Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
INTRODUCTION
- can, could
- shall, should
- will, would
- may, might
- must
- ought to
Note - Some books list ought to as a semi-modal. But as it can't be used with do / does /
did, and behaves just like the others, I'm including it as a full modal.
Modal auxiliaries share four characteristics with the primary auxiliary verbs do, be, have
they form their negatives with not or -n't
They can be used in short forms, short answers and tag questions:
- They're used with the bare infinitive (but see next section on aspect)
- They don't use do /does / did for negative or question forms (see above)
- They have the same form for all persons (no 3rd person singular s)
- They don't have different tense forms (but they can have different aspects - see
next section). In their base form, they can often refer to the future as well as the
present.
They can theoretically be used in all four aspects, but not all modals are used in all aspects.
The verbs can and shall are usually only used in simple aspect. The four aspects of will
form the basis of the future tenses.
Continuous aspect is often used to speculate or make deductions about what somebody
is doing.
Perfect aspect has two main uses: speculation and deduction about the past, and making
comments, often critical, about a past action.
More detail will be given in the section for each individual verb.
Present and future - these are formed with the base form of the modal verb:
- I can do it now
- I could do it tomorrow
- You should phone him now
- He might be out of town tomorrow.
Past - these are sometimes formed with a related modal, a modal perfect or a different
verb altogether:
As modal verbs usually have more than one meaning, the same sentence can sometimes
mean two different things, depending on context. For example, should can be used both
for expectation and obligation
Have you seen Judy? Have you tried her office, she should be here by now.
(Expectation / probability)
SEMI-MODALS PLUS
There are two verbs which can be used both like modals and ordinary verbs, and so are
often called semi-modals:
- need
- dare
And there are also two verbs which have some affinity with modal verbs. The verb used
to was in the past used like a modal, but is now almost always used like an ordinary verb.
The verb have (got) to is used to express the modal meaning of obligation.
- used to
- have (got) to
All four of these verbs are (or can be) used with do / does / did in negatives and questions.
SEMI-AUXILIARIES
We'll also look at a group of expressions based on the auxiliary verb be plus to, which are
often used with modal meaning. And there's one based on had - had better.
- be going to
- be to
- be supposed / meant to
- be willing to
- be + adjective + to
- be bound to
- be sure / certain to
- be likely to
- be due to
- be set to
- had better
There are many ways of categorising the functions of modal verbs, but I've divided them
into ten main areas.
Negative functions are treated together with positive functions, so lack of ability is dealt
with in the Ability section, lack of obligation in the Obligation section, etc.
ABILITY
In spoken English, we usually prefer, where possible, to use can and could rather than be
able to, which is seen as more formal. But if we want to use another tense or combine it
with another modal, such as will or used to,or another we need to use be able to.
Notice the difference between the general past, where we can use could in positive
statements, and specific occasions in the past, when we have to use be able to (or manage
to), except with verbs of the senses and certain others.
could - ability in the past on a specific occasion before see, hear, taste, feel, guess,
understand, remember
manage to - ability in the past on a specific occasion, especially when there was some
difficulty involved
could have - potential ability in the past not fulfilled - it would have been possible, but
didn't happen.
I could have come back yesterday, but decided to stay on for an extra day.
I could have told you that yesterday. (But you never asked me!)
In negatives, we can use could not / couldn't, be able to for both general and specific, and
not manage to for specific occasions.
could not / not be able to / not manage to - negative ability in the past on a specific
occasion
I'm afraid we didn't manage to find what you were looking for.
may - asking permission (rather formal - some people think this is more 'correct')
giving permission
You can stay out late as long as you let us know where you are.
No more than four children may enter this shop at one time.
We use be allowed to to talk about general permision, in other words, laws and rules.
As when talking about ability, we can only use could to talk about general permsiion in
the past. For specific occasions, we need to use be able to.
She wasn't allowed to go to the rock festival as she was only fourteen.
Could and would are more polite than can and will, which are quite informal.
