MODAL VERBS

Modality refers to notions like possibility, impossibility, necessity, which are derived from the fact that “human beings often think or behave as though things might be or might have been other than they actually are or were”. i.e. we experience certain states of affairs in the real world, but then we imagine that things are different and in this way we talk about possible worlds. Talking about possible worlds is the same as talking about ways in which we could conceive the real world to be different.

There are 3 general systems of principles that can be invoked when we talk about modality:- the rational laws of deduction , in other words, the laws of human reason by means

of which we interpret the world. They are known as epistemic modality (episteme is the Greek word for knowledge); the basis for modality in this case is actually the lack of knowledge; i.e. if you know x, then x is x, but to be certain (an epistemic modality) of x doesn’t mean that x is x.

- the social or institutional laws are either related to the idea of some legal authority/institution or to one's social status (these being less formal laws) according to which you have or you don’t have authority over somebody else); these modalities refer to duty, compulsion, order, command, appropriateness etc.

- the natural laws of physics, chemistry, biology, anatomy etc. referring to modalities that define the notion of physical and intellectual ability/capacity.

Modality can be expressed by means of different syntactic expressions: nouns (hypothesis, proposal, command, assumption, certainty, doubt), adjectives (sure, certain, possible, necessary), adverbs (likely, apparently, perhaps, probably), verbs (assume, believe, hope, think, imagine), modal verbs. All these are modal expression in virtue of the fact that they express the same type of meaning realizing the conceptual sphere of the 3 systems of laws mentioned above.

Modal verbs are a syntactically defined subset of auxiliary verbs with specific properties:- inversion with the subject (May I borrow your car?)- negative with not (You must stop throwing plates at him!)- 3rd person: defective (compare: I can play the piano. vs. He can play the violin.)- no non-finite forms such as infinitives, past or present participles (*to may,

*canning, *musted)- no co-occurrence (*I must can do it.)

Modals are polysemous words. May in a sentence like You may go now. indicates permission, whereas in He may be there already. it suggests possibility.

Linguists have treated the problem of polysemy in two ways. On the one hand, there is a syntactic approach based on the idea that the distinct meanings of the same modal are reflected in their distinct distribution. On the other hand, there is a semantic approach claiming that a modal has only one lexical definition but several contextual occurrences that influence how it is understood, in other words its lexical ambiguity is due to the variation of the context.

Modal verbs evince two basic meanings:- deontic (root) sense: ability, permission, duty- epistemic sense: possibility, impossibility, certainty.

The difference in meaning is reflected in their different syntactic behaviors. Deontic forms do not take the progressive, do not occur with the perfect infinitive and their subject is always [+ human]. Epistemic forms co-occur with the continuous infinitive to suggest an action in progress and with the perfect infinitive for past time reference and have no restrictions on the subject. Though it proves to be a very felicitous distinction, it will be noticed later that the rule holds true only for the most important modal verbs (may, can and must). The less developed modals do not observe it:

You should be listening to what your sister is saying. (deontic should combines with the continuous infinitive to suggest an action in progress at the moment of speaking)You ought to have paid closer attention to your guests. (deontic ought to combines with the perfect infinitive to suggest past time reference)

CAN / COULD

DEONTIC CAN

Deontic can expresses physical or mental ability, referring to potential acts, not real ones.

He can speak English. (El stie sa vorbeasca engleza. - general permanent ability)

Look, I can / *am able to swim. (Pot sa inot. - now)

Can is used in parallel with a synonymous expression having a fuller range of forms - to be able to. Apart from replacing can in contexts for which the modal has no forms, to be able to has a specific meaning, and in certain contexts we do distinguish between the uses of the two. To be able to is preferred when referring to a specific achievement, though this context does not rule out the use of can:

Mary has now recovered from her illness and is able to / can go to school.

However, can is commonly used with verbs of perception (see, hear, smell, taste, feel) and cognitive verbs of the type believe, remember, understand. To be able to is never used when referring to something going on at the moment of speaking (see example above). When used with verbs of physical perception can actualises the reference of the verb. In this respect, can is like an aspectual marker (often not translated):

I see the swallows flying up the sky. / I can see the swallows flying up in the sky.

Do you hear the wind blowing? / Can you hear the wind blowing?

Each pair of sentences has the same translation (Vad randunelele zburand sus pe cer. and Auzi cum sufla vantul?).

Deontic can has two past forms: could and was / were able to. Similarly, could is used to express a habitual or recurrent event in the past, describing generic ability.

