Grammatical Functions and Categories

231

9. Modality: Modal verbs and modal concepts

9.O. Modal verbs: Overview of the members and their uses

9.O.1. Central modal verbs as closed-class of morphologically defective verbs
Modal verbs are one subset of auxiliary verbs, while the label modal can be used to
refer to any expression that carries some modal meaning, not only verbs, as in (1), but
also adjectives, as in (2), or adverbs and nouns, as illustrated in (3) and (4), respectively:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

a.
b.
a.
b.

He may come.
He will come.
It is possible that he will come.
He is bound to come.
Hell possibly come.
There is no need to whisper.

The set of central members is a closed-set with a finite number of items in it. Its
members can be simply listed:
(5) can, could, may, might, will, would, shall, should, ought to, and must.
Note that there are ten central modals above because we do not treat pairs such as may
might, shall should, etc. as present and past forms of modals. Although forms like
may and might, shall and should, etc. appear to be related in diachronic terms, and in
spite of the fact that these can indeed function as present and past forms (e.g. could to
express past ability) and correspond to each other in reported speech in the same way
that present and past tenses do, there are enough reasons not to treat them in this way.
Firstly, both members of such pairs can be used to refer to the present and to the past (in
combination with a perfect infinitive, which in fact carries the information concerning
the time reference). Secondly, they should not be regarded as present vs past form on
account of the fact that they may express quite different modal concepts, or exhibit a
number of uses that one member of the respective pairs exhibits but not the other, e.g.
shall and should, as will be illustrated below in more detail.
Marginal members, also called peripheral modals because in some cases they behave
similarly to lexical verbs, include:
(6)

a.
need, dare, used to,
b. have to, be to

Since their function is to modify lexical verbs, it is quite normal that they cannot
constitute a verb phrase on their own, except in elliptical sentences. They can be also
combined with primary auxiliaries have and be, or with non-auxiliary modal

232

Part 4: Mood, modality, and reported speech

expressions, but not with do or with other modal verbs (except in some dialects, cf.
9.T.1. below):
(7)
(8)
(9)

a. He may have seen it.

b. They might have been delayed by snow.
a. *Jane doesnt can come.
b. *He may can come.
He may be able to come.

Modals are different from primaries in that they are not overtly inflected, i.e. they do
not have -s forms or ed and en (i.e. ed2) forms. There are no participles (-ing or en
forms), no imperatives or infinitives. They have only one finite form. Thus they are
defective in morphological terms. They are, in fact, often referred to as defective verbs
or anomalous finites.
As for their syntactic behaviour, modal verbs, just like primary auxiliaries, exhibit all
the NICE properties, as discussed in 3.O. above.

9.O.2. Typology of modal concepts and polysemy of modal verbs

Modal verbs express a variety of moods or attitudes of the speaker towards the
meaning expressed by the main or lexical verb. Modality can thus be defined as the
manner in which the meaning of a clause is qualified so as to reflect the speaker's
judgement of the likelihood of the proposition it expresses being true.
There are two general types of modal concepts. There are on the one hand concepts
like likelihood/prediction, possibility, logical necessity. There are, on the other
hand concepts like permission, obligation, advice or ability and volition.
The concepts in the former group share a common denominator of concern with the
truth-value of the proposition expressed by the lexical verb, i.e. they express human
judgement on whether the proposition is true in the sense of the state-of-affairs denoted
by it already obtaining, or being more or less close to its obtaining. In other words, these
concepts have to do with (qualifying) the speakers knowledge (recall that the Greek
word epistema means knowledge) of certain facts holding or not in the external, nonlinguistic world.
The latter group of concepts involves some kind of intrinsic human control over
events because there is an attempt on the part of the speaker to direct the course of
(future) events, either through exerting influence over the hearer or through his or her
own actions.
There has been suggested a whole host of terms for these two basic types of modal
concepts. The former type of modal concepts has been referred to as epistemic,
extrinsic or objective modality, while the latter has been called root, intrinsic or

Grammatical Functions and Categories

233

subjective modality. The latter type can be claimed to subsume two related but different
subtypes: depending on whether only the speaker is involved or whether there is some
interaction between the speaker and the hearer, we can distinguish between dynamic
modality on the one hand, and deontic or interpersonal modality on the other. This
terminological and conceptual variety can be summarized as in the table below:

Type of modality

Some examples of modal concepts

Epistemic or extrinsic modality

Possibility, logical necessity

Dynamic modality

Volition, ability

Deontic modality

Permission, obligation

Root or
Intrinsic modality

Table 1. Types of modality and modal concepts

The use of the more general term root modality may leave the impression that this
subtype of modality as a whole is more basic than the epistemic modality, i.e. we may
assume that in conceptual terms the latter is derived from the former, that in diachronic
terms the latter developed from the former. Diachronic data show, however, that this is
true only of dynamic modality: concepts such as volition and ability are the most basic
ones. Thus the can of possibility did not develop from the can of permission but rather
from the can of ability, may for possibility can be traced back to an ability sense that is
now extinct.
One important observation about central modal verbs in English is that each one of
them can be used in either way, intrinsically and extrinsically. It follows that it is
impossible to isolate a single meaning attached to modal verbs. In other words, modals
are highly polysemous. Modal verbs are polysemous in at least two respects.
Firstly, they can be used for both extrinsic and intrinsic modality, as shown by the
following set of examples:
(10) a. He must be at home.
I am certain that he is at home/he is obliged to be at home
b. They may leave.
It is possible that they will leave/they are allowed to leave
However, there are in certain cases some clear formal differences between the two
uses, e.g. when negation is involved:

234

Part 4: Mood, modality, and reported speech

(11) a. He mustnt be at home.

b. He cant be at home.
Only the deontic must can be negated, in the the case of epistemic must, we find cant as
a suppletive negative counterpart.
Another general test that can be invoked to check whether in a given instance a
modal verb expresses an epistemic or non-epistemic modality is the use in complex
constructions involving the progressive and the perfect. Only epistemically used modals
can be combined with these two aspects:
(12) a. A: Where is John?
B: As far as I know, he may be in the library.
b. A: Would it be all right for the kids to have some sweets?
B: As far as I care, they may have them.
(13) a. John may be working in the library.
b. *The kids may be having some sweets if they like.
Secondly, there are often several intrinsic or extrinsic modal concepts and their
subsenses that can be expressed by means of a single modal verb. It is often difficult to
tell them apart without any broader context.
It is, however, sometimes possible for the two to become neutralized, and it may be
positively difficult to state whether a modal verb in a given sentence is used in one or
the other way. Many of their uses may be placed somewhere between the two poles of
the continuum formed by the two types of modality. Cf. the following table as an
illustration:
INTRINSIC
permission

