Forms of the modal auxiliary verbs

NonnegativeUncontracted Contracted
Negative Negative
can cannot can’t
could could not couldn’t
might might not mightn’t
should should not shouldn’t
will will not won’t
would would not wouldn’t
must must not mustn’t
 Criteria for auxiliary verbs
Auxiliary Criteria Auxiliary
a)Operator in negation He cannot go.
b) Negative contraction can’t
c) Op in inversion Can we go
d) Emphatic positive Yes, I do can come.
e) Op in reduced clause I can come. You can.
 Criteria for auxiliary verbs
Auxiliary Criteria Auxiliary

f) Position of adverb We can always go early.

g) Postposition of quantifier They can all come.
They all can come.
h) Independence of subject Ann can do it.
It can be done by Ann.
 Criteria for auxiliary verbs
Modal Modal Auxiliary
Auxiliary Criteria
i) Bare infinitive I can go.
j) No nonfinite to can/
forms canning/
canned
k) No –s form She cans
come.
 Criteria for auxiliary verbs
Modal Modal Auxiliary
Auxiliary Criteria
l) Abnormal time You could leave
reference this evening.
[not past time]
 Marginal Modals
DARE and NEED
- can be constructed either as main verbs (with
to-infinitive and with inflected –s, -ing, and past
forms), or under restricted conditions, as modal
auxiliaries.
- the modal construction is restricted to
nonassertive contexts, ie, mainly negative and
interrogative sentences, whereas the main verb
construction can almost always be used (in fact
more common)
 Marginal modals
DARE and NEED
- the auxiliary construction with dare and need is
rarer in AmE than in BrE, where it is also quite
rare.
- As a modal, DARE exhibits abnormal time
reference in that it can be used, without
inflection, for past as well as present time.
- E.g.
The king was so hot-tempered that no one
dare tell him the bad news. (also: dared [to])
 Marginal modals
OUGHT TO
- It has the uncontracted negative ought not to
and the contracted negative oughtn’t to.
- It normally has the to-infinitive (although
occasionally in familiar style the bare infinitive
occurs in nonassertive contexts):
E.g.
You ought to stop smoking.
You oughtn’t to smoke so much.
Ought you to smoke so much?
 Marginal modals
USED TO
- It denotes a habit or a state that existed in the
past, and is therefore semantically not so much
a modal auxiliary as an auxiliary of tense and
aspect.
- In formal terms, it fits the marginal modal
category.
- It always takes the to-infinitive and only occurs
in the past tense.
 Marginal modals
USED TO
- E.g.
She used to attend regularly. [‘was in the habit
of attending…’]
I used to be interested in bird-watching.
[‘I was formerly…’]
- It occurs both as an operator and with DO-
support.
 MODAL IDIOMS
had better would rather HAVE got to BE to
- They all begin with an auxiliary verb, and are
followed by an infinitive (sometimes preceded by
to):
[1] We {had,’d} better leave soon. Yes, we {had, ’d
better}.
[2] I’d rather not say anything.
[3] They’ve got to leave immediately.
[4] The conference is to take place in Athens.
 MODAL IDIOMS
had better would rather HAVE got to BE to
- None of these idiomatic verbs had nonfinite
forms; they cannot therefore follow other verbs in
the verb phrase:
* I will have got to leave soon.
 MODAL IDIOMS
had better would rather HAVE got to BE to
- In negative and interrogative sentences, it is
normally the first word alone which acts as
operator:
[1] Hadn’t we better lock the door?
[2] Would you rather eat in a hotel?
[3] We haven’t got to pay already, have we?
[4] I wasn’t to know that you were waiting.
 MODAL IDIOMS
had better would rather HAVE got to BE
to
- HAD BETTER and WOULD RATHER have two kinds
of negation:
[1] There is a negation in which not follows the
whole expression:
I’d rather not stay here alone.
You’d better not lock the door.
 MODAL IDIOMS
had better would rather HAVE got to BE to
- HAD BETTER and WOULD RATHER have two kinds of
negation:
[2] The 2nd type, in which not follows the first word, is
typically used in ‘second instance’ contexts (esp.
negative questions) where an earlier statement or
assumption is being challenged:
A. Wouldn’t you rather live in the country?
B. No, I would not. I’d rather live here.
 MODAL IDIOMS
had better would rather HAVE got to BE to
- WOULD RATHER differs from central modals and marginal
modals in that it is incapable of showing active – passive
synonymy.
[1] I’d rather rent the cottage.
[2] The cottage would rather be rented by me.
 MODAL IDIOMS
had better would rather HAVE got to BE to
- HAVE got to and BE to are more like main verbs in that they have an –s form
and normal present/past tense contrast:
E.g.
The committee {is to meet today.
{was to meet yesterday.
She {has got to leave by tomorrow.
{had got to leave by the next day. <BrE>
 THE MEANINGS of the MODAL IDIOMS
[a] Had better has a meaning of ‘advisability’, similar to the
obligational meaning of ought to and should.
