Modals auxiliary
verbs are a very complex area of English grammar, so in this quick guide we
will not be able to go into much detail, but we will at least get an overall
idea of what their function is in a sentence. In an earlier section of this
guide we looked at how the verb phrase can be broken down into its constituent
parts and we noted that one of these parts was called a modal auxiliary verb
Examples of modal auxiliary verbs
Before we look at some of the possible
meanings of modal auxiliary verbs we need to have some idea of what constitutes
a modal in English and where they occur in a sentence. A few more examples
should enable us to answer the second of these points fairly quickly and easily
– the modals are in bold:
- He should be here by now.
- I could swim quite well when I was
younger.
- You mustn’t blame yourself for this.
- You might have discussed it with me first.
- You can’t be serious!
- Could you open the window please?
- Must you make so much noise?
- She had
to take her brother
along with her.
- We ought
to be going.
It
should be clear from these examples that the modal verb occupies the first
position in verb phrase, coming before any other auxiliary verb (like have or be) and the main lexical verb.
In
questions the modal verb is simply inverted with the subject of the sentence as
in examples 6 and 7 and it also carries the negative particle not (3rd and 5th examples).
The subject of the sentence has no effect on
the form of the modal since almost in all cases they do not change at all.
So,
a modal verb is quite simple as far as its form and position in various types
of sentence are concerned; but what exactly are the modal verbs in English? The
chart below lists the main modal auxiliaries that you are likely to meet and
divides them into two categories pure modals and semi-modals, although in most cases the
distinction is merely formal and their meanings are not affected by this
division.
The forms of pure modals
The main characteristics of the pure modals
are:
- they never
change their form irrespective of the subject of the sentence
e.g. he can swim, not *he cans swim - following
on from the above feature, they do not change to show past tense
e.g. she had to leave not *she musted leave - they all
carry the negative of the sentence by the addition of not/n’t
e.g. I can’t remember not *I don’t can remember - they all
form questions by inversion with the subject of the sentence.
e.g. should I stay? - they are
all followed by the base form of the verb without the addition of to
e.g. he can swim not *he can to swim
The forms of semi-modals
You
will notice that this type of modal is made up of two or more separate words,
the last one invariably being to. They are all modal in meaning but not
in form as they behave differently in a sentence from the pure modals. It is
perhaps best to think of the semi-modals in the form with the toinfinitive
that is given in the table rather than thinking of them as modals that need to + base form. We need to look at
the form of each individual semi-modal separately.
Be able to
We
use this semi-modal to express possibility or the ability to do something, but
unlike the pure modals, be able to has a full range of tenses and also
needs to inflect to show agreement with its subject. For example:
- He is able
to offer you the best price possible.
- We were
able to get in to see the film.
- They
haven’t been able to find the missing document.
- So, you
aren’t able to help.
Notice
that the negative is carried either by the be element
or the auxiliary verb that is closest to the subject of the sentence. It can
also be accompanied by any of the pure modals:
- I will be
able to see you after lunch.
- They
might not be able to put us up for the night.
Has/have (got) to
This
is used to express necessity or obligation to do something and shares some of
the features ofbe able to discussed above. The have element of the form has to change to
agree with its subject. Although it is normally used in the present tense, it
also has its own past (had to) and can
be used with pure modals to show the future or the attitude of the speaker:
- They have
to be more punctual.
- He has to
take responsibility for the accident.
- I had to
help my father repair his car.
- We will
have to put this off until tomorrow.
- You
shouldn’t have to suffer in silence.
- You don’t
have to come if you don’t want to.
- He
didn’t have to do all the shopping.
From
these few examples it should be clear that the negative not again attaches itself to the auxiliary
verb (modal or main) that comes immediately after the subject of the sentence.
Ought to
It
is usually claimed that the meaning of ought to is
the same as should whether it refers to giving advice or
making a logical deduction. So, to most native speakers the following sentences
withought to and should feel
the same:
- You ought
to see a doctor.
- You should
see a doctor.
- They ought
to have got back home by now.
- They should
have got back home by now.
In
practice, most speakers tend to prefer should for
negatives and questions because the ought toand oughtn’t
… to forms can sound rather
clumsy and awkward.
- Ought you
to be doing that?
