, whereas with should it is more general): You should give up coffee if you know your blood pressure is too high. Disapproval, reprimand: You shouldnt use such foul words. Expressions of disbelief or surprise: How strange that they should meet again after twenty years. Expressions of doubt, uncertainty, perplexity: Could it be true that she should have been hiding for such a long time? 4.8.4. EXERCISES Meanings and Uses of SHALL/SHOULD 1. Name the various concepts expressed by shall in the following sentences; add your examples: We shall arrive tomorrow by the 3 p.m. train. Shall we be back in time for tea? He said I was not to go, but I certainly shall. He says he wont go, but I 46

say he shall. Shall the boy wait? Ships shall not sail out of the harbour without carrying three lights. Old traditions and customs shall not die! Who shall describe their surprise? You shant have any of these! You shall pay for everything you did to her! If he comes I shall speak to him. All the scientific papers shall be completed by the end of the semester. Whatever he shall do, we have to stand by him. You shall love and comfort and cherish him till death tears you apart. Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal. Who will marry in haste shall repent at leisure. This book is sold condition that it shall not be lent, resold or hired out without the publishers consent. What shall I tell him now? 2. Name the various concepts expressed by should in the following sentences; add your examples: I shouldnt have believed it if I hadnt seen it with my own eyes. How about your boyfriend? Shouldnt he be here with you? Why should you be different from the rest of them? How should I know that if no one tells me anything? Its very strange that he should have asked you to move in with him because I know he is married. You should mind your own business instead of sticking your nose where it doesnt belong. The match should be over by now, so I think they will soon be home; we should have dinner after all. Should it be wet, I should stay at home. Who is he that he should order people round? Should I talk to him and explain your situation? Can it be true that she should have left her husband and children for her tennis coach? The guests should be coming any minute now. They shouldnt have phoned because we were expecting them anyway. 3. Translate, do not forget to use the two modals and name the concepts expressed by them: Venim maine cu trenul de 5:30. Ce sa fac ca sa-i fiu pe plac? Sa inteleg ca proiectul nostrum nu te atrage? Iti spun eu ca am sa bat recordul la viteza maine. Are s-o faca daca ii spun eu. Acest regulament ramane in vigoare pana in septembrie. Daca te incapatanezi sa lasi ocaziile sa treaca pe langa tine, vei avea doar de pierdut. Accidentele se intampla. Permisiunea de a parasi cladirea se va acorda doar persoanelor care au buletinul asupra lor. Oricine ar veni in seara asta, spune-i ca nu sunt in dispozitie de oaspeti. O persoana aroganta ca el nu va avea nicicand aproape de inima interesul public. De unde sa stiu eu ce avea el sa faca dupa ce s-a intalnit cu tine? Daca a spus asa ceva, trebuie ca are toate datele. Stiam ca il voi revedea intr-o zi. L-a amenintat ca nu va capata nici o zi libera daca nu munceste cu tragere de inima. De ce-ai fi nemultumit de viata pe care o duci? E de necrezut ca a publicat articolul fara acordul persoanei intervievate. E absolut firesc ca el sa nu nege ce a facut. Daca s-ar intampla sa dau peste articolul de care ai nevoie, am sa te anunt. Nu e minunat ca sunteti impreuna si puteti sa sarbatoriti nunta fiului vostru! Ce-a facut ca sa-l tratezi cum ai facut-o? 4. Make sentences and use shall and should as part of a subjunctive equivalent. 5. Use shall and should in indirect speech acts.

47

4.8. WILL
To discuss the meanings and uses of will and shall is an extremely difficult task because they are used with many shades of meaning and their three major functions (expressing an inference, indicating futurity, and signaling a constraint) are often blended and hard to distinguish one from the other. Any attempt at a methodical treatment of the problems involved is still open to exception and fail to give satisfaction. The English future is said to be one of the most controversial and illunderstood linguistic phenomena. Jespersen concluded: English has no real future tense (1971: 40). Elena Bara furthers this statement bringing such arguments as: In addition to the traditional shall/will future tense, there are other expressions available in English for future reference such as the present tense forms (simple and progressive) as well the so-called periphrastic futures: be to, be about to, be going to, etc In an attempt to locate the position of will on the scale [the epistemic scale on which the hierarchy of modals ranges from doubt to certainty] and to account for its multiple functions, some linguists (R. Lakoff, L. Horn) have suggested that semantically will is at the borderline joining the modals and the tenses; it indicates something less than 100 per cent certainty (Bara 1979: 167) She adds that the true future in English, if there has to be one, is the shall/will-less form, as it indicates that the speaker has reasons to be certain that the event will occur, whether because it was scheduled or because he has control over it; will here might be viewed as dubitative Moreover, she considers that our knowledge of the future is nothing more than our understanding and attitude towards the modalities of the present. Consequently, many studies adopt the view that will and shall are not mere future-tense signals but genuine modals which may also be used for futuretime reference. Palmer, following Jespersen, distinguishes four uses of will which he deals with under the separate heading of: volition; power; habit; epistemic. Ioana Stefanescu in English Morphology, vol. II, part II, The Nominal and Verbal Categories, discusses Palmers analysis of will with the declared intention of reducing the explanation of the four identified uses to one core sense. The different interpretations will be contextual extensions of the respective core sense. 4.9.1. VOLITION/DEONTIC WILL In its deontic use, will indicates the existence of a constraint on the subject, the origin of which is, as a rule, the speakers will but it may also be other authority, or rules, regulations, etc. The following example is an instance when the source of constraint is the subjects determination or obstinate insistence: If you will act like a fool, dont count on me to help . 48

Will may denote various degrees of volition: a) a weak degree of volition (vague willingness, unpremeditated intention, simple futurity), often contracted to ll: Someones ringing. Ill get it. Youll understand my doubts and reservations, Mr. Johnson. What do you think about that? Well, Ill tell you. I dont think itll work. Ill see you (soon, later, tomorrow, etc.) Ill be hanged if I know. b) willingness or readiness or the reverse (sometimes unwillingness with inanimate subjects always in the negative): I will do whatever I can to help her. I will buy the house if you think it is worth. (sunt gata sa) I tried everything, but the car wont start. Note that there are many phrases to express the notion of willingness or the reverse: be (un)willing/ready to, not to mind, refuse, decline, etc. c) determination and resolution, the strongest form of volition (intention to perform or bring about a state of affairs much desired by the speaker, but also a resolve to carry it out); in these cases will is uncontracted and uttered with strong stress: I will see her. Ill ask her to marry me. No one shall prevent me. In the negative form, non-volition is almost equivalent to refusal, as in: She loves him and she wont leave him. He will not be commanded. I wont stand such nonsense. Determination is also expressed by phrases like be determined, be bent on, set ones heart on, etc. *Note that will may also occur as a regular verb with the sense of want, desire, wish, in which case it can be used where future will cannot: I said: Why dont you go and see if he will let you stay? You may say what you will, I stand on my own rights. Remarks Deontic will with 1st person subjects conveys, according to the context, a promise or a threat. In questions, we should distinguish between: a) questions in the 1st person, especially in idiomatic English: Will you send it, my dear? Will I send it? Is that your wish? b) questions in the 2nd person, where will you is the equivalent of a request: Will you dine with us on Saturday?. Contextually, will you can be the mild form of an imperative like: Will you sit down for one moment? There are even politer ways of making a request, when further markers of politeness are used: Will you be good enough to? Will you kindly? Will you like to? In questions about the will of a 3rd person, will he is comparatively rare; the unambiguous does he want/wish/mean/intend? is generally preferred whenever will he might be mistaken for a question about the future. Volition will is frequently found in the 2nd and 3rd persons in conditional clauses after if/unless: What have you got to say to me? A great many things if you will come away somewhere where we can talk. If determination or intention is meant, want must be used in these conditional clauses: If you want to smoke, you must go into another carriage.

49

4.9.2. POWER WILL It is, according to Palmer and Jespersen, a little more than volition applied to inanimate objects, to indicate how such objects will characteristically behave (=inanimate ability can): I must warn you that the boat will hold only half of those who have taken tickets. Will the ice bear? *Remark that both the volition interpretation of will and power will are subject-oriented, i.e. the source of the will or power is seen as intrinsic to the subject of will. 4.9.3. EPISTEMIC WILL In this interpretation will is used relative to the system of rational laws and the evidence has direct bearing on the truth of the sentence; in such sentences will does not express futurity but is similar to the inferential use of must; yet, on the epistemic scale, will is further from certainty than must: This will be the tower of London I suppose. He is waiting for us downstairs; he will be wandering where we are. He will probably hunt her down for what she did to him. Antinucci and Parisi claim that will is neutral with respect to time distinction. If the speaker wants to make a prediction, he will make use of a time marker (time adverbial, the progressive aspect, etc.). Actually, there are sentences containing epistemic will which are ambiguous between the two readings (inference or prediction); the reader interprets them as inferences about the present or predictions about the future according to the time location he assigns to the state of affairs: He will tell the truth a) why dont you talk to him? = present b) by the time the news break out. = future. If the inference concerns a past time sphere, then will+perfect infinitive is used: You will have received the book by this time. Perhaps you will have heard the news, as everybody is talking of it. This interpretation is suited to scientific and quasi-scientific statements: If litmus paper is dipped into acid it will turn red. *Note that we have distinguished at least three types of inferences in the sentences above: inference regarding a future state of affairs, based on past knowledge and experience: Hell be forty-four next week. The Dean will make a decision tomorrow. Notice that if the inference refers to an action/state that will be completed at or before a future time, will is followed by a perfect infinitive (future perfect tense): Dont be so worried, Ill have been gone by the time they get here. inference concerning a present state of affairs, traditionally referred to as the will of assumption/putative future (which, in fact, does not

50

concern the future at all): Shell be there by now. Youll be wishing to say something (oi fi vrand/vrei probabil sa spui si tu ceva). Notice that the present inference may concern a past circumstance in which case will is followed by a perfect infinitive: Well, its hard to talk about it, but you will have heard about her divorce by now. inference concerning a regular, habitual state of affairs, traditionally described as recurrent will. According to Poutsma (1936), will can be used to state that, given certain (empirical) circumstances, a situation regularly, frequently or occasionally takes place or manifests itself as the consequence of a natural tendency in a person or object. This will generally occurs in statements about what has been observed at all times and the subject is usually a (pro)noun in the 3rd person: Boys will be boys. A cat will often play with a mouse before she kills it. People will talk; theres no preventing it. Notice that will is often omitted in cases like those above, the present tense being used instead: She dressed up smartly as models do. Syntactic behaviour a) negation With subject-oriented will (boulomaic=volition, deontic) it is usually the modality that is negated: They wont give me a key to get into the building, so I cant work. Less frequently, however, in the boulomaic use, it is the event not the modality that is negated: I wont ask for details. This doesnt mean that I am unwilling or I refuse to, but that I am willing not to ask. With epistemic will it is the situation that is negated: He wont be rewarded. This wont be solved till next week. b) interrogation With subject-oriented will it is possible to question the modality: Will John come? As already shown with 2nd person subjects, will is usually interpreted as subject-oriented and, so, suggesting request. Thus Will you come to the party tonight? would almost always be treated as an invitation and not as a request for invitation. c) past time reference With subject-oriented will, the past tense corresponding form would is not used if there is an accomplished interpretation for the event referred to in the sentence, but wouldnt is normal if the accomplishment did not take place: I asked him but he wouldnt come. I asked him and he would come is not acceptable. For past accomplishment be willing to is, according to Palmer, the most likely candidate: I asked him and he was willing to come. The habitual use has the corresponding past form would/used to (only as a stative verb): She would/used to live in that house whenever she came/in those days.

4.10. WOULD
51

Would is traditionally regarded as the past tense form of will, but more recent studies consider it a modal verb in its own right, with epistemic and deontic values. The apparent past tense morpheme may signal, besides past time (in reported speech), tentativeness, hypothesis, counterfactuality. 4.10.1. WOULD FOR PAST TIME REFERENCE 1. The past marked would may be the past equivalent of epistemic will in reported or past time-sphere statements, indicating: a) a prediction about the future made from a past moment: He said he would be late for work but we insisted he should stay a little longer. She promised she would come by the next day. Remember that this construction is called future-in-the-past b) an inference whose time-sphere coincides with the past time-sphere of the state of affairs described: I was ready to leave as I knew my friends would be waiting for me at the restaurant. Note that when the inference refers to a circumstance prior to the past timesphere of the inference, would is followed by a perfect infinitive: I knew that the article had been published two months before, so she would have read it. c) an inference concerning a regular, habitual action/state (reported general statements about a natural tendency/inclination in a person or thing): He knew that boys would/will often feel the need to show off when they liked a girl. He claimed that those shoes would last a lifetime. Her face would/used to always brighten when he entered the room. Would may also be the past counterpart of deontic will to denote: a) an intention (unpremeditated intention, often contracted to d): He heard someone crying and said hed go and see who it was. b) willingness, readiness or the reverse: Pressed by the public opinion, he said he would marry her right away if she would have him. She said she wouldnt come with me as she had nothing new to wear. *Note that a sentence such as I will help you is reported in the past as I wanted/offered/promised/was willing to help him. c) determination and resolution, but also obstinate insistence or resistance with inanimate subjects (uncontracted and with strong stress): She resolved she would regain her self-confidence no matter what. They would buy that terribly expensive car though we advised them not to. As hard as I might have tried, the engine wouldnt start. 4.10.2. WOULD FOR PRESENT TIME-SPHERE Would is often used to indicate tentativeness, to state an opinion or a wish modestly, cautiously. This may be the reson why would is felt as more polite: This would appear to support his argument. Epistemic would expresses a weaker probability than will, a more tentative inference, but still belonging to the present time-sphere: This would be the critic who tormented the whole critical stage. (Acesta ar fi) Deontic would is also used to signal willingness/readiness/wish in a more tentative way (conditional sentences type II): I would do whatever it takes if he would ask me to. If he would be treated nicely, he must treat people nicely himself. 52

2.

*Notice the use of would after the verb wish and the expression if only to indicate a not very hopeful wish concerning the future: I wish/If only he would accept the offer since he hasnt been made a better one or the speakers regret that the subject is unwilling to do something he approves of, or persists in doing something the speaker disapprove: I wish/If only you would read more/you wouldnt keep drinking so much. **Special attention must be made of the occurrence of would in the phrases would rather/sooner to express the subjects wish/option/preference: Hed rather/sooner die than admit he was wrong. Id rather she didnt get the custody of the child. 4.10.3. WOULD AS AN IRREALIS MARKER The cases in which would indicates tentativeness, improbable wishes, etc. involve a certain remoteness/dissociation from reality. This is more obvious when would is a component of the traditionally called conditional mood, and signals: hypothetical result of a hypothetical condition: If we were/should not mention his name, he would be offended. hypothetical present/past result of a counterfactual situation: If he were here, I would gladly tell him everything. If it hadnt been for the rain, we would have been gone by now. 4.10.4. WOULD IN INDIRECT SPEECH ACTS Will and would are probably the most frequently used modals to perform all kinds of speech acts other than the direct ones performed with their literal meanings: offers and invitations: Will/Would you like to join us? Will/Wont/Would you step in for a second? requests: Will/Would you (please) show me the way to? Wont/Wouldnt you (please) call me a taxi? Would you mind not speaking so loud in here? requests for permission: Would you mind if I? Would it be all right if I? You wouldnt mind if I left earlier today, would you? orders or commands: They will be here tomorrow morning, 8 oclock sharp. Youd better turn off the TV and start studying. promises: I will buy everything on the shopping list, dont worry, dear. *Notice that the two modals appear in performative sentences as hedges on performative verbs: I will ask you to help me with. I will give you that you are the most insistent person Ive ever met. These appear to be statements of the speakers intention to perform a particular illocutionary act at some point in the future but, in fact, the intended actions are carried simultaneously. The role of will/would is to soften the direct speech act. Hedged performative sentences with would are appropriate when the speaker feels it would be reasonable to offer his/her opinion, whether asked or not: I would suggest some modifications on the proposal if you want it accepted. I would define this as revolting. Again, these appear to announce the speakers hypothetical wish/option/preference when, in fact, the actions 53

are performed simultaneously. The function of would here is once more to soften the possible unkindness or bluntness of the direct speech act.