[b] Would rather has the volitional meaning ‘would prefer to’.
[c] HAVE got to has meanings of ‘obligation’ and ‘logical necessity’.
[d] BE to is an idiom expressing futurity, with varied connotations of
‘compulsion’, ‘plan’, ‘destiny’ according to context.
 SEMI-AUXILIARIES: BE going to
- Consist of a set of verb idioms which express modal or aspectual
meaning and which are introduced by one of the primary verbs HAVE
and BE;
E.g.
be able to be bound to be likely to
be about to be due to be meant to
be apt to be going to be obliged to
 SEMI-AUXILIARIES: BE going to
- The boundaries of this category are not clear: they might be extended, e.g.,
to include the negative be unable to, be unwilling to, etc.
- These constructions satisfy the first criteria for auxiliary verbs: be going to
has be as an operator in negation and inversion, rather than having DO-
support:
E.g. Ada isn’t going to win.
*Ada doesn’t be going to win.
Is Ada going to win?
*Does Ada be going to win?
 SEMI-AUXILIARIES: BE going to
- They do resemble auxiliaries in permitting synonymous passives and
there-construction in accordance with the criterion of subject-
independence:
E.g. Brazil is going to win the World Cup.
~ The World Cup is going to be won by Brazil.
Several home teams are going to be beaten tomorrow.
~ There are going to be several home teams
beaten tomorrow.
 SEMI-AUXILIARIES: BE going to
- Such constructions as be going to and be bound to belie their
appearance in not allowing contrasts of aspect and voice.
- There is no nonprogressive construction corresponding to be going to:
E.g. Several home teams go to be beaten tomorrow.
- And there is no active equivalent of the superficially passive be bound to:
E.g. He was bound to be a failure.
~Someone bound him to be a failure.
 SEMI-AUXILIARIES: BE going to
- Two or more semi-auxiliaries may indeed occur in sequence:
E.g.
Someone is going to have to complain.
No one is likely to be able to recognize her.
 SEMI-AUXILIARIES: BE going to
- Although there are restrictions on this kind of combination, the
occurrence of nonfinite semi-auxiliaries means that these idioms
can fill slots in a modal verb paradigm where modal auxiliaries of
equivalent meaning cannot occur:
E.g.
We haven’t {could} solve the problem. [can = ‘ability]
{been able to}
To {can} speak freely is a human right.
{be allowed to} [can=‘permission]
 SEMI-AUXILIARIES: BE going to
HAVE TO
- Is the only semi-auxiliary beginning with HAVE rather than BE, but
its inclusion in this category is partly justified by its occurrence in
the full range of nonfinite forms, a respect in which it differs from
the semantically parallel have got to.
E.g. I may have to leave early.
*I may have got to leave early.
[have to can occur in modal, perfective, and progressive
constructions]
 SEMI-AUXILIARIES: BE going to
HAVE TO
- In meaning, have to is similar to must, and can stand in for
must in past constructions where must cannot occur:
E.g.
These days you must work hard if you want to succeed.
In those days you had to work hard if you wanted to succeed.
[have to = ‘obligation’]
 SEMI-AUXILIARIES: BE going to
HAVE TO
- In meaning, have to is similar to must, and can stand in for
must in past constructions where must cannot occur:
E.g.
There must be some solution to the problem.
There had to be some solution to the problem.
[have to = ‘logical necessity’]
 SEMI-AUXILIARIES: BE going to
HAVE TO
- Have to patterns either as a main verb or as an auxiliary with
respect to operator constructions:
E.g.
Do we have to get up early tomorrow?
<AmE and BrE>
Have we to get up early tomorrow? <BrE>
[somewhat old-fashioned]
 CATENATIVE VERB CONSTRUCTIONS
- The term CATENATIVE will in practice be used to denote
in such constructions as appear to, come to, fail to, get
to happen to, manage to, seem to, tend to, and turn
out to followed by the infinitive:
E.g.
Sam {appeared, came, failed, seemed} to realize the
importance of the problem.
 CATENATIVE VERB CONSTRUCTIONS
- Such constructions have meanings related to aspect or
modality, but are nearer to main verb constructions
than are semi-auxiliaries, patterning entirely like main
verbs in taking DO-support:
E.g.
Sam didn’t {appear, come} to realize the importance of
the problem.
 CATENATIVE VERB CONSTRUCTIONS
- Most of them do resemble auxiliary constructions in
satisfying the ‘independence of subject’ criterion. Thus
has the corresponding passive:
E.g.
The importance of the problem {appeared, came,
seemed} to be realized by Sam.
 CATENATIVE VERB CONSTRUCTIONS
- Unlike main verb constructions such as expect (to), want (to),
and attempt (to), catenative constructions are in no way
syntactically related to transitive verb constructions in which
the verb is followed by a direct object or prepositional object.
Compare:
E.g. John {appeared, attempted} to attack the burglar.