Was/were able to refers to the actual performance of a single successful achievement. Compare:

He could play the piano very well when he was a child. (generic)When he moved closer to the painting, he was able to / *he could see that it was a fake. (particular)

On the other hand, couldn’t will always imply that the event didn’t take place. There is no difference between could and to be able to in interrogative and negative sentences.

Can is also often used to express sporadic ability or an irregular pattern of behavior: She can be quite catty. / He can be nasty. / Frenchmen can be arrogant.

Ability in the future is expressed by means of either can or the periphrastic shall/will be able to with a difference in meaning. To be able to refers to some event that will be possible in the future. In contrast, when making a decision at the moment of speaking about some event in the future, we use can:

I hope they will be able to book seats for the concert tomorrow. You can go home when you have finished writing your essay.Maybe we can go fishing next week.

The second meaning of deontic can is that of permission. Can is more widely employed than 'permission' may in colloquial English. In formal and polite English, be it written or spoken, we encounter the opposite phenomenon. May replaces can in all contexts, being perceived as the more respectable form. However, unlike may which is employed when an authority gives you permission, the use of can suggests that 'you have permission' rather than 'I give you permission'. In other words, there is no rule or law that prevents you from performing a certain action. Compare:

Old man: You can park here as far as I know.Policeman: You may park here.

Permission can has an additional pragmatic interpretation in sentences like: You can forget about your holiday. (strong recommendation) or You can jump in the lake if you feel like it. (sarcastic suggestion).

In interrogations the use of can to request permission is simply a matter of courtesy; the hearer is not usually in a position to deny permission:

Can I leave now? / Can I have the salt? Negative sentences use either cannot or may not to refuse permission:

You may not leave yet. (I do not permit you to leave…)You mustn't talk loudly in this auditorium. (I oblige you no to talk loudly in

this auditorium)

Though both sentences represent prohibitions, the second seems to be more forceful because it is interpreted as positively forbidding an action instead of negatively refusing permission.

There is no past time for permission can with the exception of could used as a past tense form in reported speech:

He said I could leave the next day. / She said that, if he wanted, he could join us.

EPISTEMIC CAN

Epistemic can expresses the possibility/impossibility of an action to take place. It is more frequent in negations and interrogations, whereas in affirmative sentences may is preferred:

He may be reading in the library.Can he be reading in the library?He can't be reading in the library.

Roughly speaking, we can establish a distinction between can and may in affirmative sentences if we conceive of them in terms of the opposition factual vs. theoretical possibility. Compare:

The dollar can be devalued. (It is possible to devalue the dollar. - theoretical possibility)

The dollar may be devalued. (It is possible that the dollar is devalued. - factual possibility)

When uttered, the second sentence should be taken more seriously because it does not refer to a mere possibility that has occurred to the speaker, but to a real contingency, such as a time of financial crisis. Unfortunately, in formal English may seems to be used to express both factual and theoretical possibility, so the distinction persists only in colloquial English.

In colloquial speech possibility can may also suggest a future action: We can see about it tomorrow.

While cannot expresses the impossibility of some action to occur (appearing in cases of external negation), may not suggests the possibility of something not happening (illustrating cases of internal negation):

If he saw a light it can’t have been the light of the car. (external negation)(it is not possible that he saw the light of the car)He may not arrive in time. (internal negation)(it is possible that he does not arrive in time)

For past time reference epistemic can combines with the perfect infinitive like any other epistemic modal:

He can't have had time to hide the evidence.Could he have spread that vicious rumor about the twins?

In colloquial language can becomes a familiar though tactful democratic imperative when used with 2nd and the 3rd person subjects, creating the impression of equality. Therefore, it may be considered the counterpart of coercive shall which

suggests the very opposite: an authority imposing something on somebody. This type of can would be used by the captain of a team when addressing his team-mates or by a theatrical producer talking to the actors:

Mike and Will, you can be standing over there and Janet can enter from behind.

MAY / MIGHT

DEONTIC MAY

Deontic may is used to grant or give permission when the speaker has the authority to do so (see comparison to permission can above). Permission may is also present in rules and regulations in formal English:

A local health authority may, with the approval of the Minister, receive from persons to which advice is given under this section… such charges, (if any) as the authority consider reasonable.

Since the example above refers specifically to the powers a certain official is endowed with, its semantic content accounts for the presence of permission may.

In questions, may signals the hearer's authority, not the speaker's, being similar to must.

When permission is denied, the speaker uses either may not or must not if the authority prohibits some action (You may not visit that family. / You must not speak to her again!).

For past time reference may is replaced by to be allowed to, whereas in reported speech might is used:

I was eventually allowed to go abroad to visit my relatives. The nurse said we might speak to the patient.

EPISTEMIC MAY

As already mentioned above, epistemic may is used to express possibility, focusing primarily on specific situations. For instance, a sentence like A friend may betray you is interpreted more like a warning about a particular friend. In this case the truth of the sentence or its falsity can be verified.

On the other hand, can basically focuses on general situations. In a sentence like A friend can betray you it is suggested that friends sometimes do that.

When combined with the perfect infinitive, may / might refer to events in the past:

He may have already discovered the secret of that tomb. (NB. He can't have already discovered the secret of that tomb.)

Notice that in written form a sentence such as She may go home tomorrow is ambiguous between a 'permission' and a 'possibility' reading. In conversations this does not happen because 'possibility' may is stressed, whereas 'permission' may is

usually unstressed. At the same time, there are ways of distinguishing 'permission' from 'possibility' if we remember that only 'possibility' may occurs with the perfect or the progressive aspect or that only 'permission' may occurs in interrogative sentences.

May with the sense of 'possibility' also appears in concessive clauses in colloquial English as an alternative to an although clause:

You may be in charge, but this doesn't give you the right to be rude.Although you are in charge, this doesn't give you the right to be rude.

Also, there is an idiomatic expression with try, using may for present reference and might for past reference:

Try as I might, I couldn't push the door open.Try as he may, he can never remember people's names.

In American English there is a preference for might when expressing present possibility (“hypothetical might”): The door might be locked already. At the same time, unlike epistemic may, epistemic might can occur in questions: Might I have left it at the bus station?

May / might combines with several adverbs that emphasize the modal expression with both present and past time reference.

I might well decide to come. I might just start to trust you.

May / might as well expresses the idea that there is no alternative left to a bad situation: We might as well give up now because we don't stand a chance if we fight against them.

As already suggested, epistemic may does not occur in interrogative sentences, where can is preferred, and hence, the theoretical - factual possibility opposition disappears.

MUST, HAVE (GOT) TO

DEONTIC MUST / HAVE (GOT) TO

The relationship between must and have to parallels that between may and can in both their deontic and epistemic meanings.

When employed with its deontic meaning, must expresses obligation or compulsion. Must has either neutral reference when, for instance, the speaker says what somebody else requires or it can point to the speaker who is in some position of authority and imposes a duty. In this respect, it resembles 'permission' may.

The university says: These people must be expelled if they disrupt lectures. (neutral)

You must return all the books to the library by Friday. (the speaker is in authority)

When we consider the first person singular or plural (I must / we must), we notice that the idea of compulsion is not lost, it is simply directed towards the speaker himself, so that we talk about self-compulsion; the speaker imposes something on himself through a sense of duty or self-discipline. This contrasts with the use of have to (I have to / we have to) which suggests that some external authority imposes the duty:

I must finish writing the essay by tonight. (internal obligation - I have my own program and I want to stick to it)I have to finish writing the essay by tonight. (external obligation - the teacher wants the essays tomorrow morning)

Have to / have got to have either neutral or external orientation as to the source of obligation:

I’ve got to be at London airport at 4. You have to make up a plan before you start.Students have to be careful with their grades.

While have to is used in formal language and has non-finite forms (will have to, having to), have got to is characteristic of colloquial British English and is more restricted in use because of its lack of non-finite forms (*will have got to, *having got to). Have got to is rarer in the past and does not imply that the event referred to took place, unlike have to:

We’d got to make a trip to York anyway so it didn’t matter too much. (it was necessary…)

We had to make a trip to York to collect the bloody thing. (the event took place)

As already seen, have to is used for past time reference replacing must. Subject-oriented must needs no past tense (must is different from have to only in the present). Must appears as such with past time reference only in reported speech: She said she must/had to go.

Like the other modals must is used for future events: We must do something about it tomorrow. Shall/will have to is used if there is a suggestion that the necessity is future or conditioned: I shall have to keep silent for an hour. / We’ll have to go out if you’re going to do it.

When must is used in interrogative as well as in conditional clauses, it is the hearer’s authority that is involved, not the speaker’s: Must I sweep the floor and wash the dishes myself? (= Are these your orders?) There is an even more restricted use of must in interrogatives with 'you' as subject that conveys a note of sarcasm: Must you really smoke those horrible cigars? In a sentence like If you must smoke, go to the window, which is again extremely ironical, the speaker pretends to interpret the hearer's need to smoke as something he cannot control rather than as a nasty habit he enjoys practicing.

Otherwise, necessity is questioned in: Have you got to do it? / Do you have to do it? / Need I say more? There seems to be a difference between do you have to and have you got to in the sense that the former has a habitual or iterative meaning, while the latter refers to a specific occasion. Consider:

Do you have to be at school at 8 o'clock? (Is this what you have to do every day?)

Have you got to be at school at 8 o'clock? (Is this what you have to do tomorrow morning?)

In negative sentences must not negates the event indicating the obligation not to perform some action (internal negation), whereas needn't or don't have to negate the necessity (external negation):

You mustn’t reveal what I’ve said. (I oblige you not to reveal what I've said) You needn’t answer that question. (You are not obliged to answer that

question.)

EPISTEMIC MUST / HAVE (GOT) TO

Epistemic must expresses logical necessity, you get to knowledge by inference or reasoning; the evidence is such as to imply the truth of the sentence. Most examples indicate states or processes in the present because a future time reference would be open to a deontic interpretation: He must come tomorrow.

Epistemic must is paralleled by the non-modal expression to be bound to: It’s bound to come out, though / I guess it's bound to happen. There are differences between must and be bound to:

John’s bound to be in his office. (more certain; the speaker thinks it is the only possibility) John must be in his office. (this is simply the speaker’s conclusion)

Be bound to but not must can be modified by almost: It’s almost bound to happen. / *It almost must happen. When be bound to occurs with future time reference the suggestion is that some situation is inevitable.

Have to also expresses logical necessity:

There has to be someone who knows the truth about his disappearance.You have to have made some mistake here.

Again the difference between epistemic must and epistemic have to is that between factual necessity and theoretical necessity, paralleling the may - can situation:

Someone must be hiding the truth. (It is impossible that everyone is telling the truth.)

Someone has to be hiding the truth. (It is impossible for everyone to be telling the truth.)

Thus, have to is stronger than must in the sense that it does not refer to a mere assumption or deduction, it suggests that the possibility of the opposite state of affairs cannot be conceived of. The must example above is interpreted as a simple suspicion, whereas the have to example expresses a downright accusation.

In American English have got to has acquired an epistemic interpretation:

AE You’ve got to be joking.BE You must be joking.

For past time reference must combines with the perfect infinitive like all the other epistemic modals: He must have been flying too low. Otherwise, I don't see any explanation for the crash.

The negative counterpart of epistemic must is can’t - the “natural expression of impossibility”: She must be over 40. Oh, she can’t. Can and not may might be used to assert possibility if it denies a previous can’t: It can’t be there. Oh, yes, it can.

WILL / WOULD

DEONTIC WILL / WOULD

VOLITION WILL

Volition will relates to either willingness (weak volition) or insistence (strong volition) or intention (intermediate volition).

The idea of willingness is commonly related to second - person requests of the type:

Will you bring me a glass of water? Who will tell me what I've done wrong?

In such questions will, which is unstressed and thus can be abbreviated to 'll, is a polite variant of the imperative for the 2nd and the 3rd persons. Would in such questions is even more polite: Would you kindly tell me … / Would you be good enough… / Would you like to …? This type of volition will is also present in conditional clauses in the second and third persons (see previous chapter on the subjunctive):

If you will say so, I shall have a cake. I shan’t be happy unless she will come.

Strong volitional will shows one's determination or intention to do something:

I will see him today if that's what I want!'I won't do it!' / 'Yes, you will.'Sandy, honey, why will you keep asking stupid questions?If you will ask her out every time you see her, don't complain that she's

avoiding you.

The last two examples that employ second and third persons clearly imply that the speaker is exasperated at the interlocutors' stubbornness.

Since it has such an emphatic meaning, strong volitional will is never contracted to 'll and always stressed in speech.

The third type of intermediate will occurs mainly with the first person expressing a promise or a threat and is usually contracted:

I will pay him back for what he's done to me!We'll cut your allowance if you refuse to listen to us!We'll see about that when he returns.

When volitional will is negated, it expresses a strong refusal:

They won’t give me a key, so I can’t work.But she loves him and she won’t leave him.I won’t have my name on the title page.

For past time reference with subject-oriented will the form would is NOT used if there is an accomplished interpretation for the event, but wouldn’t is normal. Instead, volitional be willing to is more likely:

I asked him and he was willing to come. *I asked him and he would come. I asked him but he wouldn’t come.

Volitional would is also used in adverbial clauses of condition and after wish, being more conditional than will (see chapter on the subjunctive).

POWER WILL

Power will expresses properties of certain objects, how they characteristically behave. Unlike volition will whose subject is always a person or at least an animal endowed with willpower, power will employs inanimate subjects and is subject-oriented (the source of power is intrinsic to the subject of will):

The hall will seat five hundred. You know that certain drugs will improve your condition. The door won’t open.

For past time reference we use power would, which parallels volition would but retains an inanimate subject (She asked if the table would bear.)

HABITUAL WILL

Habitual will refers to a situation that takes place regularly or frequently as a consequence of a natural tendency of a person or an object:

A falling drop will hollow a stone. Boys will be boys. A cat will often play with a mouse before killing it.

For past time reference we employ either would or used to with the difference that used to does not have the sense of an iterated situation; that is why used to can

combine with both state and activity verbs, unlike would whose usage is restricted to activity verbs only:

He used to live in that house in those days. He would live in that house in those days / whenever she came.

EPISTEMIC WILL / WOULD

Epistemic will is related to the idea of predictability, the inference concerning the present time as it involves a present situation. If there is reference to a past situation, then we use will in combination with the perfect infinitive:

This will be the National Gallery. That will be John at the door.She’ll be sleeping now.John will have received the book by this time.

Epistemic will is like epistemic must in the sense that the conclusion is reached on the basis of the evidence available. Generally speaking must could replace will in all the examples above with only a slight difference in meaning as to the degree of certainty of the respective prediction:

John must be in his office. (I can see the lights on).John will be in his office. (from previous knowledge why the lights were on, we infer that John is in his office).

Epistemic will is used in scientific or quasi-scientific language; however, such sentences could be interpreted as both a prediction and a habit, what we might call 'habitual predictability':

If you put steel into water, it will sink.Accidents will happen.He'll go all day without eating.

SHALL / SHOULD

DEONTIC SHALL / SHOULD

The deontic meaning of shall is that of obligation; however, it is the will of the speaker who imposes an obligation, not the will of the subject of the sentence. In modern English we use must or can (“democratic imperative”); shall is an archaic form of order still present in legal statements or rules:

He shall be punished if he does not obey. You shall never hear from me again.You shall receive a reward if you follow my advice.

This imperious kind of shall, used with second and third person subjects, can suggest either a promise or a threat from the part of the speaker.

Deontic should is a weaker equivalent of deontic shall, the sense of obligation being rendered in the form of a hypothesis (which sometimes has the condition openly asserted). Should has present and future reference, for past reference combining with the perfect infinitive and acquiring a contrary-to-fact interpretation:

You should pay more attention to what I'm telling you right now.If I could have my way, you should be sent to Siberia for what you've done.You should have told me that you were hungry. (But, in fact, you didn't)

EPISTEMIC SHALL / SHOULD

Epistemic shall expresses prediction when used with a first person subject as in I shall be met by my parents at the airport or I shan’t know when you return. The same epistemic interpretation also occurs with second and third person subjects as in Say a foolish thing but often enough, the same thing shall pass at last for absolutely wise.

In interrogations that employ the first person the speaker inquires about the wish or will of the addressee. Shall I go? represents an offer to go (Do you want me to go?)

Used with the second person shall describes a situation which is independent of the will of the person addressed; therefore, it is distinct from will you? which inquires about the other person’s will or willingness.

Shall you see John today? When shall you do it?

This construction, which is now old-fashioned, has been replaced by the future continuous tense. Shall you see John today? is similar to Will you be seeing John today?

Epistemic should is considered the conditional equivalent of epistemic shall. It is used for assumptions about present or past situations (if combined with the perfect infinitive):

The plane should be landing now. The parcel should have arrived by now.

Assumptions with epistemic should are less confident than assumptions with epistemic will. He should have finished by now means that 'I expect he has finished by now', whereas He will have finished by now suggests that 'I am sure he has finished'.

OUGHT TO

Very close in interpretation to should, ought to represents a tentative counterpart of must and shall.

DEONTIC OUGHT TO

Deontic ought to is similar in meaning to must, denoting obligation or duty, with a single difference: while must suggests that the speaker is confident the interlocutor will do as told, the use of ought to implies that the speaker is not very certain the addressee will perform his duty. Compare:

You must give some money to your sister. (I am sure you will.)You ought to give some money to your sister. (But I don't know whether you

will or not)Hence, ought to gives the possibility of non-action, unlike must. We may say

He ought to go but he won’t but an utterance like He must go but *he won’t is impossible. Moreover, when used with a first person subject, the implication is that the obligation will not be fulfilled. If a driver says I ought to go slowly here, he implies that he isn't going to go slowly, but if he says I must go slowly here, he really intends to go slowly.

For past time reference ought to selects the perfect infinitive: You ought to have been more careful with the children. When employed with future reference, ought to can be paraphrased by be incumbent (incumbent = necessary as part of somebody’s duty): It will be incumbent on you to provide for those children.

EPISTEMIC OUGHT TO

Epistemic ought to expresses potential probability; again its meaning is related to that of epistemic must:

Susan ought to be at her office now. Susan must be at her office now.

The must variant reflects the speaker's certainty that his deduction is correct, since there is evidence that leads him to the respective conclusion. The ought to variant reflects the speaker's cautiousness in asserting that as he also takes into account that there is a slight possibility that something unexpected might have happened to require her presence somewhere else.

The negative form of ought to represents a weakened, more tentative version of epistemic can used to express impossibility:

You oughtn't to have any difficulty in acquiring that new program. (theoretically impossible)

You can't have any difficulty in acquiring that new program. (absolutely impossible)

NEED / NEED TO

Although they are close in meaning, need (a fi necesar) and need to (a avea nevoie) differ in point of grammatical behavior since the former is a modal verb and the latter a full lexical verb (which, consequently, forms questions and negative forms with do). Modal need is mainly used in negative and interrogative sentences as a correlative of must (for differences between need and must in the negative and interrogative, see also chapter on deontic must). Modal need doesn’t occur in affirmative sentences, except in fairly formal English with hardly, scarcely or only:

I need hardly mention how grateful I am for this opportunity.You need only touch one of the doors for the alarm to start ringing.

Need not expresses absence of obligation similarly to the negative forms of have to or need to. Sometimes there is a difference in meaning between them as need not tends to reflect rather the speaker's advice or authority, while the other two express external authority:

Teacher: You needn't type your essays, but you must write legibly.Student: We don't have to type our essays, but we must write legibly.

When we refer to a past situation, the difference mentioned above disappears and the choice remains between didn't have to and didn't need to (the lexical verb).

In reported speech need is retained just like must: She believed she need not fear any persecution.

At the same time, needn't also occurs with the perfect infinitive to refer to a past situation. Yet, in this case it expresses an unnecessary action which was nevertheless performed, thus resembling shouldn't have and oughtn't have in as far as in all three cases the event does take place:

You needn't have carried all this luggage by yourself. (lack of necessity)You shouldn't have carried all this luggage by yourself. (criticism)

What needn't have done and didn't have / need to do have in common is the absence of obligation. They differ in that the former implies that the action does take place, while the latter implies that as a consequence of this lack of necessity, the action is no longer performed.

I didn't have / need to pick up Mary from school because she phoned me saying she would walk home.I needn't have driven to school to pick up Mary but I had forgotten she'd told me she had other plans.

Lexical need occurs with a (passive) infinitive or a noun / pronoun object or a gerund:

I need to know what time you'll get home.I just need some money.

The gas tank needs to be refilled / refilling.

As far as its meaning is concerned, need to differs from both must and ought to in that it expresses a rather internal than external compulsion. In You must / ought to get a haircut, the speaker imposes or attempts to impose this on the interlocutor, whereas in You need to get a haircut, he merely shows the interlocutor that it is for his own sake that he should follow his advice.

DARE

Dare resembles need to a great extent in that it has both modal and lexical variants and it also occurs in interrogative and negative sentences, and only rarely in statements. Students must pay attention to the distinct grammatical properties of dare as modal and lexical verb:

John daren’t come. / Dare John come?John doesn’t dare to come. / Does John dare to come?

In the affirmative dare is used in the expression I daresay / I dare say, which means 'I suppose': I daresay the plane will be delayed.

In How dare(d) you? / How dare(d) he / they?, the speaker expresses indignation at the actions of the interlocutor: How dare you shout at me?

At the same time, lexical dare has an additional meaning ('to challenge') if used transitively and followed by object + full infinitive: Somebody dared me to jump off the bridge into the river.

ACTIVITIES

1. Explain the ambiguities in the following sentences: John ought to be here. He may leave tomorrow. She must be very clever to write such an essay. She can go wherever she likes.