- They
oughtn’t to (ought not to) do that.
- Oughtn’t we
to leave now?
Meanings of modal verbs
The
main function of modal verbs is to allow the speaker or writer to express their
opinion of, or their attitude to, a proposition. These attitudes can cover a
wide range of possibilities includingobligation,
asking for and giving permission, disapproval, advising, logical deduction,
ability, possibility, necessity, absence of necessity and so on. The problem with each modal
verb is that it can have more that one meaning and the interpretation of a
particular modal will depend heavily on the context in which it is being used.
The following examples should help to illustrate this point.
- It might
take more than a week. (possibility)
- You might
have told me about it! (showing disapproval)
- He must
take his medicine three times a day. (obligation)
- He must be
French. (logical deduction)
- I can’t
lift that suitcase by myself. (ability)
- That can’t
be the right answer. (logical deduction)
- May I look
at the questions now? (asking for permission)
- They say it
may snow tomorrow. (possibility)
You
probably also noticed from the examples that notions like permission and possibility can be expressed using different modal
verbs – this, of course, only serves to complicate matters further since one
modal verb can have more that one meaning, and one meaning can be expressed by
more than one modal verb. In the space that we have available here it would be
impossible to cover all the meanings of each of the modals, so as examples we
will look at some of the ways thatobligation and logical deduction can be expressed.
Obligation
The
two main modals here are must and have
to. The difference between them is usually given as follows: must is used to express an internal
obligation that is imposed by the speaker, while have
torefers to rules and regulations that are imposed from outside the
speaker. Again, as with many points of grammar this is only intended as a rough
guide.
To
express a lack of obligation we cannot just automatically add not to the modal verbs without thinking
more carefully about it first. How do you feel about the following sentences
for instance?
- He must
sing loudly.
- He mustn’t
sing loudly.
In
the first sentence you would probably agree that this is obligation originating from, say, a teacher or
someone with authority. The second sentence, however, does not express a lack
of obligationbut a prohibition to do something. The form that
we use to express a lack of obligation could be one of the following:
- He doesn’t
have to get up early.
- He
doesn’t need to get up early.
This lack of balance in the use of modals can
cause many problems for people who are learning English since it is quite
illogical.
Logical deduction
This is another area of modal use that is
fraught with difficulties for reasons similar to those just discussed above.
Look at the following sentences:
The telephone rings:
- That’ll be
Frank.
- That must
be Frank.
- That should
be Frank.
- That could
be Frank.
- That might
be Frank.
- That
may be Frank.
The modal verbs used here have been listed in
what many consider to be the order of likelihood of something being true. You
may or may not agree with this listing, but it gives you some idea of some of
the choices available for drawing logical conclusions from situations. If we
look at the negatives of these sentences, however, you can see just how much
more complex it can become:
- That won’t
be Frank.
- *
That mustn’t be Frank.
(To use musn’t in this way as logical deduction is incorrect; we use can’t instead.) - That
shouldn’t be Frank.
- That
couldn’t be Frank.
- That
mightn’t be Frank.
Many
of these sentences now denote completely different attitudes to the situation
and you may even agree that some of them are either not English or are only
marginally acceptable. The sentence which has probably moved furthest from its
original intention is the second one (mustn’t) which sounds very odd. In fact,
the negative of must when
we talking about deduction is can’t –
one more example of how complicated and counter-intuitive the system of English
modals can be.
Past time with modals
We
noted earlier that the pure modals do not change to show tense. Most of these
modals do in fact have either present or future reference, but sometimes we
need to refer back to the past. With the semi-modals there is little problem,
but how can we do this for pure modal verbs? You may have picked up from some
of the previous examples that one way to do this is to insert have immediately after the pure modal. But
this is not always the case since can has
its own past tense could when
it refers to general ability. Some examples should help:
- I can speak
German.
- I could
speak German when I was seven years old.
- You should
see this film.
- You should
have seen this film.
- Indonesia
must be hot.
- Indonesia
must have been hot.
- He could
find his wallet.
- He
could have found his wallet.
Notice
that in the third pair of sentences the meaning of must is logical deduction not obligation.
If we want to use must for
obligation then the past tense is had to.
- She must visit her mother.
- She had to visit her mother.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar