АБДУЛЛА АВЛОНИЙ НОМИДАГИ

КАДРЛАРНИ ҚАЙТА ТАЙЁРЛАШ ВА МАЛАКАСИНИ ОШИРИШ ИНСТИТУТИ

Мавзу: Инглиз тилида модал феъллар

БИТИРУВ ИШИ

Бажарди: Фамилия ва исм

Илмий раҳбар: фамилия ва исм

ТОШКЕНТ 2012

The institute of Retraining and qualification of the specialists named after Abdulla Avloniy

Theme: Modal verbs in English

GRADUATION PAPER

Submitted by: Familiya va ism

Scientific advisor: Familiya va ism

TASHKENT 2012

Сontent

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………….3

Chapter I. Functions of the modal verbs and their characteristics in the English language 1. Functions and types of the modal verbs……………………………. 2. Understanding the functions of modal verbs in English……………. 1.3. Morphology and syntax of modal verbs………………………………… Chapter II. Methods of teaching modal verbs to schoolchildren

2.1. The difficulties in teaching modal verbs

2.2 Different types of utilization of the English modal verbs 2.3. Context use of the modal verbs 2.4. Range of forms of the modal verbs in English
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………
The list of used literature………………………………………………………

Conclusion…………………………………………………………………….......??

The list of the used literature…………………………..................................??

Introduction Modal verbs are the types of verbs which gives specific meaning to the main verb added and it is used to define and describe different situations expressed in the sentence. There are different types of modal verbs which can be conjugated in personals and in tenses. For example, the modal verb of possibility and ability “can” is used in present and past tenses as “could”, or the modal verb “have to “ is conjugated in the third personnel as “has to” and etc. They also have negative and interrogative forms.

Our investigation is based on the internet materials, different books of English grammar and dictionaries.

The object of our investigation is modal verbs and their use in changes in tenses, different personnels and negative, interrogative forms of questions. The subject of study is the sentences in which the modal verb occupies the main meaning and can change the context. The aims of the paper are the following: 1. to systematize the modal verbs on the lexical, grammatical principle; 2. to describe the use of modal verbs in both informal and formal speech; 3. to investigate meaning, structure and other uses of the modal verbs; 4. to investigate stylistic and influential factors of the modal verbs. To achieve these aims we set the following tasks: 1. to observe the process of changes in meaning while using different modal verbs one after another; 2. to define theoretical grounds of the modal verbs and their changed forms in terms of the tenses and the personnel change; 3. to describe the correct use of the modal verbs according to context and lexical as well as grammar rules; 4. to examine the procedure of the modal verbs conjugation and formation. 5. To identify the best methods to teach use of the modal verbs; The novelty of our investigation lies in the new approach of the cognition of the best methods of teaching the modal verbs. Because as we know there are many confusing situations while teaching the modals with close meaning such as “be able to “ and “can” or “have to “ and “must”. The actuality of the paper is defined by the necessity to study the nature, formation and influence on context and methods of teaching the modal and auxiliary verbs. The practical value of the paper consists of the application of the results of the investigation in the course of theoretical grammar, practical English lessons, text interpretation, theory and practice of grammar, methodology of teaching foreign languages. The following methods have been applied: 1. descriptive; 2. comparative analysis of the modal verbs in other languages; 3. analysis of the verbs used with the auxiliary verbs together. The materials of our study are: 2. Russian – English dictionaries (in the chapter II) 3. examples from the speech while using the modal and the main verbs to describe the situation. Our main hypothesis is that the modal verbs have each equivalent which will really confuse the speakers and the learners of the English language. Because each modal verb with an equivalent requires deep approach and analysis before learning how to use them. That was the main problem we have tried to solve in our research here. The first chapter presents theoretical backgrounds and functions of these modal and auxiliary verbs in the English language. The second chapter contains comments and practical judgments about structure, use and different forms of modal verbs in English. In the final conclusion part the main ideas, key notions and final results of practical analysis are illustrated obviously. The list of literature may introduce with the manuals, sources and web sites utilized during the investigation process of the peculiar issue. Our hypothesis was justified. It is really a universal means of the cognition of the objective global world. With modal verbs we connect very positive emotions that make our life easier and happier.

Chapter I. Functions of the modal verbs and their characteristics in the English language 1. Functions and types of the modal verbs
A modal verb (also modal, modal auxiliary verb, modal auxiliary) is a type of auxiliary verb that is used to indicate modality – that is, likelihood, ability, permission, and obligation.[1] Examples include the English verbs can/could, may/might, must, will/would, and shall/should.
In English and other Germanic languages, modal verbs are often distinguished as a class based on certain grammatical properties.
A modal auxiliary verb gives more information about the function of the main verb that it governs. Modals have a wide variety of communicative functions, but these functions can generally be related to a scale ranging from possibility ("may") to necessity ("must"), in terms of one of the following types of modality: • epistemic modality, concerned with the theoretical possibility of propositions being true or not true (including likelihood and certainty) • deontic modality, concerned with possibility and necessity in terms of freedom to act (including permission and duty) • dynamic modality,[2] which may be distinguished from deontic modality, in that with dynamic modality, the conditioning factors are internal – the subject's own ability or willingness to act[3]
The following sentences illustrate epistemic and deontic uses of the English modal verb must: • epistemic: You must be starving. ("It is necessarily the case that you are starving.") • deontic: You must leave now. ("You are required to leave now.")
An ambiguous case is You must speak Spanish. This may be intended epistemically ("It is surely the case that you speak Spanish", e.g. after having lived in Spain for a long time), or deontically ("It is a requirement that you speak Spanish", e.g. if you want to get a job in Spain).
Epistemic modals can be analyzed as raising verbs, while deontic modals can be analyzed as control verbs.
Epistemic usages of modals tend to develop from deontic usages.[4] For example, the inferred certainty sense of English must developed after the strong obligation sense; the probabilistic sense of should developed after the weak obligation sense; and the possibility senses of may and can developed later than the permission or ability sense. Two typical sequences of evolution of modal meanings are: • internal mental ability → internal ability → root possibility (internal or external ability) → permission and epistemic possibility • obligation → probability

2. Understanding the functions of modal verbs in English
The following table lists the modal auxiliary verbs of standard English. Most of them appear more than once based upon the distinction between deontic and epistemic modality:
|Modal auxiliary |meaning contribution |Example |
|can1 |deontic/dynamic modality |She can really sing. |
|can2 |epistemic modality |That can indeed help. |
|could1 |deontic modality |He could swim when he was young. |
|could2 |epistemic modality |That could happen soon. |
|may1 |deontic modality |May I stay? |
|may2 |epistemic modality |That may be a problem. |
|Might |epistemic modality |The weather might improve. |
|must1 |deontic modality |Sam must go to school. |
|must2 |epistemic modality |It must be hot outside. |
|Shall |deontic modality |You shall not pass. |
|should1 |deontic modality |You should stop that. |
|should2 |epistemic modality |That should be surprising. |
|Will |epistemic modality |She will try to lie. |
|Would |epistemic modality |Nothing would accomplish that. |

The verbs in this list all have the following characteristics: 1. They are auxiliary verbs, which means they allow subject-auxiliary inversion and can take the negation not, 2. They convey functional meaning, 3. They are defective in so far as they cannot be inflected, nor do they appear in non-finite form (i.e. not as infinitives, gerunds, or participles), 4. They are nevertheless always finite and thus appear as the root verb in their clause, and 5. They subcategorize for an infinitive, i.e. they take an infinitive as their complement
The verbs/expressions dare, ought to, had better, and need not behave like modal auxiliaries to a large extent, although they are not productive in the role to the same extent as those listed here. Furthermore, there are numerous other verbs that can be viewed as modal verbs insofar as they clearly express modality in the same way that the verbs in this list do, e.g. appear, have to, seem, etc. In the strict sense, though, these other verbs do not qualify as modal verbs in English because they do not allow subject-auxiliary inversion, nor do they allow negation with not. If, however, one defines modal verb entirely in terms of meaning contribution, then these other verbs would also be modals and so the list here would have to be greatly expanded.
Modals in English form a very distinctive class of verbs. They are auxiliary verbs like be, do, and have, but they are defective insofar as they cannot be inflected like these other auxiliary verbs, e.g. have → has vs. should → *shoulds, do → did vs. may → *mayed, etc. In clauses that contain two or more verbs, any modal that is present appears as the left-most verb in the verb catena (= chain of verbs). What this means is that the modal verb is always finite (although it is, as stated, never inflected). In the syntactic structure of the clause, the modal verb is the clause root. The following dependency grammar trees illustrate the point. The modal auxiliary in both trees is the root of the entire sentence. The verb that is immediately subordinate to the modal is always an infinitive. The fact that modal auxiliaries in English are necessarily finite means that within the minimal finite clause that contains them, they can never be subordinate to another verb, e.g. a. Sam may have done his homework. - The modal auxiliary may is the root of the clause. b. *Sam has may done his homework. - The sentence fails because the modal auxiliary may is not the root of the clause. a. Jim will be helped. - The modal auxiliary will is the root of the clause. b. *Jim is will be helped. - The sentence fails because the modal auxiliary will is not the root of the clause.
This trait of modal auxiliaries has motivated the designation defective, that is, modal auxiliaries are defective in English because they are so limited in their form and distribution. One can note further in this area that English modal auxiliaries are quite unlike modal verbs in closely related languages. In German, for instance, modals can occur as non-finite verbs, which means they can be subordinate to other verbs in verb catenae; they need not appear as the clause root.
The table below lists some modal verbs with common roots in English, German, Dutch, West Frisian and Afrikaans. English modal auxiliary verb provides an exhaustive list of modal verbs in English, and German verb Modal verbs provides a list for German, with translations. Dutch verbs Irregular verbs gives conjugations for some Dutch modals.
Words in the same row of the table below share the same etymological root. Because of semantic drift, however, words in the same row may no longer be proper translations of each other. In addition, the English and German verbs will are completely different in meaning, and the German one has nothing to do with constructing the future tense. These words are false friends.
In English and Afrikaans, the plural and singular forms are identified as follows:
l. For German, Dutch, and West Frisian, both the plural and singular form of the verb are shown.
'Etymological relatives (not translations)Etymological relatives (not translations)
| |
|English |German |Dutch |West Frisian |Afrikaans |
|can |können, kann |kunnen, kan |kinne, kin |Kan |
|shall |sollen, soll |zullen, zal |sille, sil |Sal |
|will |wollen, will |willen, wil |wolle, wol |Wil |
|must |müssen, muss |moeten, moet |moatte, moat |Moet |
|may |mögen, mag |mogen, mag |meie, mei |Mag |
|tharf[5] |dürfen, darf |durven, durf |doarre, doar |Durf |