can/could
can/could
may/might
may/might

possibility
EXTRINSIC
Table 2. Modality continuum

Grammatical Functions and Categories

235

Most linguistic phenomena can be approached and described from two

complementary points of view. It is possible to start from the form, i.e. the expression
side of a linguistic sign, e.g. from a morph as a practical realization of a morpheme, and
ask oneself about the contents of this linguistic sign. In other words we ask ourselves
which meaning or meanings are associated with the particular form. It is also possible to
start from the meaning side, from concepts and ask oneself how these concepts are
expressed, by means of which forms. The former approach is called semasiological, the
latter onomasiological.
The semasiological point of view has always been much better represented in
linguistic research, partly because it is always easier to agree on the inventory of forms
from which to start than on an inventory of concepts. In lexicography, the former
approach is ubiquitous, since most dictionaries have a list of existing, attested words on
their left side, i.e. as headwords, usually ordered alphabetically, whose meanings, and/or
some other types of information are provided. There are only a few dictionaries for any
given language that are exclusively or, at best, primarily organized on onomasiological
principles and start from concepts, or rather from a network of concepts based on some
philosophical system, and then provide forms that express these concepts. Such
dictionaries are called thesauruses (Note that there is also an irregular plural thesauri,
sg. is, of course, thesaurus). Most traditional dictionaries of synonyms are compromise
mixtures of the two principles, as they usually dispense with a rigorous underlying
conceptual system. The semasiological procedure has been predominant in
grammaticography, too, the only exceptions being some communicative grammars, e.g.
the one by Leech and Svartvik, which appears here in reading lists after most chapters.
Modality lends itself to a description from both points of view, the onomasiological
one, i.e. the one that starts from an inventory of modal concepts, appears to yield at least
as coherent a picture in the end as the semasiological point of view, which starts from
individual modal verbs, or at least as incoherent picture, because modality is notoriously
one of the least tractable topics in English grammar. In what follows we shall adopt the
onomasiological point of view, which has been less frequently offered, and start from an
inventory of modal concepts. We shall first consider the root modality uses, i.e. dynamic
and interpersonal or deontic uses of modal verbs, and then proceed to discuss the
epistemic ones. The inventory of modal concepts should rather be taken as an open
inventory of clusters of more or less related modal concepts, and not as an inventory of
a finite number of discrete, atomic concepts.
The following diagram, presenting general mappings between seven such general
clusters of modal concepts on the one hand and central modal verbs as their expressions
on the other, serves as an onomasiological guide by pointing to relevant sections in
which the concept in question is expressed by the given verb. It is also evident from the
diagram that various ways of expressing a given modal concept need not be of the same
degree of importance and have the same frequency of use, as indicated informally by
the size of the squares in different boxes.

236

Part 4: Mood, modality, and reported speech

Modal concepts
Root modality

Modal
verb
Ability
9.O.3.1
Can
Could

Volition
9.O.3.2.

May
Might
Will
Would
Shall
Should
Must
Ought to

Permission
9.O.3.3.

Epistemic modality
Obligation
9.O.3.4.

Possibility
9.O.4.1.

Prediction
9.O.4.2.

Logical
necessity
9.O.4.3.

Table 3. Mappings between modal concepts and their expressions

9.O.3. Review of ways of expressing root modality (deontic and dynamic)

We shall start our discussion by first considering means for expressing a cluster of
dynamic modal concepts such as ability and volition (and requests), then go on to a
purely deontic modal concept of permission (including its absence, i.e. prohibition), and
conclude by studying various ways of referring to obligation and advice.

9.O.3.1. Ability (or capacity)

This subject-oriented concept is expressed by modals can and could.
(14) a. Our team can easily beat your team.
b. I can resist everything except temptation.
c. Can you ride a horse?
d. Jane has a photographic memory and can memorize long sequences of
numbers.
e. I cannot move that big case by myself.

Grammatical Functions and Categories

237

It is not always easy to distinguish between possibility and ability with can. Ability,
after all, implies possibility: if one is able to do X, then X is possible. However, since
can for ability and permission requires human, or animate subject at least, the
possibility sense is the only one available when the subject happens to be inanimate:
(15) Free climbing can be very dangerous.
Can used in the ability sense is very common, and is more or less paraphrasable by
modal idioms containing predicative adjectives, such as be able to or be capable of. The
former is quite frequent in non-finite contexts:
(16) I havent been able to come on time, Im afraid.
The latter suppletive phrase tends to be used in contexts conveying some unpleasant
situations:
(17) They are quite capable of turning a blind eye to such cases of nepotism.
When it refers to a permanent but acquired ability (chiefly some practical skills that
have to be learned), as in (14) c. or (18) below:
(18) a. Can you speak Spanish?
b. Who can play the piano?
c. Can you light a camp fire?
it is also more or less synonymous with to know how to.
Generally speaking, the following three kinds of ability can be distinguished:
a. physical:
(19) a. Can you lift this box?
b. Joan can run 100 meters in 11.5 seconds.
c. I can read without glasses.
b. cognitive:
(20) a. She can speak French.
b. Bob can read and write Chinese.
c. logical, resulting from circumstances:
(21) a. The phone lines have been repaired and we can again call our friends.
b. As I am free this afternoon, we can meet earlier.
Could may also be used for present ability to do specific things with an if-condition
explicitly stated or just implied:

238

Part 4: Mood, modality, and reported speech

(22) a. She could get a new job.

b. I could give him an answer now/tomorrow if he wants/wanted one.
Otherwise could is used for general ability in the past:
(23) a. She could read Latin and Greek when she was ten.
b. He could already drive a car when he was fourteen.
Note however that could is not used to indicate specific past abilities that were
fulfilled, i.e. actually used to perform something, except marginally for cases of limited,
imperfect success or success with difficulty, which is usually indicated by just or
almost. Another exception is the regular use of could for past abilities with stative verbs,
as discussed in examples (29-32) below:
(24) a. He was able to/*could drive in spite of the heavy snow last night
b. Could he drive last night?
c. He couldnt drive last night.
d. I could almost reach the summit.
e. I could just reach the branch.
Instead the suppletive phrases was/were able to, managed to, succeeded in V-ing must
be used, depending on the speakers subjective view of the difficulties involved. While
all three expressions convey some achievement, the last two suggest achievement in the
face of difficulty or opposition, and on an increasing scale of magnitude.
(25) When the boat overturned, they

were able to swim

managed to swim
succeeded in swimming

ashore.

Note that the sentence:

(26) I could pass the examination.
does not mean I passed it; it simply means that I might be able to do that if... On the
other hand, a sentence like:
(27) I couldnt pass the examination.
means that I did not have the capacity to pass it, while:
(28) I could have passed it.
means that I had the capacity but did not use it.
Can may be used with verbs of perception and cognition (inert), and could with verbs
of inert perception. With verbs of inert cognition there is hardly any difference in
meaning between a sentence with can and the one without it:

Grammatical Functions and Categories

239

(29) a. I can remember.

b. I remember.
With verbs of inert perception can not only loses its modal value except for a sense of
very general ability, but has the additional special function of denoting a state rather
than a single actual event:
(30) a. I can hear.
b. I hear.
(31) a. I can see.
b. I see.
Can is generally used with future as well as with present time reference for ability.
The construction ll be able to may be used to reinforce the future reference. In some
cases this construction must be used instead of can for future reference: when ability
will exist only eventually, coming at last as a result of something, or where it is
dependent on some other future event:
(32) By the time he finishes this course, hell be able to speak English well.
(33) If you take lessons, youll soon be able to play tennis properly.
In the following examples, can has future time reference:
(34) a. We can sit at home tomorrow and watch the match in comfort.
b. I can see you tomorrow afternoon.
The can of possibility can be used for suggestions, i.e. express that something is
possible and imply that it might or should be done:
(35) a. I can do it for you.
b. You can always ask me for help.

9.O.3.2. Volition (and requests)

It is possible to distinguish several subsenses or degrees of volition such as
willingness (weak volition), intention (intermediate degree of volition), and insistence
or determination (strong volition).
Firstly, willingness on the part of the person referred to by the subject in the present
or in the past, when this willingness is reported, is expressed chiefly by will, and would,
respectively. This weak-volitional will normally does not receive stress and can be
contracted to ll (and would to d). Would cannot be used for willingness in a sentence
with the past time reference. It can be paraphrased by the predicative adjective
expression be willing to. The negative conveys a refusal. A second-person interrogative

240

Part 4: Mood, modality, and reported speech

beginning with will is very common as a request that is somewhat politer than an
imperative, but may sound peremptory if not softened down:
(36) a. Simon will help you.
Simon is willing to help you
b. Ill answer the door.
c. I will not accept no as an answer.
d. Simon said he would help you.
e. I said if youd help me, we could finish the job in no time.
f. I was willing to/*would do it yesterday.
g. Janice wont talk to you.
h. Will you open the door for me?
i. Will you stop, please?
In this meaning, will can freely occur in conditional clauses:
(37) If youll help me, we can finish this in no time.
If youre willing to help me, we can finish this in no time
Willingness on the part of the speaker/promise or guarantee which speaker gives may
be expressed by shall:
(38) a. If you are good, you shall have some chocolate.
b. He shall get a rise next month.
It occurs in statements with second and third person subjects. Shall in this use is rare,
especially among younger speakers.
Secondly, intention on the part of the speaker may be expressed by will or shall.
Intention here covers not only decision but also related notions such as promise and
threat. It seems that in the act of speaking, a decision has been made, and that the
fulfillment of the intention is guaranteed. It may appear that dynamic modality shades
off here into deontic modality, particularly with shall for threats, but it is still speakeroriented since the subject is not expected or obliged by the speaker to do anything.
Contraction is a quite common phenomenon in the spoken language:
(39) a. I shall check my accounts tomorrow.
b. I shall celebrate this very night.
c. I shall inform you as soon as possible.
d. We shall stop your pocket money if you don't behave.
e. Ill pay you back as soon as I can.
f. We wont come before noon.
This use occurs chiefly with first-person subjects. Shall is replaceable with will in this
meaning.
Threat can also be expressed in sentences with 2nd and 3rd person subjects:

Grammatical Functions and Categories

241

(40) a. You shall catch it!

b. He shall never enter this house again!
Would refers to promise or threat in the past:
(41) I promised you would have your money.
Thirdly, determination or insistence on the part of the speaker which is mainly 1 st
person is expressed by will and the insistence on the part of the speaker (i.e. non-1stperson subject) by shall:
(42) a. I will have my own way.
I am determined to have my own way/I insist on having my own way
b. I will not be bullied.
I won't be bullied
c. I will go to the dance and no one shall stop me!
This strong-volitional will is always stressed, and therefore cannot be contracted to ll.
(43) a. You shall obey my rules.
I insist that you obey...
b. No one shall stop me.
This meaning of shall is also of very restricted use, and conveys a very strong
impression of arrogance. It is undemocratic in suggesting that the listener's will is
entirely dominated by that of the speaker. Of course, it is restricted to the second- and
third-person subjects.
An obstinate attitude on the part of the speaker with regard to his own actions is also
expressed by shall:
(44) A: Please, dont go out now. It is very late.
B: I shall go if I want to.
Shall is here replaceable by will, though the tone of obstinacy would thus be weakened.
Would can express determination or insistence on the part of the speaker in the past:
(45) a. I would have my own way.
b. I wouldnt be bullied.
Similarly, persistent habit on the part of the person referred to by the 2 nd and 3rd
person subjects, which roughly parallels obstinate determination or insistence, is also
expressed by will:
(46) a. He will go out swimming in dangerous waters.
He insists on going swimming
b. Bill, why will you keep making such silly jokes about our headmaster?

242

Part 4: Mood, modality, and reported speech

c. Why will you always make the same mistakes?

d. Ann will play in the middle of the road, although she knows very well that
this is dangerous.
e. If you will play with fire, youll get burnt.
Like will for determination or insistence with the 1 st person subjects, this is not very
common meaning of will. With 2nd and 3rd person subjects, the feeling of exasperation
(irritation, annoyance) at someone elses obstinacy, becomes quite prominent. Again,
will is here always strongly stressed and cannot be reduced to ll. In this meaning it can
freely occur in conditional clauses:
(47) If you will leave this door open while the light is on, what can you expect but a
lot of mosquitoes?
Again, would expresses here persistent habit or obstinate determination (with 2nd
and 3rd person subjects, of course) in the past.
(48) He would leave that door open in summer while the light was on.
Various modals can be used in pragmatically interesting ways in utterances that are
formally questions or exclamations, but in fact function as offers or inquiries about the
wishes of the listener, i.e. they involve some aspects of volition, because they either
make explicit reference to volition but mean something else, or make explicit reference
to other modal concepts but in fact make an appeal to the hearers willingness.
Shall is thus used to ask for a command, for the wish of the listener (usually with I as
its subject):
(49) a. Shall I have your letters forwarded?
b. Shall I open the window?
Would you like me to open the window for you?
Offers and invitations (in question form) can be phrased by means of will:
(50) a. Will/wont you have a piece of cake?
Have a piece of cake, will you/won't you?
b. Will you/wont you come inside?
c. Come inside, will you/wont you?
Would can be used as the past equivalent in reported speech to report making an offer
or request, or report issuing an invitation:
(51) a. I asked if he would have some cake.
b. I asked you if you would come inside.
However, would serves as a milder, more hesitant replacement for will in direct
questions and polite requests:

Grammatical Functions and Categories

243

(52) a. Would you come inside now?

b. Will you pass the salt, please?
c. Shut the door, will you?
Would can be used idiomatically, and is not replaceable by will, in constructions such
as:
(53) a. Would you mind going instead of me.
b. Would you prefer/like to go instead of me.
Can and could are used in polite requests with reference to the present time:
(54) a. Can you pass the salt, please?
b. Can you give me the time?
They can be replaced here by will. It is the willingness of the addressed person that we
make an appeal to.
Might is sometimes used for informal requests, and may to express wishes and hopes:
(55) a. You might post this letter for me.
b. May his evil design perish!
c. May God grant you happiness!
This exclamatory use of may is very formal, and is rarely found in modern English. It is
characterized by inversion of the subject and auxiliary. There are no interrogative,
negative, or might as the equivalent for the past tense. May is also used in subordinate
object clauses after verbs like hope, wish, trust, fear:
(56) a. I hope he may (= will) succeed.
b. I wish the news may prove untrue.
9.O.3.3. Permission (or prohibition, i.e. absence of permission)
One of the chief modal concepts expressed by may and might is permission given by
the speaker, but the modal concept of permission can also be expressed by can and
could. Suppletive paraphrases for permission are to be allowed and to be permitted:
(57) a. You may smoke in this room.
b. Patrons of the restaurant may use the car-park without a ticket.
c. You may make a back-up copy of this CD.
In colloquial English, may in declarative sentences characteristically signals
permission given by the speaker. In more formal contexts, however, the meaning is not
limited in this way, but is extended to general permission without respect to who does

244

Part 4: Mood, modality, and reported speech

the permitting. In formal English, may replaces can, which is often considered less
formal/polite than may.
(58) a. You can join us if you want to.
b. Can I drop these notebooks here?
c. Stop! You cant enter this room!
In the past prescriptive tradition may was considered to be the correct modal verb
for the expression of permission, and the use of can for that purpose condemned.
However, can is in fact more widely used than may in colloquial English, having the
less specific meaning you are allowed/have the permission rather than I give you the
permission/I allow you. A sentence such as:
(59) You can smoke here.
simply means that the rules (general or specific) allow it. One can easily imagine the
following conversational exchange with can, but not with may:
(60) A: Can I smoke here?
B: So far as I know, you can theres no notice to the contrary.
On the other hand, can tends to be avoided in formal and polite usage (in both
written and spoken language).
In many cases the right to grant or deny permission may have been delegated to the
speaker by an implicit or anonymous higher authorizing body. The speaker thus only
reports permission or its denial. This is frequently found in instructions and regulations:
(61) The student may withdraw from the course any time before the second week
of each term.
Could is generally used for permission in the past, but also with present time
reference:
(62) She could call her father by his first name.
In questions and conditional clauses may typically indicates permission given not by
the speaker, but by the addressee:
(63) May I smoke?
Will you allow me to smoke?
Will I permit myself to smoke?
May has clear future time reference in some cases:
(64) You may take next Friday afternoon off.
Might serves as the common past equivalent of may in indirect speech:

Grammatical Functions and Categories

245

(65) You said that I might borrow your pen.

but in direct speech, might is not used as a past equivalent of may in the permission
sense. When referring to the past, we must say:
(66) You could take every afternoon off last week.
You were allowed to take
May, as noted above, cannot be combined with the perfect infinitive for permission.
In questions, might suggests greater hesitation or diffidence, giving the whole utterance
a more appealing form:
(67) Might I borrow your pen?
It appears that the speaker in the above example does not assume that the permission
will be necessarily granted.
May, might, can and could in the permission sense are often employed as a core
around which to build various types of indirect speech acts, e.g. making strong
suggestions or giving commands, or offer help:
(68) a. You can forget all about that.
b. If you do not intend to behave yourself, you may leave.
c. Can I give you a hand?
Could may replace can in tentative, more hesitant requests in questions with present
or future time reference:
(69) a. Could I have another?
b. Could I have your pencil for a moment?
Could also serves as a milder, more hesitant alternative for can in the following pair
of examples which function as suggestions:
(70) a. I could see you tomorrow morning.
b. You could go now if you like.
When negated may, can and could mark the absence of permission, i.e. a sort of
implicit prohibition, and are thus equivalent in force to imperatives. May not commonly
appears in answers to questions, elsewhere it sounds archaic and formal:
(71) a. You may not stay here.
b. You cant stay here.
c. Dogs may not be taken into this restaurant.
A stronger sense of prohibition can, of course, be achieved by must not:

246

Part 4: Mood, modality, and reported speech

(72) a. Visitors must not feed animals.

b. You mustnt play with matches.

9.O.3.4. Obligation (and commands)

Obligation or duty as a modal concept has several degrees of intensity and may
consequently be expressed by a number of modal verbs: should, must, ought to, etc.
By using should we refer to an obligation or duty that may not be fulfilled although
the speaker clearly realizes that what is denoted by the lexical verbs following should is
the correct and/or sensible thing to do. No obligation is imposed, rather a strong
recommendation is made:
(73) a. Children should obey their parents.
b. All students should submit their essays by next Friday.
c. You should be more polite next time.
d. Should you not be home by now?
Should has present and future time reference above, but when followed by the perfect
infinitive it refers to the past. Should is found with past time reference only in the
reported speech:
(74) a. You should have stopped at the red lights.
b. He told me that I should obey my parents.
Should + perfect infinitive with the reference to the past has a stronger negative
connotation of contrary to the fact. It expresses a past unfulfilled duty. The sentence
(74) a. above has the presupposition:
(74) c. ... but you didn't.
Obligation or duty as a modal concept may also be expressed by ought to. This verb
refers to a weaker obligation or duty which consequently may not be fulfilled. It has the
same basic meaning as must, generally speaking, in that they both present the obligation
objectively and raise it to some kind of moral or social code presupposing a consensus
on what is obligatory or the correct line of action. Unlike must, it expresses not the
confidence but rather lack of full confidence in the fulfillment of the happening
described by the main verb. The socially accepted obligation is violated or in danger of
being violated. It expresses the subjects obligation or duties, but there is neither the
speakers authority (as with must), nor an outside authority as with have to). It is thus
weaker, less categorical than must but stronger than should, which is subjective,
implying a personal view on what is obligatory. Should is also fairly neutral in respect
of fulfillment.
(75) a. You ought to show more respect for your elders.

Grammatical Functions and Categories

247

b. I ought to study but will go to the movies.

c. You ought to finish your work before going out.
- Yes, I know I should/ought to.
d. He ought to pay for the broken window.
It is possible to continue the last example as follows:
(75) e. ...but he probably wont.
Ought to is formally different from most modals in that it contains the infinitive
particle to. It is not very frequent in positions which require an operator auxiliary (i.e. in
interrogatives and negative statements) and is then replaced by should.
Ought to + perfect infinitive is used to express an unfulfilled duty that was neglected:
(76) You ought to have done it earlier.
Must expresses obligation or compulsion, imposed by the speaker on the hearer, and
is thus a speaker-hearer-oriented modal verb:
(77) a. You must be back by ten o'clock.
You are obliged (by me) to be...
b. Tell him he must stop this dishonest behaviour.
c. I must go now, or I'll be late.
The usual implication of must, as of may for permission, is that the speaker is (or at
least believes to be) the person in authority: he is typically the one who gives the orders.
Must is thus frequently used as a command:
(78) You must stay at home and study for your examinations! Do you hear me, Bill?
Commands can be expressed by means of some other modal verbs as well. Shall is,
for example, also used for commands with 2nd and 3rd person subjects), as shown in
(79) below:
(79) a. You shall have no other God before me.
b. You shall not murder.
c. You shall not steal.
This use of shall, which is attested here in the wording of the Ten Commandments
(Exodus 20), is nowadays more or less obsolete. This archaic usage survives nowadays
only in legal and quasi-legal documents, such as club regulations, rules for card games
and academic dress, etc.:
(80) a. Members shall enter the name of their guests in the book provided.
b. A player who bids incorrectly shall forfeit fifty points.
c. The hood shall be of scarlet cloth, with a silk lining of the colour of the
faculty.

248

Part 4: Mood, modality, and reported speech

Will is used in imperatives with falling intonation to effectively issue a command or

order:
(81) a. Will you sit down!
b. Sit down, will you.
It can also be used in the affirmative to give instructions or orders in a peremptory
manner:
(82) a. You will remain here until I return.
b. All staff will leave the building at once.
c. You will call me at eight oclock!
d. All GIs will attend roll-call at 9 oclock.
e. All companies will stand by for immediate deployment as from 05.00.
In keeping with the above mentioned observation that must implies the speakers
authority, I must and we must convey the idea of self-compulsion in view of an
important or urgent obligation. The speaker exerts here power over himself, possibly
due to the fact that he realized that something is his duty, through self-discipline, or
merely through a sense of expediency (suitability, self-interest):
(83) a. I must get up early tomorrow.
b. We must not forget to excuse ourselves.
c. We must not be late for his lecture.
Sometimes the source of authority does not appear to rest with the speaker but rather
with an anonymous or implicit external agent and must merely reports obligation, which
is similar to the way in which may sometimes just reports authorized permission:
(84) According to club regulations, you must pay your membership dues by the end
of February.
Like may, must in questions and in conditional if clauses indicates a shift of the
source of the authority from the speaker to the hearer. The speaker makes an inquiry
about whether the hearer will place the obligation on the subject of the sentence:
(85) a. Must I copy all these letters?
Are these your orders?
b. Must he wash all the dishes?
The source of authority may occasionally rest with a 3rd person in embedded questions:
(86) Ask him if we must leave.
We may note a special sarcastic use of must with the 2nd person subject in questions,
where the modal carries a strong stress:

Grammatical Functions and Categories

(87) a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

249

Must you stay up so late?

Must he always agree with you?
Must you make all that dreadful noise?
If you must behave like an idiot, at least make sure no one is watching.
Must he play the same record all day long?

Since must here appears to express compulsion by the hearer (i.e. the selfcompulsion), we realize that this is meant as a sarcastic remark: it is as if the speaker
wanted to emphasize his belief that what the hearer does is unreasonable and wished to
discourage such behaviour. This appears to be a litote: although stating that the hearer
behaves in a particular way because he is under some internal compulsion rather than
out of his own free will, the speaker actually implies that he is not forced to do such
things and that it is something that could be brought under control if the hearer only
wanted to:
(88) If you must drink at cocktails, do not pester people with your silly stories.
if you are under compulsion to drink - but of course you aren't, drinking is just
a nasty habit you could break if you wanted to
Must could in such sentences be replaced by will in the sense of persistent habit, and
it is invariably stressed.
Must expressing obligation or compulsion refers both to present and future, though
the future reference can be made stronger, more explicit, by the use of the suppletive ll
have to form. The same replacement is used in conditional clauses.
(89) Well have to think it over.
Must has no equivalent past forms. The past in direct speech is expressed by had to,
though in reported speech must can remain. Must expressing annoyance, as in (87-88)
above, is quite freely used outside reported speech for past time reference:
(90) a. The officer reminded us that we must/had to keep together.
b. My parents said that we must be home by midnight.
c. Just as I was busiest, he must come bothering me.
The negative of this meaning, i.e. absence of obligation or duty is expressed
suppletively by neednt/dont need to/dont have to/havent got to. Must not expresses
prohibition. Note, however, that its basic obligation meaning is retained in negative tag
questions:
(91) We must wait for the captain, mustnt we?
The difference between ought to and must concerning the degree of certainty of
obligation or duty being fulfilled may be systematized as follows:
(92) a. He ought to pay for the broken window.

250

Part 4: Mood, modality, and reported speech

He should pay for the window

b. He must pay for the broken window.
... and moreover he will do so, because I say so/*... but he wont
Obligation may also be expressed by have (got) to. The variant with got is generally
substitutable for the one without got in colloquial BrE, except that there are no nonfinite forms:
(93) a. *to have got to
b. *having got to
Have got to is less widely used in the USA. Have to possesses interrogative and
negative forms both with and without the auxiliary do:
(94) a. Do you have to go now?
b. Have you to go now?
Up to recently, the former has been regarded as the usual American form, and the
latter as the usual British form. Now, however, the form with the operator do is
becoming increasingly used in BrE as well, and the construction without the operator is
becoming restricted to formal usage. The constructions Have... got to? and Havent got
to... are common in colloquial BrE.
For those native speakers who use both constructions with have got to and have to,
there may obtain a semantic specialization: have to expressing more general or habitual
obligation, have got to rather implies particular type of obligation, i.e. a more specific or
non-habitual situation (in the sense for this once), and therefore implies more urgency
than the former. The difference is quite prominent in questions and in negative
sentences.
(95) a. I always have to be at the office at 8.00
b. I have got to be at the office at 8.00 this morning.
This construction does not belong to modal verbs proper, it is rather to be considered
as a semi-modal, as a modally used verb, or as a modal expression. It is popular as a
means of conveying obligation generally, without specifying who does the compelling.
Unlike must, which involves the internal authority of the speaker, have to implies an
external, possibly anonymous authority. It may therefore be classified as external-forceoriented in this use:
(96) a. You have to turn down your radio.
As it is quite late, you are obliged to turn down your radio
b. You have to take off your shoes before entering a mosque.
According to Moslem customs, you are obliged to take off your shoes
before entering a mosque