2. Explain the differences between the following pairs: 1.They might not reach agreement tomorrow. / They could not reach agreement tomorrow. 2.I must be there at 10 tomorrow. / I have to be there at 10 tomorrow. / We are to be there by 10 o’clock. 3.You may park here. / You can park here. 4. If he sees you he will stop. / If he sees you he may stop. 5.When I was young, I could climb any tree in the forest. / Although the pilot was badly hurt, he was able to explain what had happened. 6.You could have told me. / You should have told me. 7.We must have a party to celebrate your engagement. / We should have a party to celebrate your engagement. 8.You needn’t go on a diet but you must eat sensibly and you mustn’t overeat. 9.I needn’t have written such a long essay. / I didn’t have to write such a long essay. 10.She shouldn’t have stood in a queue. / She needn’t have stood in a queue. 11.She can’t come on Monday. / She can’t be coming on Monday.

3. Identify the meanings of the modal verbs in the sentences below:1. I can resist everything except temptation. 2. I ran and I was able to catch the bus. 3. Cigarettes can seriously damage your health. 4. He said I could leave the next day. 5. You can forget about your holiday. 6. You can say that again. 7. You cannot leave now. 8. May I have a quick word with you? 9. This may be the last cigarette I smoke. 10. You may lose your way if you don’t take a map. 11. You must find it quite a change. 12. You must come round and see it. 13. I think I must make a confession here. 14. She must be in her middle thirties by now. 15. The hall will seat five hundred. 16. People will talk – there’s no preventing it. 17. The French will be on holiday today. 18. I will go so far as to call it an interesting book. 19. Will the ice bear? 20. He shall be rewarded if he is patient. 21. I shall be met by Mrs. Martin at the station. 22. You should be careful not to irritate her. 23. By heaven, this should be my book. 24. The money lender said he would not renew the bill. 25. Before the new bus started he would catch the 8 o’clock train.

4. Fill in the following sentences with a suitable modal verb, state whether it is deontic/epistemic and give the negative counterpart, if possible:1. I … go to the hospital and visit my aunt. 2. His parents died and he … to earn his living now. 3. How … I tell her that unpleasant story? 4. You … know that you … keep off the grass. 5. Her parents told her that she … go to the exhibition that afternoon. 6. After lunch my grandfather … sit in his armchair smoking his pipe. 7. You … have been more attentive to the explanations of the guide. 8. How … you treat me that way? 9. The drawer … not open; what … I do? 10. You … read Salinger's "The Catcher in the Rye". (a. my opinion; b. the situation asks for it) 11. You … go to England this summer if you pass all your exams. 12. If I say I'll come in time, I … . 13. … she have gone there without letting me know it? 14. I was told I … enter the room. 15. … you help me with the translation of this text? 16. It … snow tonight. 17. … I have been so absent-minded and give you the wrong telephone number? 18. … he have dropped his wallet somewhere in the park? 19. I … have left my glasses at home because I … find them now. 20. "You say your hair is gone?" he said. "You … look for it."

5. Rewrite each sentence so that it contains the word in capitals, and so that the meaning stays the same: 1. It would be all the same if you decided to leave right away. (MIGHT) 2. How about giving him a call to see how he's feeling? (COULD) 3. I'm sure he did it on purpose. (MUST) 4. Do you want me to sign it for you or not? (SHOULD) 5. I expect the station will be crowded at this hour. (SHOULD) 6. Although I tried hard, I couldn't talk her into joining our group. TRY 7. Do we have to go there? (NEED) 8. I'm sure Sue will arrive here on time. (IS) 9. Although you are older than me, it doesn't mean you are right. (MAY) 10. I can't close the window! (NOT)

6. Translate into English: A. Stau deseori pe un scaun in carciuma mea preferata sa beau un pahar de

bere si sa citesc ziarul de seara. Abia da cu ochii de mine, cand Tom isi si trage scaunul langa al meu si incepe: "Poate am dreptate, sau poate gresesc", spune el, "dar e un lucru pe care trebuie sa-l admit, Elena este sigur cea mai draguta fata din lume!"

Rareori ma iarta de povara de a-l asculta. Cateodata imi vine sa-i zic: "Hei, batrane, mai curand mi-as citi ziarul decat sa te ascult", dar de obicei nu ma lasa inima

sa-i spun. Imi zic doar mie: "Chiar trebuie sa vorbeasca atat de mult despre ea? De ce uita ca exista o limita a drepturilor prieteniei si ca prietenii nu ar trebui sa devina groaznic de plicticosi? Ar trebui sa existe o lege impotriva acestui lucru!"