The English could is the preterite form of can; should is the preterite of shall; and might is the preterite of may. (This is ignoring the use of "may" as a vestige of the subjunctive mood in English.) These verbs have acquired an independent, present tense meaning. The German verb möchten is sometimes taught as a vocabulary word and included in the list of modal verbs, but it is actually the past subjunctive form of mögen.
The English verbs dare and need have both a modal use (he dare not do it), and a non-modal use (he doesn't dare to do it). The Dutch, West Frisian, and Afrikaans verbs durven, doarre, and durf are not considered modals (but they are there, nevertheless) because their modal use has disappeared, but they have a non-modal use analogous with the English dare. Some English modals consist of more than one word, such as "had better" and "would rather".[6]
Owing to their modal characteristics, modal verbs are among a very select group of verbs in Afrikaans that have a preterite form. Most verbs in Afrikaans only have a present and a perfect form.
Some other English verbs express modality although they are not modal verbs because they are not auxiliaries, including want, wish, hope, and like. All of these differ from the modals in English (with the disputed exception of ought (to)) in that the associated main verb takes its long infinitive form with the particle to rather than its short form without to, and in that they are fully conjugated.
1.3. Morphology and syntax of modal verbs
Germanic modal verbs are preterite-present verbs, which means that their present tense has the form of a vocalic preterite. This is the source of the vowel alternation between singular and plural in German and Dutch. Because of their preterite origins, modal verbs also lack the suffix (-s in modern English, -t in German, Dutch, and West Frisian) that would normally mark the third person singular form. Afrikaans verbs do not conjugate, and thus Afrikaans non-modal verbs do not have a suffix either:
| |normal verb |modal verb |
|English |he works |he can |
|German |er arbeitet |er kann |
|Dutch |hij werkt |hij kan |
|West Frisian |hy wurket |hy kin |
|Afrikaans |hy werk |hy kan |

The main verb that is modified by the modal verb is in the infinitive form and is not preceded by the word to (German: zu, Dutch, West Frisian, and Afrikaans: om te). There are verbs that may seem somewhat similar in meaning to modal verbs (e.g. like, want), but the construction with such verbs would be different:
| |normal verb |modal verb |
|English |he tries to work |he can work |
|German |er versucht zu arbeiten |er kann arbeiten |
|Dutch |hij probeert te werken |hij kan werken |
|West Frisian |hy besiket te wurkjen |hy kin wurkje |
|Afrikaans |hy probeer om te werk |hy kan werk |

In English, main verbs but not modal verbs always require the auxiliary verb do to form negations and questions, and do can be used with main verbs to form emphatic affirmative statements. Neither negations nor questions in early modern English used to require do.
| |normal verb |modal verb |
|Affirmative |he works |he can work |
|Negation |he does not work |he cannot work |
|Emphatic |he does work hard |he can work hard |
|Question |does he work here? |can he work at all? |
|negation + question |does he not work here? |can he not work at all? |

(German, Afrikaans, and West Frisian never use "do" as an auxiliary verb for any function; Dutch uses "do" as an auxiliary, but only in colloquial speech)
In English, modal verbs are called defective verbs because of their incomplete conjugation: they have a narrower range of functions than ordinary verbs. For example, most have no infinitive or gerund.
Modal Auxiliaries
Other helping verbs, called modal auxiliaries or modals, such as can, could, may, might, must, ought to, shall, should, will, and would, do not change form for different subjects. For instance, try substituting any of these modal auxiliaries for can with any of the subjects listed below.
|I |can write well. |
|you (singular) | |
|he | |
|we | |
|you (plural) | |
|they | |
| | |

There is also a separate section on the Modal Auxiliaries, which divides these verbs into their various meanings of necessity, advice, ability, expectation, permission, possibility, etc., and provides sample sentences in various tenses. See the section on Conditional Verb Forms for help with the modal auxiliary would. The shades of meaning among modal auxiliaries are multifarious and complex. Most English-as-a-Second-Language textbooks will contain at least one chapter on their usage. For more advanced students, A University Grammar of English, by Randolph Quirk and Sidney Greenbaum, contains an excellent, extensive analysis of modal auxiliaries.
The analysis of Modal Auxiliaries is based on a similar analysis in The Scott, Foresman Handbook for Writers by Maxine Hairston and John J. Ruszkiewicz. 4th ed. HarperCollins: New York. 1996. The description of helping verbs on this page is based on The Little, Brown Handbook by H. Ramsay Fowler and Jane E. Aaron, & Kay Limburg. 6th ed. HarperCollins: New York. 1995. By permission of Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers Inc. Examples in all cases are our own.
|Uses of Can and Could |
|The modal auxiliary can is used |
|to express ability (in the sense of being able to do something or knowing how to do something): |
|He can speak Spanish but he can't write it very well. |
|to expression permission (in the sense of being allowed or permitted to do something): |
|Can I talk to my friends in the library waiting room? (Note that can is less formal than may. Also, some writers will object to the use of can in this |
|context.) |
|to express theoretical possibility: |
|American automobile makers can make better cars if they think there's a profit in it. |
|The modal auxiliary could is used |
|to express an ability in the past: |
|I could always beat you at tennis when we were kids. |
|to express past or future permission: |
|Could I bury my cat in your back yard? |
|to express present possibility: |
|We could always spend the afternoon just sitting around talking. |
|to express possibility or ability in contingent circumstances: |
|If he studied harder, he could pass this course. |
|In expressing ability, can and could frequently also imply willingness: Can you help me with my homework? |

|Can versus May |
|Whether the auxiliary verb can can be used to express permission or not — "Can I leave the room now?" ["I don't know if you can, but you may."] — depends|
|on the level of formality of your text or situation. As Theodore Bernstein puts it in The Careful Writer, "a writer who is attentive to the proprieties |
|will preserve the traditional distinction: can for ability or power to do something, may for permission to do it. |
|The question is at what level can you safely ignore the "proprieties." Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, tenth edition, says the battle is over and can can |
|be used in virtually any situation to express or ask for permission. Most authorities, however, recommend a stricter adherence to the distinction, at |
|least in formal situations. |
|Authority: The Careful Writer by Theodore Bernstein. The Free Press: New York. 1998. p. 87. |

|Uses of May and Might |
|Two of the more troublesome modal auxiliaries are may and might. When used in the context of granting or seeking permission, might is the past tense of |
|may. Might is considerably more tentative than may. |
|May I leave class early? |
|If I've finished all my work and I'm really quiet, might I leave early? |
|In the context of expressing possibility, may and might are interchangeable present and future forms and might + have + past participle is the past form:|
|She might be my advisor next semester. |
|She may be my advisor next semester. |
|She might have advised me not to take biology. |
|Avoid confusing the sense of possibility in may with the implication of might, that a hypothetical situation has not in fact occurred. For instance, |
|let's say there's been a helicopter crash at the airport. In his initial report, before all the facts are gathered, a newscaster could say that the pilot|
|"may have been injured." After we discover that the pilot is in fact all right, the newscaster can now say that the pilot "might have been injured" |
|because it is a hypothetical situation that has not occurred. Another example: a body had been identified after much work by a detective. It was reported|
|that "without this painstaking work, the body may have remained unidentified." Since the body was, in fact, identified, might is clearly called for. |

|Uses of Will and Would |
|In certain contexts, will and would are virtually interchangeable, but there are differences. Notice that the contracted form 'll is very frequently used|
|for will. |
|Will can be used to express willingness: |
|I'll wash the dishes if you dry. |
|We're going to the movies. Will you join us? |
|It can also express intention (especially in the first person): |
|I'll do my exercises later on. |
|and prediction: |
|specific: The meeting will be over soon. |
|timeless: Humidity will ruin my hairdo. |
|habitual: The river will overflow its banks every spring. |
|Would can also be used to express willingness: |
|Would you please take off your hat? |
|It can also express insistence (rather rare, and with a strong stress on the word "would"): |
|Now you've ruined everything. You would act that way. |
|and characteristic activity: |
|customary: After work, he would walk to his home in West Hartford. |
|typical (casual): She would cause the whole family to be late, every time. |
|In a main clause, would can express a hypothetical meaning: |
|My cocker spaniel would weigh a ton if I let her eat what she wants. |
|Finally, would can express a sense of probability: |
|I hear a whistle. That would be the five o'clock train. |

|Uses of Used to |
|The auxiliary verb construction used to is used to express an action that took place in the past, perhaps customarily, but now that action no longer |
|customarily takes place: |
|We used to take long vacation trips with the whole family. |
|The spelling of this verb is a problem for some people because the "-ed" ending quite naturally disappears in speaking: "We yoostoo take long trips." |
|But it ought not to disappear in writing. There are exceptions, though. When the auxiliary is combined with another auxiliary, did, the past tense is |
|carried by the new auxiliary and the "-ed" ending is dropped. This will often happen in the interrogative: |
|Didn't you use to go jogging every morning before breakfast? |
|It didn't use to be that way. |
|Used to can also be used to convey the sense of being accustomed to or familiar with something: |
|The tire factory down the road really stinks, but we're used to it by now. |
|I like these old sneakers; I'm used to them. |
|Used to is best reserved for colloquial usage; it has no place in formal or academic text. |

Chapter II. Methods of teaching modal verbs to schoolchildren

2.1. The difficulties in teaching modal verbs

[pic]English language learners are often confused by modal verbs because they are used differently than other verbs and in a wide variety of situations such as asking for permission and giving advice. There are a couple methods you can use to teach students modal verbs. One is to introduce only a few words at a time and complete several practice activities before attempting to introduce additional vocabulary. Another way you can teach modal verbs is to structure your lessons around their uses. You could leave all the modal verbs written on the board for the whole chapter but use only the ones appropriate for giving advice in one lesson and asking for permission in another for instance.

Let’s look at the second method in more detail.
Introducing all modals Start by introducing all the modal verbs you wish to talk about. This may include can, could, may, might, must, will, would, shall, should, and ought to but, depending on the level of your class, you can narrow it down to those you feel are most important. Obviously there are no images that can help students understand the meanings of these words so you can do pronunciation practice simply by pointing to the words on the board. In your introduction you can cover some rules that apply to all modal verbs. Unlike most verbs, no -s is needed to form the third person singular. For example “He should ~.” is correct, while “He work.” is incorrect. Adding not forms the negative structure. Additionally they always require another verb because they cannot act as the main verb in a sentence and they only have present tense forms so unlike the word swim, there is no past tense form for modals. This may seem like a long and confusing introduction but it is best after the pronunciation practice to simply write the modals and their rules off to the side of the board for reference. Modals are often used to talk about abilities and possibilities or lack of them. Some of the words you want to focus on in this section are can, could, may, and might. Talk to your students about things they can do and practice using can in the target structure because this will be the easiest word to start off with (see our CAN worksheets). Next you should talk about might because it is also commonly used when talking about present possibilities such as “We can’t play music in class because the other classes might be taking tests.” which nicely combines the two words in one sentence. Building upon that, talk about how could and may are used to discuss future abilities and possibilities and also how could can be used to talk about the past in a sentence such as “When I was a child, I could climb trees.” So as you can see just this one section on modals can take awhile. It is best to introduce structures gradually and to plan lots of practice activities for each. 2.2 Different types of utilization of the English modal verbs You can center another lesson on asking for permission or making an offer or request. Can, could, may, shall, will, and would can all be used so you might want to break this up into pairs by introducing can and could, will and would, and finally may and shall. In other lessons you can cover using modals to make suggestions and give advice, to talk about obligations and prohibitions, and lastly cover using ought to and should to say what the correct action would be for instance “She ought to see a doctor.” or “We should be quiet while the teacher is talking.” For some classes it is not necessary to cover all the different uses of modal verbs so feel free to choose what is most important and then cover those items thoroughly before moving on to the next topic. If you cover many different uses of modal verbs in your class, be sure to have a lesson which combines them again. It makes sense to start with all the words you plan to cover in the first class and finish the same way. Since students have been focusing on just one use at a time, this lesson will bring to their attention the range of uses these words have and really challenge them. Fill in the blank and multiple choice worksheets may be appropriate and of course you can conduct role plays based on the different uses of modal verbs too.
Modal verbs have many uses. Teachers should review the uses of modals carefully before introducing them and think about what students would most benefit from studying so that plenty of time can be dedicated to those items. Leaving out some modals or some uses of modals is not the end of the world and may just give your students a better chance of understanding what is covered.
Meaning of modal auxiliary verbs