These requests are rather similar to asking permission - could and may are more polite
and might is more formal (and not often used)
possibility
Can it be true?
uncertainty
logical impossibility
past possiblity
might have / could have - something that was possible in the past but didn't happen - often
implies a criticism
There isn't any milk. But there should be. I bought some yesterday.
I'm sure he won't like it. It's just not his cup of tea.
We shan't be long.
We shouldn't be back too late.
probability
be likely to - probability
must - certainty, even though the evidence suggests something different - we stress must
here.
due to - expectation
We could be lost.
might not / may not (but not could) - negative speculation about the present and future
might have / may have / could have - speculating about the past
might not have / may not have (but not could not have) - negative speculation about the
past
can't have / couldn't have - logical deduction about the past (negative)
obligation
must - internal or strong obligation in the present - the obligation usually comes from
yourself or someone in authority - your parents, your boss etc, especially when they insist
on something
have to / have got to - external specific obligation - we use have got to mostly in spoken
English. In formal written English we use have to
have to - talking about general obligations which are usually external - we don't normally
use have got to here.
necessity
need to - necessity
cannot - prohibition
You needn't come / don't need to come if you don't want to.
We can't use must for past obligation or necessity, only have to or need to.
not have to / not need to - lack of obligartion or necessity in the past which we knew about
so didn't do
We didn't really have to dress up, but we did anyway fot the fun of it.
need not have - lack of necessity in the past which we didn't know about at the time (so
we did whatever it was), and only later discover was unnecessary.
We needn't have left so early, we had plenty of time. (But we did leave early)
advice
had better - stronger or more urgent advice than should or ought to (including to
ourselves)
recommendation
offers
Could and should are more tentative than can and shall.
will - offers
suggestions
should - making a suggestion - usually used in negative questions, and asking for
suggestions
be willing to - willingness
refusal or unwillngness
be willing to - general willingness in the past (use would for specific occasions)
typical behaviour
will - commenting on typical behaviour (often showing annoyance), often with keep
He will keep asking me these stupid questions.
would - commenting on something someone has done which is seen as typical of their
behaviour (often showing mild annoyance or criticism)
Well, she would say that, would't she! That's just typical of her.
You will make those horrible noises while I'm trying to read.
Full modals
can
possibility
asking permission
giving permission
offers
requests
cannot
negative possibility
prohibition
refusing permission
can't have
could
possibility
polite requests
asking permission
offers
making a suggestion
speculation
could not
could be + -ing
could have
past impossibility
You could have been doing your homework while you were waiting for Pete to come
round.
possibility
No, you may not stay out until all hours of the night!
polite offers
expressing annoyance
suggestions
expressing annoyance
He may / might be very intelligent, but he doesn't seem to have a lot of common sense.
They may / might not be rich, but they certainly know how to enjoy themselves.
It may / might well have been her idea, but it was me who did all the work.
must
We use must for a personal obligation, and have to for a more general external obligation.
We can't use must in the past and future, and need to use have to instead.
necessity
strong recommendation
must not
prohibition
strong advice
You mustn't worry. I'm sure everything will work out OK.
must be + -ing
must have
You must have worked here for at least six months before you are entitled to holiday
leave.
You mustn't have been late more than tree times or they deduct it from your pay.
There were clothes everywhere. She must have been doing the ironing.
suggestions
offers
instead of will in 1st person (British English - apparently a bit old fashioned, but I use it
from time to time) - for predictions, intentions etc
If it's successful, we shan't have been doing all this work in vain. (= future perfect
continuous)
when should and ought to are interchangable. This is the more common category.
when should has special meanings which can't be expressed by ought to. These are less
common, and more associated with British English.
should / ought to
recommendations
Shouldn't we be going?
advice
You ought to have have seen his face when he found out.
In reported speech:
It is vital that the work should be finished by the end of the week.
In American English (and occasionally in very formal British English), should is left out
in these type of subordinate clauses to give a present subjunctive:
I'm sorry that you should think I'd do a thing like that.
In American English would is more usual (and is also possible in British English)
I'm sorry that you would think I'd do a thing like that..
In conditionals
Making first conditionals and time clauses more tentative. (This can be inverted)
If you should happen to see him, could you give him this?
Should I see him later, I'll tell him what you said.
giving advice
We should be grateful if you could give us a reply by the end of the week.
You won't be very late, will you? - I shouldn't think so, no.
will
About the present, general time and the very near future
stating facts
offers
Next time you see him will you tell him I was asking for him?
willingness
habitual actions
making orders and instructions softer, especially with have to and need to - a form of
distancing
Ill have to ask you to come with me, Sir. (eg Customs official)
That will be 20, please. (eg shop assistant, saying what is owed)
refusal
will be + -ing
will have + pp
future perfect continuous to talk about how long activities will have lasted by a time in
the future
If a bus doesn't come soon I'll have been waiting for half-an-hour.
would
polite requests
giving advice
conditional willingness
If you told me what the problem was, I would be able to help.
Well, she would say that, would't she! That's just typical of her.
This was the man who would one day become her husband.
would be + -ing
would have + pp
conditional willingness in the past
She would never have come if we hadn't offered her a big increase in salary.
I would have been doing it now if you hadn't asked me to do something else.
Semi-modals plus
have to and must - We use have to for a general external obligation and must for a more
personal obligation. We need to use had to instead of must for the past and have to with
will.
have to and have got to - these both have exactly the same meaning, but have got to is
used more in spoken English and have to in more formal written English. We can only
use have got to in a present structure. For the past and with will, we need to use had to
and will have to.
used to
Historical note - in questions and negatives nowadays we use do / does / did, but in British
English modal forms are possible, although thought to be old-fashioned or very formal.
You might come across the following modal forms:
need to
This is a semi-modal verb. It can have a modal structure in negatives and questions, but
the normal structure with do / does / did is more common.
necessity
necessity - questions
You don't need to come if you don't want to. (normal form)
Notice the difference between didn't need to do something and needn't have done
something. In the first we knew it wasn't necessary. Whether we then did it or not depends
on the context. In the second, we only found out that it wasn't necessary after we had done
it.
Oh you needn't have come to pick me up. I could easily have got a taxi.
dare
as a modal in negatives
semi-auxiliaries
be going to
Look at the time. We're going to be late if we don't get a move on.
in reported speech
be to
obligation - instructions
be able to
When possible, we prefer to use can (be able to. is more formal) But when talking about
the past or with will, we have to use be able to.
present ability
be allowed to
permission
be supposed / meant to
supposed to and meant to have the same meaning, saying what should happen, but often
implying that a rule is not always followed.
intended obligation
intended obligation
Use of supposed to and meant to in the past suggest that the action didn't happen.
She was supposed to finish it last week, but I haven't seen anything yet.
intended obligation
He was to meant to be phoning me, but I haven't heard anything from him.
be willing to
willingness
be + adjective + to
likely to - probability
had better
making a suggestion
Related posts
Links
Wikipedia
Grammar.About
NICE - UCL
Gramarring
Email This
BlogThis!
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
Share to Pinterest
3 comments:
sandara Qz said...
Hello teacher. There are three words "would" in the sentene below. So, how does that
work? This is an answer of the use of "the".
It WOULD be unnatural to ask about a dog's name before knowing which dog is being
referred to. The speaker and listeners WOULD already know which dog is meant, so the
dog is correct. This dog WOULD normally be a dog nearby, or at least visible; or it could
be a dog in a photo.
First, sorry for the delay in answering, and what a question! Incidentally, another teacher
has had a go at answering it at the WordReference Forum. You could also have a look at
my post on would.
So here goes. I would suggest that all three are being implied 2nd conditionals. Let's
rephrase it as a couple of conditional sentences:
"If you asked about a dog's name before knowing which dog is being referred, to it would
be unnatural. Because if you asked about the dog's name, the speaker and listeners would
already know which dog is meant, and this would normally be a dog nearby"
https://linguapress.com/grammar/modal-can.htm