John {*appeared, attempted} an attack on the burglar.

 CATENATIVE VERB CONSTRUCTIONS
- Among catenative verbs, certain verbs which resemble
the auxiliary BE in combining either with the –ing
participle in progressive constructions, or with the –ed
participle in passive constructions:
E.g.
The girl {started out, kept (on), went on} working.
Our team got beaten by the visitors.
 Some further aspects of the gradience
between modals and main verbs
Additional Characteristics of Modal Auxiliaries
[a] They are either invariable, like must, or close to
invariable, like would, which, although historically it is the
past tense form of will, is from the standpoint of present-
day English in many respects an independent form.
 Some further aspects of the gradience
between modals and main verbs
Additional Characteristics of Modal Auxiliaries
[b] From the semantic point of view, modal auxiliaries are often
specialized towards the expression of certain speech acts; e.g.
giving advice (ought to, should), making promises or threats
(will), giving orders (must, can), etc.
- In this respect, they give an utterance a force somewhat similar
to that of a performative such as I beg you…, I promise you…,
etc.
 Some further aspects of the gradience
between modals and main verbs
Additional Characteristics of Modal Auxiliaries
- Adding points [a] and [b] together, we may go so far to see
in modals a tendency to develop into ‘pragmatic particles’.
- This tendency is seen in its purest form in a construction
such as May you be happy!, where the modal may is placed
at the beginning of the sentence, and marks it as an
expression of wish.
 Some further aspects of the gradience
between modals and main verbs
- On a similar footing, let in sentences such as Let them come
here or Let the world take notice may be regarded as a
pragmatic particle of imperative or optative mood.
- In being followed by a pronoun in the objective case (Let
them…., Let us…., etc.), it assimilated to the pattern of complex
transitive verbs. Clearly, in terms of its syntactic affinities, it is a
main verb rather than an auxiliary.
 Some further aspects of the gradience
between modals and main verbs
- Another example of a verb which is syntactically a main verb,
although it behaves rather like a pragmatic particle, is the
verb want when followed by to + infinitive in utterances
such as:
E.g.
[1] You want to be careful with that saw.
[2] I want to tell you how much we enjoyed last night.
 Some further aspects of the gradience
between modals and main verbs
- In [1], You want to expresses a warning or a piece of advice;
in [2], I want to introduces an expression of wish, which, in
effect, tones down a performative verb.
E.g.
[1] You want to be careful with that saw.
[2] I want to tell you how much we enjoyed last night.
 Some further aspects of the gradience
between modals and main verbs
- What makes want to in [1] particularly similar to a pragmatic particle is
the impossibility of obtaining an equivalent meaning when the sentence
is changed into the past tense or into the progressive aspect:
[3] ?You are wanting to be careful with that saw.
[4] You wanted to be careful with that saw.
- Sentences [3] and [4] no longer have a particular advice-giving function.
They are just simply statements about the wishes of the hearer.
 Sample Sentences
1. Ana and Joshua likes cakes and chocolates.
2. Ana likes cakes and Joshua likes chocolates.
3. Ana likes and loves cakes.
4. Whatever your heart tells you do it with faith to
God and love for your neighbors.
5. Home is where your heart is.
6. The girl who caught my attention is my
girlfriend.