Cat despre mine, daca stau sa-l ascult de fiecare data cand ma duc la carciuma, nu-mi ramane decat un lucru de facut, sa-mi schimb carciuma. Si apoi nici nu ma intereseaza frumusetea Elenei. Sigur, nu indraznesc sa-i spun toate astea lui Tom. Suntem prieteni si nu-mi permit sa fac nimic care I-ar rani sentimentele. In orice caz, n-as dori. Dar de ce n-ar fi si el mai atent? Si-ar putea pierde toti prietenii altfel. Ei nu suporta asta, mai curand ar renunta la prietenia lui. Cel mai bine e sa-i spun, asa, ca intre prieteni, sa-si pastreze emotiile pentru el.

B. Ploua si astazi. Postul s-a dat, dar nu voi putea afla asta decat pe la patru si regret, pentru daca as fi stiut mai devreme, n-ar mai fi trebuit sa fac pe la unu un drum inutil prin ploaie, pana la Baneasa - de unde m-am intors, nu-i vorba, cam indispus - cum destul de indispus, nu-i vorba, am si plecat.

C. De-as fi putut naparli! De-as putea arunca in foc pantalonii acestia, schimbandu-i pe unii scurti! Daca in locul pantalonilor as avea niste sandale!

D. Mahomed: El zice: “Imparatia otomana e perfecta din punct de vedere militar, dar subreda din punct de vedere social… ca suntem un imperiu format prin anexiuni si sustinut prin sabie… Daca mi-a scapat vreo idee, ai voie sa ma corectezi, Pasa din Vidin…Pasa: Au fost niste simple sugestii… Oricine le putea face…M.: Oricine le putea face, dar nimeni nu le-a facut… Numai tu ai avut curajul sa ma critici - si ce mi pare rau e ca tocmai pe tine te-am forfecat!P.: Nu trebuie sa va necajiti din pricina asta, Luminatia Voastra, nu face nimic…M.: Repeta, te rog, care au fost punctele de acuzare, adica ce-ai vazut tu gresit in politica mea Soare-apune?P.: Nu-mi pot aminti, Luminatia Voastra.M.: Esti modest. Radule! Pasa mai sustine ca noi n-am putea obtine o victorie hotaratoare asupra valahilor, pentru ca ei ar avea o tactica pe care noi ar fi trebuit sa o studiem mai mult, si care ar putea sa ne fie fatala.R.: In ce consta, ma rog, aceasta tactica?M.: Ai putea sa ne spui, Pasa din Vidin?P.: Daca imparatul Traian ar fi lasat ceva scris despre campania lui in nordul Dunarii ne-ar fi fost mai usor. Am fi avut dovezi. Dar asa, suntem siliti sa dibuim.M.: Adica tu crezi ca noi nu vom fi in stare sa facem ce a facut Traian? Cu alte cuvinte, poate n-ai inteles, dumnealui este impotriva acestei campanii! Si s-ar putea sa aibe dreptate, dupa desfasurarea ultimelor evenimente. El mai sustine ca mult mai bine ar fi sa oprim armatele in Dunare, sa facem sa infloreasca cultura musulmana in tarile gata cucerite.E. Tare-i frumos Iasul si tare-i murdar! Fotogenic cum nu-i altul, e adorabil in carti postale ilustrate. Incojurat de dulci coline, cand verzi, cand albe, cand policrome (dupa anotimp!), e plin de farmec pitoresc si glorioase amintiri. Dar daca nu ai prins radacini in istorica lui argila, sau daca nu esti impins de cine stie ce obligatii de la care nu te poti sustrage, sa te fereasca dumnezeu, cetatene, sa traiesti douazeci si patru de ore intre zidurile lui! Vei fi invatat, poate, in tinereta, cativa ani prin scolile Iasului si suvenirile pe care le-ai pastrat nu corespund cu afirmatiile mele? Poate ca vei fi citit dragalasa literatura a apologetilor acestei mandre cetati de scaun? Poate ca vei fi participat la vreo sedinta a societatii Amicii Iasului, cu sediul in Bucuresti? Poate ca ai legatura cu vreun intelectual (toti iesenii sunt intelectuali), care te-a convins ca aeroplanul s-a inventat la Iasi, ca Ronsard era iesan si ca Villa Borghese e un moft pe

langa marele Hotel Traian? Au te indoiesti cumva de cele ce-ti spun si crezi ca din motive care-ti sunt necunoscute, ca netrebnic renegat, te mint? Ei, bine, daca iti simti inima tare, vino cu mine!