[pic]
[pic] [pic]

Child: Can I leave the table now?
Parent: I’m sure you can, but you may not.

Longman Grammar pp. 174-185.
Central Modals: can, could, may, might, shall, should, will, would, must
Semi-modals, quasi-modals, periphrastic modals: used to, need (to), dare (to) ought to
They daren't ask for me / They don't dare ask for me / They dont' dare to ask for me
- the usage various from entire modal (rare, mainly BrE) to non modal

(had) better, have to, (have) got to, be supposed to, be going to, gotta , gonna
- fixed idiomatic phrases with functions similar to those of modals; unlike central modals these can be marked for tense and person.

There’s no aspectual form for the modals, but they can be used with the following main verb marked for aspect: He may be leaving (progressive), He may have left (perfective).

The “past” forms could, might, should and would frequently have a non-past reference:

Peter can swim. (present moment)
Peter could swim at the age of four. (past reference) I can do that for you. (present moment; an offer)
I could do that for you. (present moment; a tentative offer) He may come tomorrow. (future possibility)
He might come tomorrow. (future possibility; more tentative)

2.3. Context use of the modal verbs
English modals typically convey some indication of the speaker’s perspective or attitude with respect to the situation or state of affairs being described. Each modal can have two types of meaning: 1) EPISTEMIC=LOGICAL=EXTRINSIC MODALITY (deductions and conclusions made by the speaker; knowledge-based; certainty - uncertainty; likelihood, possibility, logical necessity, prediction)
Suzy is ill. Suzy must be ill. Suzy may be ill. 2) ROOT=PERSONAL=INTRINSIC MODALITY (not based on the speaker’s knowledge of facts, but on the speaker’s awareness of what is socially determined; obligation, permission and volition; requirements from the speaker)
Suzy leaves before noon. Suzy must leave before noon. Suzy may leave before noon. Can, could
Ability
Can she speak Arabic? Yes, she can. She could speak Arabic when she was five.
Possibility
Can there be life on Mars? (Is it possible that…) The sea could be rough tomorrow.
Permission
We can’t smoke in this theatre. Can I borrow your car? (May considered to be the correct form here in the normative sense, although can relatively common in the permission meaning.)

May, might

Permission
May I take one of these? May I smoke?
Possibility
Our flight may be delayed. Careful, the gun may/might be loaded.
Must

Obligation
You must be back by ten. (speaker’s authority, root meaning)
Necessity
Her head is hot, she must have a temperature. There must be some mistake. (logical conclusion, epistemic) Will
Intention
I’ll talk to you about this later. - Is that a threat or a promise? What will you do if you lose your job?
Willingness
Will you marry me? - Of course I will. Hurry up, will you! Will you have another drink?
Prediction
One of these days, I’ll win the lottery. I’ll be 21 next month. That’ll be Susan ringing now. Shall
The use of shall is declining; it occurs in a few restricted linguistic contexts. It is used as a more formal alternative of will with the first-person subject I and we. In questions shall is common with the first person: Shall I? Shall we?
Shall is also used with second- and third-person subjects in rules and regulations: The hood shall be of scarlet cloth, with a silk lining of the colour of the faculty.

Would

Intention
They said they would be here by twelve o’clock.
Willingness
Would you do something for me? (polite request)
Would you do as you are told. (Order)
Susan would always help in those days. (past reference)
Prediction
You would enjoy a vacation (if you took one). If I were you, I’d quit the job.
Would is a tentative and often more polite alternative to will in questions and requests.

Should

Obligation
You should listen to your parents. – Why should I?
Probability
This shouldn’t cause any problem. He’s the best runner, so he should win. Can
Can is an auxiliary verb, a modal auxiliary verb. We use can to: • talk about possibility and ability • make requests • ask for or give permission

Structure of Can

subject + can + main verb
The main verb is always the bare infinitive (infinitive without "to").
| |subject |auxiliary verb |main verb | |
|+ |I |Can |Play |tennis. |
|- |He |Cannot |play |tennis. |
| | |can't | | |
|? |Can |You |play |tennis? |

Notice that: • Can is invariable. There is only one form of can. • The main verb is always the bare infinitive.
The main verb is always the bare infinitive (infinitive without "to"). We cannot say:
[pic]

Use of Can

can: Possibility and Ability

We use can to talk about what is possible, what we are able or free to do: • She can drive a car. • John can speak Spanish. • I cannot hear you. (I can't hear you.) • Can you hear me?
Normally, we use can for the present. But it is possible to use can when we make present decisions about future ability. A. Can you help me with my homework? (present) B. Sorry. I'm busy today. But I can help you tomorrow. (future)
CAN for Present Ability Games

can: Requests and Orders

We often use can in a question to ask somebody to do something. This is not a real question - we do not really want to know if the person is able to do something, we want them to do it! The use of can in this way is informal (mainly between friends and family): • Can you make a cup of coffee, please. • Can you put the TV on. • Can you come here a minute. • Can you be quiet!

can: Permission

We sometimes use can to ask or give permission for something: A. Can I smoke in this room? B. You can't smoke here, but you can smoke in the garden.
(Note that we also use could, may, might for permission. The use of can for permission is informal.)
Modals and auxiliary verbs in English • Modals • Auxiliary do • Auxiliary have • Be (auxiliary and main verb) • Summary • Notes
[pic]
Modals
Historically, the modals of English, which are listed in (1), derive from a special class of verbs in Germanic (the ancestor of English and the other Germanic languages).
|(1) | | |can, could, may, might, must, shall, should, will, would |

Modals have always differed from ordinary verbs in Germanic, and in the course of the history of English, they have diverged from verbs even further, to the point where they now belong to a syntactic category of their own. Because many modals have meanings that are often expressed in other languages by verbal inflections, this syntactic category is called I(nflection).
In what follows, we review the ways that modals differ from verbs in English, both morphologically (what forms they exhibit) and syntactically (how they combine in sentences).
2.4. Range of forms of the modal verbs in English
Modals and verbs differ in the range of forms that they exhibit. English verbs appear in a number of distinct forms (see Finiteness), whereas modals have a single, invariant form. Modals never end in -s, even in sentences with third person singular subjects.
|(2) |a. |* |She { can-s, may-s } play the piano. |
| |b. | |She { can, may } play the piano. |

Modals also lack productive past tense forms. It is true that could, might, should, and would originated in Germanic as past tense forms of can, may, shall, and will. But today, only could can serve as the past tense of can, and that only in certain contexts.1
| |[pic] |
| |Example | | |Potential paraphrase |
| |[pic] |
|(3) |a. | |Nowadays, you can get one for a dollar. |= |... it is possible to get one ... |
| |b. | |Back then, you could get one for a nickel. |= |... it was possible to get one ... |
|(4) |a. | |We can go there tomorrow. |= |It is possible for us to go there ... |
| |b. | |We could go there tomorrow. |=/= |It was possible for us to go there ... |
|(5) |a. | |You may ask the boss. |= |You are allowed to ask the boss. |
| |b. | |You might ask the boss. |=/= |You were allowed to ask the boss. |
|(6) |a. | |Shall I pick up some bread? |= |Is it a good idea for me to pick up some bread? |
| |b. | |Should I pick up some bread? |=/= |Was it a good idea for me to pick up some bread? |
| |[pic] |

Finally, modals lack present and past participles; the missing forms must be paraphrased.
|(7) |a. |* |{ Cann-ing, may-ing } play the piano pleases her greatly. |
| |b. | |{ Being able, being allowed } to play the piano pleases her greatly. |
|(8) |a. |* |She has { cann-ed, may-ed } play the piano. |
| |b. | |She has { been able, been allowed } to play the piano. |

Nonfinite contexts
A further difference between modals and verbs is that modals, unlike verbs, can't occur in nonfinite contexts (for instance, in to infinitive clauses or after another modals). Once again, the missing forms must be paraphrased.
|(9) |a. |In to infinitive clause, |modal |* |She wants |to can speak Spanish. |
| |b. | |paraphrase of modal | |She wants |to be able to speak Spanish. |
| |c. | |verb | |She wants |to speak Spanish. |
|(10) |a. |After (another) modal, |modal |* |She must |can speak Spanish. |
| |b. | |paraphrase of modal | |She must |be able to speak Spanish. |
| |c. | |verb | |She must |speak Spanish. |

Do support contexts
The inability of modals to appear in nonfinite contexts gives rise to three further differences between verbs and modals, all of them manifestations of an important phenomenon in the grammar of English called do support.
Emphasis. In the simplest case, do support affects affirmative sentences containing a finite verb whose truth is being emphasized. It involves replacing the finite verb by the verb's bare form and adding a form of auxiliary do to the sentence in the appropriate tense (either present or past tense). This form of do then receives emphatic stress, as indicated by underlining in (11).
|(11) |a. |Unemphatic (without do support) | |He dances; she sang. |
| |b. |Emphatic (with do support) | |He does dance; she did sing. |

By contrast, emphasizing the truth of a sentence that contains a modal is achieved by simply stressing the modal. Do support with modals is ungrammatical.
|(12) |a. |Emphasis without do support | |He can dance; she will sing. |
| |b. |Emphasis with do support |* |He does can dance; she does will sing. |

Negation. Do support with verbs occurs not only in emphatic contexts, but in two further syntactic contexts: negation and question formation. In both of these cases, the form of do that is added to the affirmative or declarative sentence doesn't necessarily receive emphatic stress (although it can).
In English, sentences containing modals are negated by simply adding not (or its contracted form n't) after the modal. Do support is ungrammatical.
|(13) |a. |Negation without do support | |He { may, must, should, will, would } not dance. |
| |b. |Negation with do support |* |He does not { may, must, should, will, would } dance. |

Sentences without modals, on the other hand, require do support in English. As in the case of emphasis, the verb appears in its bare form, and an appropriately tensed form of the auxiliary verb do is added to the sentence, followed by negation.
|(14) |a. |Negation with do support | |He { does, did } not dance. |
| |b. |Negation without do support |* |He not { dances, danced }. |
| | | | |He { dances, danced } not. |

Question formation. The final difference between modals and verbs concerns question formation. If a declarative sentence contains a modal, the corresponding question is formed by inverting the modal with the subject. Do support is ungrammatical.
|(15) |a. |Question without do support | |{ Can, may, must, should, will, would } he dance? |
| |b. |Question with do support |* |Does he { can, may, must, should, will, would } dance? |

Again, however, in a sentence without a modal, question formation requires do support. That is, it is an appropriately tensed form of do, rather than the verb itself, that inverts with the subject.
|(16) |a. |Question with do support | |{ Does, Did } he dance? |
| |b. |Question without do support |* |{ Dances, Danced } he? |

Auxiliary do
This section summarizes the properties of auxiliary do, introduced in the previous section in connection with do support. Auxiliary do belongs to the same syntactic category as the modals---namely, I(nflection), because it shares their properties with one exception (in contrast to modals, it has an -s form).
The goal of the previous section was to establish the special status of modals, and we used the facts of do support as a criterion for distinguishing modals from verbs. In this section, we consider some of the same facts, but with a different focus. Rather than focusing on the distinctive properties of modals, we focus on the morphological and syntactic properties of auxiliary do itself.
Like all English auxiliaries (the others are be and have), auxiliary do is homonymous with an ordinary verb - in this case, main verb do. The examples that follow explicitly contrast main verb do with auxiliary do.
Range of forms
As just mentioned, the only difference between auxiliary do and the modals is that it has an -s form. In this respect, it patterns with ordinary verbs, including its main verb counterpart.
|(17) |a. |Modal | |I can dance the polka. |
| |b. | | |He { can, * can-s } dance the polka. |
| |[pic] |
|(18) |a. |Auxiliary do | |I do dance the polka; I do not dance the polka; do you dance the polka? |
| |b. | | |He do-es dance the polka; he do-es not dance the polka; do-es he dance the polka? |
|(19) |a. |Main verb do | |I do the dishes. |
| |b. | | |He do-es the dishes. |
|(20) |a. |Other verb | |I dance the polka. |
| |b. | | |He dance-s the polka. |

Nonfinite contexts
In all other respects, auxiliary do behaves like a modal rather than like an ordinary verb. For instance, it is ungrammatical as a to infinitive, after modals, or as a gerund. Notice the clear contrast between the judgments for auxiliary do in (22) and main verb do in (23).
|(21) |a. |Modal, |in to infinitive |* |They want to can dance the polka. |
| |b. | |after (another) modal |* |They will can dance the polka. |
| |c. | |gerund |* |Their canning dance the polka while blindfolded is unusual. |
|(22) |a. |Auxiliary do, |in to infinitive |* |They claim to do dance the polka. |
| | | | | |Intended meaning: They claim that they do dance the polka. |
| |b. | |after modal |* |They will do dance the polka. |
| | | | | |Intended meaning: It will be the case they do dance the polka. |
| |c. | |gerund |* |Their doing dance the polka while blindfolded was unwise. |
| | | | | |Intended meaning: That they did dance the polka while blindfolded was unwise.|
| |[pic] |
|(23) |a. |Main verb do, |in to infinitive | |They want to do the dishes. | |
| |b. | |after modal | |They will do the dishes. | |
| |c. | |gerund | |Their doing the dishes was considerate. | |
|(24) |a. |Other verb, |in to infinitive | |They want to dance the polka. | |
| |b. | |after modal | |They will dance the polka. | |
| |c. | |gerund | |Their dancing the polka while blindfolded is unwise. | |

Do support contexts
Auxiliary do also behaves like a modal in do support contexts. Double instances of auxiliary do are ruled out, just like double modals are (see (10a)). Once again, auxiliary do and main verb do differ sharply, as shown in (26) and (27).
|(25) |a. |Modal, |after emphatic do |* |He does can dance the polka. |
| |b. | |negative |* |He doesn't can dance the polka. |
| |c. | |question |* |Does he can dance the polka? |
|(26) |a. |Auxiliary do, |after emphatic do |* |He does do dance the polka. |
| | | | | |Intended meaning: It is the case that he does dance the polka. |
| |b. | |negative |* |He doesn't do dance the polka. |
| | | | | |Intended meaning: It isn't the case that he does dance the polka. |
| |c. | |question |* |Doesn't he do dance the polka? |
| | | | | |Intended meaning: Isn't it the case that he does dance the polka? |
| |[pic] |
|(27) |a. |Main verb do, |after emphatic do | |He does do the dishes. |
| |b. | |negative | |He doesn't do the dishes. |
| |c. | |question | |Does he do the dishes? |
|(28) |a. |Other verb, |after emphatic do | |He does dance the polka. |
| |b. | |negative | |He doesn't dance the polka. |
| |c. | |question | |Does he dance the polka? |

2.3. Auxiliary verbs and their combination with the main verbs
Let's now turn to auxiliary have, which combines with past participles (-en forms) to form the perfect forms of verbs. Auxiliary have behaves like a V with respect to its morphology and its occurrence in nonfinite contexts, but like an I with respect to do support. Specifically, auxiliary have, like auxiliary do, shares all the morphological properties of its main verb counterpart. In addition, it can appear in nonfinite contexts (unlike auxiliary do). With respect to do support, however, auxiliary have differs from its main verb counterpart and patterns together with the modals and auxiliary do. The complex behavior of auxiliary have can be captured by saying that it moves from V to I in the derivation of a sentence (see Chapter 6 for detailed discussion of V-to-I movement).
(29) and (30) show that auxiliary have, like auxiliary do (cf. (18)), behaves morphologically like its main verb counterpart in having an -s form.
|(29) |a. |Auxiliary have | |I have adopted two cats. |
| |b. | | |She ha-s adopted two cats. |
|(30) |a. |Main verb have | |I have two cats. |
| |b. | | |She ha-s two cats. |