Grammatical Functions and Categories

251

Need as a modal verb may also be used to express obligation, but it primarily
expresses its absence. It behaves as a modal verb with bare infinitive, but there is also
need as a main verb, which is followed by a to infinitive, or an NP as a direct object.
As an auxiliary verb need may be considered the negative and interrogative
counterpart of must in both the sense of compulsion and that of logical necessity to be
discussed in 9.O.4.3. below. In questions, however, the semantic distinctions which
exist between must and have (got) to in statements seem to become blurred, so need is
virtually interchangeable with Do ... have to? or Have... got to?:
(97) a. Need I have a passport?
b. Do I have to have a passport?
(98) a. Yes, I'm afraid you must.
b. Yes, I'm afraid you have to.
Note that this modal need in questions with 1st person subjects conventionally implies
that the speaker hopes for or expects a negative answer, i.e. the hearer, who has the
authority, is expected not to place the obligation in question:
(99) Need I fill out all these forms?
Need as a modal verb is rarely found in affirmative statements. Must and have to are
preferred instead:
(100) a. He need have no fear.
b. I am not sure that you need come.
In the construction need + to-infinitive, need is a full, lexical verb forming questions
and negative forms with do/did in the present and past simple tense, respectively, taking
present and past tense endings. This need is far more frequent than the modal one:
(101) He needs to rest.
A brief note on need as a lexical verb is in order here. Since need as an auxiliary verb
is practically confined to questions and negative statements, it is only the need to
construction that can be used in ordinary positive statements.
In terms of meaning, need to is somewhere between must and ought to. It asserts
obligation (or necessity), but without either certainty that attaches to must or the doubt
that is connected with ought to, and thus occupies an intermediate position on the scale
of intensity below:
(102) Scale of intensity:
a. You must get a hair-cut.
b. You need to get a hair-cut.
c. You ought to get a hair-cut.

252

Part 4: Mood, modality, and reported speech

In (102) a. the speaker is clearly exercising his own authority over the person addressed.
In (102) b. the speaker is primarily pointing out to the person denoted by the subject the
obligation that his own physical situation imposes upon him, viz. his hair is too long, he
looks untidy, and therefore a hair-cut is to be highly recommendable. On the scale of
intensity, (102) c. is least categorical in the sense of obligation, as it expresses the
speakers lack of full confidence concerning the fulfillment of the event described by
the main verb.
It is useful to note that in this construction, the main verb need has the same meaning
as when it is followed by a direct object (if one is available). The following sentences
are therefore virtual synonyms, as far as obligation is concerned:
(103) a. He needs to practice more.
b. He needs more practice.
(104) a. My boots need to be cleaned.
b. My boots need a clean.
The auxiliary and the lexical need scarcely differ in effect on many occasions:
(105) a. Need you wake him up?
b. Do you need to wake him up?
But in some other contexts one can draw a clear distinction between them (epistemic
vs. deontic use):
(106) a. The hedges neednt be trimmed this week, George.
b. The hedges dont need to be trimmed this week, George.
The first sentence means that George is excused the task, not obliged to trim the
hedge this week, perhaps because the speaker is feeling kind, perhaps because someone
else is going to do it, or because the speaker has some other more important tasks for
George. The second sentence means that the hedges do not require attention, probably
because they have not grown enough to make them look untidy.
Unlike didnt need referring to the past situation in which an activity was
unnecessary and hence was not performed, need followed by perfect infinitive indicates
an unnecessary activity that was nevertheless performed:
(107) a. We didnt need to take an umbrella. It was not raining.
... and we didn't take it
b. You neednt have brought your umbrella for we are going by car.
... but you did bring it

Grammatical Functions and Categories

253

In certain contexts, the obligation meaning of modal verbs may become weakened
down so that they really denote emphatic advice and suggestions, or reproach. Advice as
a subsense of obligation (correct, sensible, desirable action) may be expressed by
should or ought to:
(108) a. You should see that film.
b. You should drink more water in summer.
c. Shops should remain open till later in the evening.
(109) a. You ought to read his new book.
You should read...
b. Coffee ought to be drunk while it is hot.
Must may also be used to express strong advice:
(110) a. You must see that exhibition.
b. You mustnt miss that film, it is extraordinarily good.
With perfect infinitives should and ought to can express sensible actions which were
not performed or something that was not desirable but was, however, performed. This is
then advice-turned-reproach:
(111) a. You should have drunk more water.
b. You shouldnt have been rude to him.
but you were
(112) a. Your brother ought to have been a doctor.
Your brother should have been a doctor
Might is also used to phrase reproach for actions not done in the present/past:
(113) You might at least keep quiet when I am speaking to you.
The above has present time reference, whereas might + perfect infinitive expresses
actions not done in the past:
(114) a. You might have told me.
b. You might have helped her.
but you didnt
9.O.4. Review of ways of expressing epistemic (extrinsic) modality
We shall start our discussion of extrinsic modality with related concepts of possibility
and ability, then move on to prediction/probability and round off our discussion with
certainty or logical necessity (deduction). Compare the following scale:

254

Part 4: Mood, modality, and reported speech

(115) a. Our guest may/might be home by now.

b. Our guests will be home by now.
c. Our guest should/ought to be home by now.
d. Our guests must be home by now.

possibility
prediction
high probability
certainty

9.O.4.1. Possibility
This concept may be expressed by two pairs of related modals: can/could and
may/might. There is an opposition between factual and theoretical possibility which is
exemplified by the following set of sentences:
(116) a. The road can be blocked.
It is possible for the road to be blocked/it is possible to block the road
b. It cannot be done in any other way.
it is not possible to do it in any other way
c. Their report on UFOs can be a hoax.
it is possible for their report on UFOs to be a hoax
(117) a. The world economy may get even worse.
It is possible that the world economy will get even worse
b. The road may be blocked.
It is possible that the road is blocked/Perhaps the road is blocked
In the first set of examples, the judgement is based on external facts, whereas in the
second set it is based on the speakers subjective or personal experience. The second set
of sentences refers to a more immediate happening, whereas the first set expresses a
theoretically conceivable state of affairs, i.e. the actual likelihood of an event is
considered. Infrequently, the two types of possibility become blurred in actual
sentences.
Let us now turn to can and could for possibility (or likelihood if the sentence has
rather future time reference). Cf. the following examples:
120 (118) a. Even expert drivers can make mistakes.
It is possible for even expert drivers to...
b. He cant be working at this hour!
It is impossible that...
This use of can is not very frequent in positive statements, where it is in competition
with may:
(119) Even expert drivers may make mistakes.

Grammatical Functions and Categories

255

However, it is, unlike may, common in negative and interrogative sentences:

(120) a. Can it be true?
b. It cant be true.
(121) a. ?May it be true?
b. ?It may not be true.
For possibility in the past can is combined with the perfect infinitive:
(122) He is an hour late, he can have been delayed by fog.
Could can be used as a more cautious alternative than can for the present possibility:
(123) a. He couldnt be working at this hour.
b. Could it be true?
Can have, as we have pointed out, is used for the past time reference:
(124) He cant have been working at that hour.
May and might, as we said, can be used to express possibility of the factual type:
(125) a. Careful, that gun may be loaded.
it is possible that that gun is loaded
b. You may lose your way if you dont take a map.
This use of may is common in statements; it does not occur, however, in questions. May
in the possibility sense is stressed, (whereas in the sense of permission it is usually
unstressed).
May in this use usually refers to future events when combined with an event verb:
go, become, lose, etc. May with perfect infinitive indicates that an action is possibly
completed; in other words, the speaker now thinks that it is possible that the event
occurred in the past:
(126) Shakespeare may have lived there.
Might suggests lower probability than may:
(127) He might accept our offer, but it is doubtful.
Might + perfect infinitive indicates:
a. possibility in the past that still exists to some extent in the present:

256

Part 4: Mood, modality, and reported speech

(128) a. He might have had an accident, thats why he isn't here yet. Or he might
have missed the train.
b. He may have been hurt.
perhaps he was hurt, but we do not know yet
b. possibility in the past which was not fulfilled:
(129) a. You are lucky. You might have had an accident driving so fast.
b. You might have overrun somebody.
c. He might have come if we had asked him.
A handful of more or less idiomatically uses of modals can be seen as marginally
referring to possibility. Thus, can and could may be used in questions beginning with
what(ever), where, how, to indicate surprise, bewilderment, impatience, etc.
(130) a. What can he mean by that?
b. Where can he have put it?
c. What on earth could that be?
Similarly, may and might can indicate uncertainty/wonder or to ask for clarification
or information:
(131) a. Well, who may you be?
b. How old may she be?
c. How old might she be?

9.O.4.2. Prediction
Will is very often used to express prediction/probability/likelihood. In fact, several
clusters of prediction-related uses of will can be distinguished that appear to be
extensions of the basic future prediction sense. This common future predictive sense is
exemplified in:
(132) a. You will feel better after this medicine.
b. You will feel so fresh after you have had a good nights sleep.
Would has past time reference when embedded, as in (133):
(133) I was told I would feel better after that medicine.
The second related sense is the present predictive use of will/would.
(134) a. Thatll be the book youre looking for.
b. That will be the postman, I expect.
c. That will be John coming up the drive.

Grammatical Functions and Categories

257

The truth of what is asserted is more or less taken for granted. Used with the present
infinitive, will refers to present time:
(135) You will already be familiar with this subject.
To refer to the past, we can also use will and the perfect infinitive:
(136) He will have arrived by now.
Would in the example below has present time reference but is more tentative, less
certain:
(137) That would be the postman, I guess.
Would has past time reference when followed by perfect infinitive:
(138) That would have been the postman.
Will is similarly used to express polite assumptions:
(139) a. You will be hungry after your long journey.
surely youre hungry after
b. You will have heard.
you have surely heard
There is, finally, an extension of the basic prediction meaning into the direction of
so-called general or habitual predictive meaning of will/would found in conditionals or
in timeless statements:
(140) a. If litmus paper is dipped in acid, it will turn red.
b. Oil will float on water.
We also not a further extension where the modal verb is used in the sense of typical
or characteristic behaviour in many general statements of proverbial or scientific sort.
(141) a. A lion will attack a man only when hungry.
b. A dog will usually obey his master.
c. Truth will out.
d. Boys will be boys.
e. Accidents will happen.
Note the use of will/would (usually with negation) to refer to negative predictions
(disposition) in the sense of refusal:
(142) a. This watch wont work.
b. Will the window open?

258

Part 4: Mood, modality, and reported speech

c. The auditorium will seat 500.

This use of will occurs with inanimate subjects, and is sometimes parallel to can (but
with a different choice of the subject):
(143) a. Can the window be opened?
b. 500 can seat in the auditorium.
Will/would also occurs in descriptions of characteristic habits or characteristic
activities. Note again the parallel with can and could:
(144) a. Hell go all day without eating.
b. John will talk for hours on end.
c. He will often sit alone for hours.
He has often done so in the past and it is certain that hell go on doing so
e. If there is a problem to solve, he will work hours on end until he finds a
solution.
Would is used to refer to characteristic habit/tendency in the past:
(145) Often when we were together I would tell them stories.
Would can be used idiomatically, and is not replaceable by will, in:
(146) She broke the cup. - Oh, she would.
That's just like her (sarcastically meant)
Unlike with will used for insistence and persistent behaviour (discussed under intrinsic
modality above), there seems to be no restriction in the choice of the subject. It is
implied here that this happens form time to time. Subjective attitude of the speaker is
not necessarily present. Will is here normally without stress and may be contracted.
Can may be used to indicate a general characteristic, inclination towards a
characteristic activity or characteristic quality that may show itself from time to time. It
is often accompanied by adverbials of frequency:
(147) Children can sometimes be trying.
If there is no frequency adverbial (or quantifier), such sentences can be ambiguous:
(148) Lions can be dangerous.
some lions are dangerous
lions are sometimes dangerous
Be able to cannot be used to replace can in this sense.
Could is used for characteristic activity in the past:

Grammatical Functions and Categories

259

(149) He could be very unpleasant when he was angry.

Shall is found in some oracular statements:
(150) a. So shall it ever be.
b. He shall live to see his father avenged.

9.O.4.3. Logical necessity (deduction) and probability

The cluster of related modal meanings including high probability, conclusion,
deduction and logical necessity may be expressed by means of several modal verbs, e.g.
should, must, need, have to, ought to.
Should expresses high probability or deduction:
(151) a. Our guest should be home by now.
b. We should be there in an hour or so.
c. His perseverance should pay off in the long run.
Similarly, ought to is also used for high probability, and deduction:
(152) a. If he started at nine, he ought to be here now.
b. That ought to be enough fish for three people, I think.
Ought to, like should, is weaker in force than must, because it indicates that the
speaker has doubts about the soundness of his conclusion.
(153)

Our guests should/ought to be home by now.

... but whether my conclusion is right or not I don't know perhaps they were
hindered by something

Shouldnt and oughtnt negate the probability.

Must expresses logical necessity or conclusion here and can be paraphrased as to be
logically clear to the speaker/to be necessarily the case because there is no other
possibility:
(154) a. There must be some mistake.
b. He must be working late at the office.
that is necessarily the case - no other explanation is possible
c. John must be the one who broke the window.
Logical necessity is in this case led by subjective inference; must is used here to express
knowledge arrived at by inferencing or reasoning rather than by any direct experience.
For each example we could add the comment Given the evidence, there can be no other

260

Part 4: Mood, modality, and reported speech

conclusion. This use of must has no negative or question form, because they would be
pragmatically odd. For example, a question with must in this use would have to be
paraphrased as Is it logically clear to the speaker that such and such is the case? It
would make sense only as an echo question, following a previous statement.
(155) a. There cannot be any mistake.
b. *There must not be...
For questions in this case we use need or have to, as illustrated below:
(156) a. Need anyone be lying?
b. Does someone have to be lying?
It can also be used in negative sentences, but on the whole, need is less common in this
epistemic sense than must and have (got) to:
(157) Everything they claim about his behaviour neednt be true.
To refer to a conclusion about the past, we use must + perfect infinitive:
(158) You must have left your bag in the theatre.
Logical necessity can easily become weakened to logical assumption. This
weakening is evident in remarks like:
(159) a. You must be Mrs. Williams.
b. You must be pretty tired after you long flight.
There is an even more drastic weakening in estimating statements like:
(160) a. You must be a foot taller than me.
b. He must be well over eighty.
The above sentences express little more than a guess.
Have to is used to express deduction (i.e. logical necessity), mainly in colloquial
English:
(161)

a. There has to be some reason for his absurd behaviour.

b. Somebody had to lose the game.
c. There has to be some mistake.

Have (got) to is less usual than must in this sense in affirmative sentences. However,
it is used to replace must in questions. Another point of difference is that have (got) to
indicates a stronger logical necessity than must because it involves some external
factors. It cannot be combined with a perfect infinitive, but it has a past form, of course
without got:
(162) a. He must have arrived.

Grammatical Functions and Categories

261

b. *He has (got) to have arrived.

c. He was not in the kitchen. So he had to be in the living room.
9.O.4.4. Semi-modals and marginal modals
As the semi-modal have to and the marginal modal need have been discussed in
appropriate sections dealing with specific types of modal concepts, we shall here only
concentrate on be to, dare and used to.

Be to + infinitive (am/is/are to-infinitive)

This is not a modal verb, but a modally used primary auxiliary, i.e. a modal
expression, that has already been discussed. It is used:
1. to convey indirect orders or instructions (related to must)
(163) a. All papers are to be submitted by Tuesday.
all papers must be submitted
b. No one is to leave this building without the permission of the police.
no none must leave...
c. He is to stay here till we return.
he must stay...
This is rather impersonal way of giving instructions and is chiefly used with the third
person. When used with second person subjects it often implies that the speaker is
passing on instructions issued by someone else:
(164) a. You are to smoke in a smoking compartment not in a non-smoking one.
121 b. Stay here, Tom.
You must stay here, Tom
c. You are to stay here, Tom.
In (164) b. the speaker wished Tom to stay while in c. he may be merely conveying
to Tom the wishes of another person (although it neednt necessarily be the case). This
distinction disappears of course in reported speech. Be + to-infinitive is particularly
useful when the reporting verb is in the present or when there is a clause in front of the
imperative:
(165) a. He says that we are to wait.
b. He said that if he fell asleep at the wheel she was to wake him up.
2. to express intention (a way of referring to future events):
(166) a. They are to be married in May.

262

Part 4: Mood, modality, and reported speech

b. The meeting is to take place in Madrid.

c. Our 15th class reunion is to take place on May 15th.
This construction is used here to indicate a future event already determined by plan,
decree, or arrangement in the present. It is implied that the planning is done by someone
other than the subject of the sentence.
It is commonly used in newspaper headlines to indicate future events in general, but
particularly to refer to planned future with the implication of immediacy; the finite form
of be is, as a rule, omitted:
(167) a. PM to make statement tomorrow
b. President to resign
Future-in-the-past is expressed by was/were + to-infinitive:
(168) The meeting was to take place at Oxford the next day.
The above sentence does not tell us whether the plan was carried out or not. The
following clearly indicates an unfulfilled plan:
(169) He was to have gone.
3. to stress the notion of conditionality in conditional clauses, its subjunctive
counterpart is used in hypothetical contexts. In the latter case it is replaceable by should:
(170) a. If he is to play for us, we will definitely win the game.
b. If he were to/should play for us, we would definitely win the game.
4. to express the sense of destiny:
(171) He was never to see his wife and family again.
5. idiomatically before certain verbs such as follow or come:
(172) a. The worst is yet to come.
b. The best was to follow.

Dare

Dare can be used as a modal verb, i.e. with a bare infinitive and without inflected
forms, or as a lexical verb with to-infinitive, s-inflection and past forms. The modal
construction, meaning roughly to have courage/be bold enough to risk something, is
mainly restricted to negative and interrogative sentences, and to non-assertively
embedded contexts in general (cf. (174) e. below), whereas the lexical verb construction
can always be used and is in fact more common:

Grammatical Functions and Categories

263

(173) a. Dare we go in yet?

b. Do we dare (to) go yet in?
c. Dare you question his integrity?
122 (174) a. I darent look down.
b. I dont dare to look down.
c. No soldier dare disobey.
d. I never dared (to) ask him.
e. They do not think she dare go out without her parents permission.
How dare is used as a protest against a rude act by someone else:
(175) a. How dare you speak to me like that?
b. How dare you ask me such a question!
Dont (you) dare (to) is used as a strong prohibition or threat:
(176) Dont (you) dare (to) talk to me like that!
The lexical verb may be used with and without to.
Dare is used idiomatically in:
(177) I dare say you are right.
It seems to me possible or likely that...
When the meaning of the lexical verb dare is challenge, there is no modal
counterpart:
(178) a. He dared me to jump.
b. Go on and insult me! I dare you!

Used to

This construction occurs only in the past tense, denoting a habit or state in the past
that has ceased. Note its variety of forms in the interrogative and negative, as it exhibits
both auxiliary forms and full verb forms:
(179) a. He used to smoke, I know.
b. Used he to smoke a pipe?
c. He used not/usednt to smoke a pipe, did he?
d. He used to do it, didnt he/use(d)nt he?
e. He didnt use to smoke. (colloquial)

264

Part 4: Mood, modality, and reported speech

This construction should not be confused with the predicatively used adjective used
which takes prepositional complements introduced by to. The preposition can also
introduce an -ing clause:
(180) a. He is used to such a treatment.
b. He is used to being treated like an idiot.

9.O.4.5. Other modal expressions

There are a number of predicatively used adjectives or nouns as well as adverbs
functioning as adjuncts that may be used to paraphrase modal verbs or express some
modal concepts. Cf.:
(181) a. He is not likely to do it.
b. He is certain to come.
c. He is sure to win.
d. He is bound to come late.
(182) a. He is perhaps at home.
b. He is possibly at home.
(183) a.Youd better/best do it now.
b. You had better mend it.
(184) a. Id rather you do it.
b. I would rather go than stay here.
Note that the last two constructions are sometimes blended, probably due to the fact that
they are more frequent with contracted auxiliaries:
(185) You would better not smoke.

9.T. Topics for further discussion

9.T.1. Multiple modal constructions
The four constructions containing auxiliaries can be combined in certain ways but
each can be used only once. It follows from this that there cannot be more than four
auxiliaries in a single verb phrase, have and modals can appear only once, and be twice,
since it functions both as the progressive and the passive auxiliary. Modality, as we