54

4.10.5. WILL/ WOULD ROUNDUP WILL Functions: Will can be a main/full verb, an auxiliary verb or a modal one. 1. As a full verb, will can be defective or regular: a) defective verb: It shall be as you will. Say what he will, I still cant believe he got the job. b) regular verb, having forms for all persons, tenses and mood, followed by a to-infinitive when needed: = a vrea: Willing and being able to are not the same. (A voi nu este acelasi lucru cu a dori) You must will to get better. (Trebuie sa si vrei sa te faci bine) He who wills success is half way to it. (Cel care voieste cu adevarat sa izbandeasca a si izbandit pe jumatate) = a lasa prin testament: He willed his wife everything he owned. (A lasat prin testament sotiei tot ce avea) 2. As an auxiliary: a) to form the future and the perfect future (2nd and 3rd persons sg. and pl.): You will see her tomorrow. He will have learned the news by then. b) volition future (all persons): If thats what you want, Ill do it. I wont tell her that; I simply cant. We will see to it, dont worry. c) frequency will (all persons): On Sunday morning, they will go to church to pray for their mothers health. 3. As a modal verb: a) it preserves the idea of insistence even in cases when the notion of future is gone: She will drop things when people sleep. (Intotdeauna scapa lucrurile din mana cand lumea doarme) For all my advice you will have it your way. (Cu toate sfaturile mele, te incapatanezi sa faci cum vrei tu) b) it very often appears in sayings/proverbs: Boys will be boys. Accidents will happen. Blood will tell. (Sangele apa nu se face) c) it is used in an invitation or a polite request (2nd pers.), would being the even more polite choice: Will you come this way? Wont you sit down? Will/Would you pass the sugar (please)? d) it is used in conditional clauses to introduce a request: If you will listen to me, you will see Im right. If they will look after our children, well be able to paint the house ourselves. e) it expresses probability: This will be the address we are looking for for two hours. You will have met them. (probabil ca i-ati cunoscut) f) it signals present time-sphere: That will do/be enough. Oil will float because its lighter than the water. WOULD Functions: Would can be a main/full verb, an auxiliary verb or a modal one. 55

1. As a defective full verb, meaning a voi, a dori, a-i place (cuiva), it is used in the past tense, the future-in-the-past, the subjunctive, the conditional: She asked me to forget about the past, but I wouldnt. ( dar n-am vrut) They assured us it should be as we would. (Ne-au asigurat ca va fi asa cum vom dori) This is the place where I would spend the rest of my life. ( unde as vrea sa-mi petrec restul vietii) You look so miserable that I wouldnt be you. ( incat n-as vrea sa fiu in locul tau) Would it were true! (De-ar fi adevarat!) 2. As an auxiliary: a) to form the future-in-the-past and the future perfect-in-the-past (2nd and 3rd persons sg. and pl.): She promised she would call us as soon as she got back. By the time she told you about the case, I would have solved it. b) *Notice that all the cases we considered under will as an auxiliary b), c) and will as a modal are also valid for would; we might as well use the same examples in the past: I wouldnt tell her that; I simply couldnt. I asked her not to worry because we would see to it. On Sunday morning, they would go to church to pray for their mothers health. c) to form the conditional (2nd and 3rd persons sg. and pl.): You would give us a ring if you thought it was necessary. We would have given a quick reply if we had known all the details. d) Compare I should have paid for it. (As fi platit/Ar fi trebuit sa platesc) with I would have paid. (As fi platit=Aveam intentia s-o fac); also compare You should have told me. (Ar fi trebuit sa-mi spui) with You would have told me. (Mi-ai fi spus=Aveai intentia sa) 3. As a modal verb: a) to express offers or very polite requests b) it is used in conditional clauses to introduce a request: If you would coach me for my exam, I might get through this time. c) it expresses probability: I honestly dont know who that would be. He never spends money on books. No, he wouldnt. 4. *I would like - In traditional grammar, the verbs to like, to care (=to want), to prefer, to be glad, to be inclined, to find it hard etc., in the 1st person in conditional sentences, cannot have the auxiliary would, because the expression is pleonastic; instead, should should be used. Nevertheless, in colloquial style, I would like/prefer are currently used. 5. final clauses often contain should or would: She tiptoed so that she should bother nobody. I told her to wait for you at the station so that you wouldnt feel neglected.

56