Auxiliary have differs from auxiliary do (cf. (22)) and resembles main verb have in being able to appear in nonfinite contexts.
|(31) |a. |Auxiliary have, |to infinitive | |They claim to have adopted two cats. |
| |b. | |after modal | |They must have adopted two cats. |
| |c. | |gerund | |I do not regret having adopted two cats. |
|(32) |a. |Main verb have, |to infinitive | |They claim to have two cats. |
| |b. | |after modal | |They must have two cats. |
| |c. | |gerund | |I do not regret having two cats. |

On the other hand, just like auxiliary do (cf. (26)) and in contrast to main verb have, auxiliary have is ruled out in do support contexts.
|(33) |a. |Auxiliary have, |after emphatic do |* |He does have adopted two cats. |
| |b. | |negative |* |He doesn't have adopted two cats. |
| |c. | |question |* |Does he have adopted two cats? |
|(34) |a. |Main verb have, |after emphatic do | |He does have two cats. |
| |b. | |negative | |He doesn't have two cats. |
| |c. | |question | |Does he have two cats? |

Be (auxiliary and main verb)
The examples in (35)-(40) illustrate the behavior of auxiliary be, which is used to form the progressive (is coming, was dancing) and the passive (is abandoned, was sold) in English. Auxiliary be behaves just like auxiliary have. In particular, it has an -s form (irregular though that form is), and it can appear in nonfinite contexts, but it is excluded from do support contexts. As a result, auxiliary be can be treated just like auxiliary have: as belonging to the syntactic category V, but moving from V to I in the course of a derivation.
Main verb be differs from main verb have and main verb do in behaving exactly like auxiliary be. In other words, main verb be is the only main verb in modern English that moves from V to I.
|(35) |a. |Auxiliary be, |non-third person | |I am learning Spanish; I am invited to the ceremony. |
| |b. | |third person | |She i-s learning Spanish; she i-s invited to the ceremony. |
|(36) |a. |Main verb be, |non-third person | |I am happy. |
| |b. | |third person | |She i-s happy. |
|(37) |a. |Auxiliary be, |to infinitive | |They claim to be learning Spanish; they claim to be invited to the ceremony. |
| |b. | |after modal | |They must be learning Spanish; they must be invited to the ceremony. |
| |c. | |gerund2 | |I don't regret being invited to the ceremony. |
|(38) |a. |Main verb be, |to infinitive | |They claim to be happy. |
| |b. | |after modal | |They must be happy. |
|(39) |a. |Auxiliary be, |after emphatic do |* |She does be learning Spanish; she does be invited to the ceremony. |
| |b. | |negative |* |She doesn't be learning Spanish; she doesn't be invited to the ceremony. |
| |c. | |question |* |Does she be learning Spanish? Does she be invited to the ceremony? |
|(40) |a. |Main verb be, |after emphatic do |* |She does be happy. |
| |b. | |negative |* |She doesn't be happy. |
| |c. | |question |* |Does she be happy? |

Conclusion There are several types of modal and auxiliary verbs analyzed during the investigation. They keep changing their forms and structure when the tenses or the personnel change grammatically. The verb “can”, “must”, “should” can not change their forms when used in different personnels, in the third personnel, in the first an second personnels. But other modal verbs like “have to” and “ought to” change their forms according to the personnel and tenses. During the research we have found out and analysed these verbs: ❑ Can ❑ Could ❑ May ❑ Might ❑ Will ❑ Would ❑ Shall (maily in British English) ❑ Should ❑ Must ❑ Ought ← We have also found out that these modal verbs and auxiliary verbs have no ‘s’ in the 3rd person singular. Questions, negatives, tags and short anwers are made without ‘do’. Except ‘ought’ , we use the infinitive without ‘to’ (bare infinitive). Continuous, perfect and passive infinitives are also possible, but they do not have infinitives or participles like “-ed, -ing” and etc. They do not normally have past forms, (although would, should, could and might are sometimes used as past tenses of will, can, shall and may.) ← Certain past ideas can be expressed by a modal verb followed by a perfect infinitive. The formula is: have + past participle. Modal verbs have a contracted negative form which are used in an informal style. Need and used to have similar use. These are sometimes used in similar ways to modal verbs. You needn’t wait for me. She used not to be so bad tempered. ❑ We use these verbs to describe the situations Which we expect ❑ Which are or are not possible ❑ Which we think are necessary ❑ Which we want to happen ❑ Which we are not sure about ❑ Which tend to happen ❑ Which have not happened The meanings of modal verbs can be divided into two main groups. 1. Degrees of certainty 2. Obligation, freedom to act and similar ideas (very important in the polite expression of requests, suggestions, invitations and instructions) ← For example, the modal verbs which have the meaning of complete certainty (possitive or negative) are shall, will, must, can’t. Probability (deduction; saying that something is logical or normal) is seen in should, ought to. “May” is used to describe Possibility (talking about the chances that something is true or will happen, might and could is used to show Weak possibility. Must, will and need are used to describe strong obligation, must not, can not and may not are utilized to describe Prohibition. Should, ought to, shall and might are used to show weak obligation; recommendation. Willingness, volunteering, resolving, insisting and offering are expressed with shall and will, can, could, may, might shows permission. When there is no obligation to do something, we use “needn’t”, to show ability to do something we use can and could. All these meanings are shown in sentences when we use the modal verbs correctly in sentences.